Datasets:

Fawazzx

/

test

like 0

2.Prosecution case in brief was that Tuliya Devi, daughter of informant Bhullu Rajbhar (PW-1) was married to Gullu 5 years ago.After marriage Tuliya Devi was treated with cruelty by her husband Gullu, father-in-law Bal Chand and mother-in-law Ramwati for demand of dowry.For this reason these three accused had committed murder of Tuliya Devi on 8.5.2010 by inflicting injuries on her body at their house situate in village Chaubepur, police station- Mardah, district Ghazipur and tried to dispose of her dead body.After receiving knowledge of this incident, victim's father Bhullu (informant) had given a written report (Ex-Ka-1) to the police on the basis of which case crime no. 689 of 2010 was registered.3.In the aforesaid case inquest of the dead body was performed on 08.05.2010 and postmortem of the deceased was conducted the same evening at 9:50 pm.In the postmortem report several lacerated wounds and other marks of injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased.In postmortem (Ex-Ka-1) the doctor had opined that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock as a result of the said ante-mortem injuries.In this report approximate time of death was reported about 1 day from the time of postmortem.After completion of investigation police had submitted charge-sheet against three accused Gullu, Bal Chand and Ramwati for offences under section 498-A, 304-B IPC and under section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.Accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.5.In support of charges prosecution side examined PW-1, Bhullu (informant), PW-2 Barmati (mother of the deceased), PW-3 - Constable Sunil Kumar Singh (who prepared chik FIR and registerd case), PW-4 - Dr. Krishna Kumar Verma (who performed the postmortem), PW-5 Vinay Kumar Rai, Naib Tehsildar (for inquest report) and PW-6 Chrinjeev Nath Sinha (Investigation Officer).Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Pramod KumarSrivastava, J.)1.This appeal has been preferred against the conviction and punishment dated 28.2.2012 passed in State Vs.Gullu and others relating to Case Crime No. 689 of 2010, police station Mardah, district Ghazipur by which three accused Gullu, Bal Chand and Smt .Ramwati were convicted for charge under section 302/34 IPC and were punished with imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- (in default of payment three months simple imprisonment).4.During trial all the accused were charged for offences under section 498-A, 304 B IPC and under section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, alongwith alternative charge framed later on for offence under section 302 IPC.6.After closure of prosecution evidence statement of accused were recorded in which they denied the facts of charge as well as evidence adduced against them, without any specific averments.Defence side had examined DW-1 Madan, r/o village Chaubeypur.7.After receiving evidence from both the sides and after affording opportunity of hearing as well as considering the argument of the parties, learned Addl.Sessions Judge passed judgment dated 28.2.2012 by which all the accused were acquitted from the charges under section 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, but were convicted for the charge under section 302-IPC.Thereafter the trial court had afforded an opportunity of hearing on the point of quantum of sentence to the accused and passed orders of punishment as above.Aggrieved by this judgment dated 28.2.2012 all the three accused have preferred the present appeal.8.Sri Sudist and Sri Janardan Singh Yadav appeared for appellants; and State was represented by Mrs. Usha Kiran, AGA.9.A perusal of evidence adduced during trial indicates that during post-mortem following ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased Tuliya Devi that were caused or occurred approximately at the time mentioned in the charge, i.e., anytime in the night of 8/9-5-2010:1.Lacerated wound left side chin 6 cm x 1 cm mussel deep chin.2.Lacerated wound from right shoulder to just below right elbow 35 cm x 2 cm x bone deep.3.Abrasion 5cm x 2 cm just laterac of left eye.4.Abrasion on top of right shoulder 8 cm x 4 cm.5.Abrasion 20cm x 10 cm right side chest.6.brasion 8 cm x 2 cm right iliac chest.7.Lacerated wound 5 cm x 3 cm at middle of front of right of leg underlying bond was fractured.8.Lacerated wound 6 cm x 3 cm just below right knee.9.Lacerated wound 8 cm x 3 cm below front of left kneel under lying bone was fractured.10.PW-4 the doctor reported that the cause of death of victim-deceased Tuliya Devi was shock and haemmerhage due to the above mentioned ante-mortem injuries.Although the defence had adduced one witness to indicate that the cause of death of the deceased may be accidental falling from the roof, and DW-1 Madan was examined in this regard but these facts could not be substantiated in the light of available evidence and circumstances.11.A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that this finding of learned Additional Sessions Judge is correct that deceased Tuliya Devi had died due to injuries found on her body in the house of the accused-appellants at about the time mentioned in the charge, and the accused-appellants were responsible for causing such injuries to Tuliya Devi.In these circumstances, the trial court had rightly reached to the conclusion that due to the above mentioned deliberate caused injuries Tuliya Devi died, and accused-appellants are responsible for inflicting those homicidal injuries.12.Learned Additional Sessions Judge had considered facts and circumstances including evidence adduced and reached to the conclusion that though there is no conclusive evidence relating to dowry death and demand of dowry, but injuries found on body of the deceased were not accidental.Trial Court found that those injuries were homicidal, for inflicting of which accused persons were responsible, because it were only they who were present in their house when such injuries had occurred on the body of the deceased Tuliya Devi.13.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants fairly admitted the contents of facts relating to charge, namely victim Tuliya Devi having succumbed to the injuries found on her body in the house of appellants.

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Item No. 103And In the matter of: Debasish Banerjee & Ors.- versus -The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Raiganj Police Station Case No.994 of 2013 dated 12.09.2013 under sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary.In our opinion, the Petitioner No. 1, Debasish Banerjee, who is the husband of the Complainant, does not deserve to be granted anticipatory bail.As regards the other Petitioners, who are the relatives of the Petitioner No.1, there is no need for their custodial interrogation in this case.Hence, we allow their application and direct that in the event of arrest, the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5, Partha Sarathi Banerjee, Smt. Minati Banerjee, Smt. Mekhla Banerjee and Smt. Moushumi Banerjee, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond `5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) each with one surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 .The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Ranjit Kumar Bag, J)

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

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

Initially, as many as three accused persons came to be tried by theSessions Judge, they being accused No.1, Kalyan, accused No.2, Dasrathand accused No.3, Smt. Usha.While accused No.2, Dasrath is thepresent appellant, accused No.1, Kalyan Singh and accused No.3, Smt.Usha are his father and sister, respectively.An intimationregarding death came to be given to the Police Station Pandhokhar, Distt.The said intimation was given by the complainant Vadehi Sarans/o Ramanand Kaurav who was none else but the father of the deceasedPinki.It was, inter alia, stated that on that day i.e. 12.8.1992 in themorning his son Jitendra Singh had gone to village Saujna for Rakhi 3festival to his daughter Pinki's house.But he returned at about 7 p.m. andtold him that Pinki had caught fire and was sent to Daboh for treatment.Vadehi Saran further stated that on hearing the news, he along with someco-villagers went to Daboh.V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the HighCourt dismissing the appeal of the appellant Dasrath.He was convictedby the Trial Court of the offence under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code(IPC) and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years andpay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default directed to suffer furtherimprisonment for one year.He was also convicted for the offence underSection 201, IPC and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one 2year with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer three month's furtherimprisonment.The Trial Court had alsoconvicted Kalyan Singh for the same offence.However, it acquittedaccused No.3, Smt. Usha from all the charges.Both the accused had filedan appeal challenging their conviction and the sentences before the HighCourt.However, during the pendency of the appeal, accused No.1 KalyanSingh expired and his appeal, thus, abated.The appeal of Dasrath, thepresent appellant came to be dismissed by the High Court and that is howhe is before us.Shortly stated, the prosecution story was that Dasrath was marriedto Pinki who died under suspicious circumstance of burning.However, one Santosh belonging to his villagemet him near Dugdha Dairy and told him that Pinki had died.Then VadehiSaran along with others went to village Saujna.But by the time theyreached there, Pinki's cremation was over.It was because of this that theycame to the Police Station and further action was requested on the basisof the death report.On this basis, a First Information Report was got registered on16.8.92 wherein it was recorded that the death intimation was given on12.8.92 at 23.15 hours orally about the death of Pinki.It was recorded ona preliminary inquiry made by Head Constable Jaswir Singh by visitingvillage Saujna and the Station House Officer R.S. Purohit had also madeinquiries relating to the death.The place of occurrence was examined bySDOP R.K. Hirodia and inquiry was made from the deceased's fatherVadehi Saran, uncle Uttam Singh, brothers Janved Singh and JitendraSingh, mother Vidya Devi and sister Pratibha.During this inquiry, it wasfound that the deceased was married 2 years prior to the date of incidentand because of the non-payment of dowry, her husband Dasrath, father-in-law Kalyan Singh and Sister-in-law Usha were harassing her.The earlier 4statement given by Vadehi Saran was repeated.It was then mentionedthat on 12.8.1992 the sister-in-law Usha, husband Dasrath caught hold ofPinki and father-in-law Kalyan Singh poured kerosene oil on her and sether on fire because of which she got burnt.The accused thereaftercremated her and cleaned the place where occurrence had taken place.On the basis of this, further investigation ensued and after itscompletion, a charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court for offences underSections 302, 304 B and 201 IPC.The accused were chargedaccordingly.The prosecution, during the trial, examined as many as 11witnesses.The accused persons abjured the guilt and as stated earlieronly two of them came to be convicted, namely, Kalyan Singh andDasrath.However, due to the death of Kalyan Singh during the pendencyof the appeal, the appeal filed by Dasrath alone is to be considered.Learned Senior Counsel, Dr. J.N. Singh appearing on behalf of theaccused attacked the judgment of both the Courts below, firstly,contending that conviction under Section 304B, IPC and Section, 201, IPCwas wholly incorrect as it was not proved that Pinki had died a suspiciousor un-natural death within the seven years of her marriage nor was herbody found.He also contended that there was no question of demandingany dowry as no complaint was ever made for dowry nor was there anyevidence regarding the demands of dowry.More particularly, Vadehi Saran (PW 4),Janved Singh (PW-5), Pratibha (PW-6) and Jitendra Singh (PW-8) hadclearly asserted that the dowry was asked for by the accused persons.Learned Counsel further contended that if Pinki had died of burning, areport ought to have been made for un-natural death which the accuseddid not bother to make, instead they had cremated the body of Pinkiwithout even intimating the relatives of the deceased and also withoutwaiting for the police.This was the most suspicious circumstance whichpointed towards the guilt of the accused.Vadehi Saran has also specifically stated in his evidence thatafter 1 = years of the marriage when he went to the house of Pinki in themonth of Shravan, door was closed and the appellants were beating Pinkiand that the floor was smeared with blood and blood was also oozing outfrom the mouth of Pinki.The appeal is, therefore,dismissed.

['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the criminalproceedings in S.C.No.118 fo 2014 on the file of the learned Chief JudicialMagistrate, Madurai.2.The case of the prosecution is that Rani Mangammal Palace siutated atNo.46, Vadakku Chithirai Veedhi was under the control of Public WorksDepartment and the said building had housed the offices of the PWD and therecord room is being maintained on the south-easter corner.Behind the saidbuilding, the accused had owned a building and when the first accused wasdemolishing his building on 23.07.2013 at about 4.00 p.m, the accused haddemolished the roof of the said Palace and had caused a loss ofRs.1,50,000/-.Therefore, the petitioners were charged for the offences underSection 147, 148, 427, 109 I.P.C and r/w Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act andSection 30(1)(i)(iv) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites andRemains Act, 1958 r/w 149 I.P.C.Thereby, they compliedthe said condition.Thereafter, the Junior Engineer, Public Works Department(i/c) Building, filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.192 of 2015 before thelearned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, in which, he sought permission towithdraw a sum of Rs.2,25,500/- for the purpose of repairing the saidbuilding.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai by order dated09.06.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.192 of 2015 permitted the Junior Engineer, PublicWorks Department to withdraw the said amount to repair the said Palace.Thereafter, the amount has been withdrawn and the said Palace got repaired.Therefore, nothing survives to prosecute the petition as alleged by theprosecution.4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) also confirmed the same and stated that the amount has been withdrawn by the Public Works Departments and the said Palace got repaired.Further, he has produced the Status Report,dated 11.10.2018 in which, it was stated that the said Palace already gotrepaired.5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learnedGovernment Advocate (Crl.Side).6.Considering the facts and circumstances and also considering thereport submitted by the Public Works Department, the proceedings inS.C.No.118 of 2014 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Madurai against the petitioners alone shall stand quashed.Accordingly, thisCriminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, connected MiscellaneousPetitions are closed.1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate Madurai2.The Inspector of Police B1, Vilakkuthoon Police Station Madurai City3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai.

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

nghdpw;F bjhlh;g[ bfhz;legh; ehd; tpz;!;lhh; rptf;Fkhh;nuhl gpuz;l; Rnuc&; ngRnwd; nkk;/ eP';f Vd; njitapy;yhk mtu gifr;rpf;fpl;L ,Uf;fp';f/ Rk;kh ml;$!;l; gz;zp ngh';f c';fSf;F vy;yhhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 trjpfisa[k; bra;J bfhLf;fr; brhy;Ynwd;/ Rk;kh tPk;gor;rpfpl;L ,Ue;jp';fd;dh njitapy;yhk khd khpahija ,Hg;gnjhl capiua[k; ,Hf;f neUk; vd;W brhy;yp kpul;ol;L nghid fl;gz;zpl;lhh;/ mjd;gpwF mnj bek;ghpy; ,Ue;J nghd; br";r egh; ehd; brhd;dij nahrpr;rp ghj;jp';fsh.2.The petitioner has been added as A3 in the final report.Initially an F.I.R. was registered by the respondent Police in which the name of this petitioner was not found.Thereafter, the respondent Police investigated the case and filed a final report, wherein this petitioner was added as 3rd accused.3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the final report has been taken cognizance by the Court below for the offence under Sections 294, 353, 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of the Women Harassment Act. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court, the relevant portion of the statement given by the defacto complainant before thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 respondent Police and the same is extracted hereunder:9.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed with the above directions.

['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.Through this writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner detenu Zair has impugned the order dated 27-4-2003 passed by Mr. M.A. Khan, District Magistrate, Hardoi (opposite party No. 1), detaining him under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. The detention order, along with the ground of detention, which are also dated 27-4-2003, was served on the petitioner detenu on 27-4-2003 itself and their true copies have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 1 and 2, respectively to the petition.The prejudicial activities of the petitioner detenu prompting the first respondent to issue the impugned detention order against him are contained in the grounds of detention (Annexure No. 2).In short their perusal shows as under :--On 2-3-2003, at about 3.00 p.m. the detenu along with his brothers Babu and Bhure, in furtherance of their common intention, reached near the house of Bajhul in village Mahmoodpur Saraiya, Patre was also present there.They instigated and the detenu's brother Babu fired on Patre, who died as a result thereof on the spot.The detenu, with a country made rifle of 315 bore, fired on injured Ruab Begam.Thereafter the detenu along with his associates firing went away.As a consequence of the prejudicial act committed by the detenu and his associates, a commotion was created in the locality and people closed their doors and houses and hid inside.Those who were working in the fields, ran away.During investigation of the aforesaid C.R. the statements of Samsul Hussain and Sagir were recorded and they reiterated the aforesaid facts.Since the detenu had used unlicensed fire arm, C.R. No. 121 of 2003 under Section 3/25 of Arms Act was registered against him on 7-3-2003 at police station Pihani, district Hardoi, on the basis of complaint lodged by S.O. R.N. Chodhary.A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that on the aforesaid C.Rs.and some other material referred to in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority was subjectively satisfied that in order to prevent the detenu from committing similar prejudicial acts, in future it was imperative to detain him under Section 3(2) of National Security Act.We have heard learned counsel for the parties.Although in this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a number of pleadings and pleaded a number of grounds, but since, in our view, this writ petition deserves to succeed on the pleadings contained in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the writ petition and Ground VIII of para 33 thereof, we are not adverting to other pleadings and grounds of challenge.

['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.

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail.We have considered the materials on record and we find that the instant case is a counter case to an earlier criminal case registered at the behest of one of the accused persons.In view of the aforesaid fact and keeping in mind the period of detention suffered by the petitioner, we are of the opinion that further detention of the petitioner is not necessary.Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner shall be 2 released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of like amount, one of whom shall be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, Special Court under the POCSO Act at Barrackpore on condition that he shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing and shall not intimidate witnesses nor tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever.In the event the petitioner fails to appear before the trial court, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail without further reference to this Court.The application for bail is, accordingly, allowed.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ORDER Kidwai, J.Kirpa Ram, Siaram, Ram Harsh and Bijai Bahadur were prosecuted on the complaint of Ram Asrey under Sections 379, 447 and 352/506, Penal Code, on the allegation that they had entered a grove situated in Ajitpur on 29-4-1949 and cut mangoes worth about Rs. 35/- from the grove.The case was tried and disposed of by Shri Kamta Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, Kaisarganj at Bahraich.

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Appellant-Abdul Rehman lodged a complaint with the Crime against Women (CAW) Cell, Nanakpura, Moti Bagh, New Delhi, accusing the Respondent-K.M. Anees-Ul-Haq and four others of commission of an offence punishable under Section 406 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant's case is that the accusations made by the appellant in the report lodged with the Women Cell were totally false and fabricated.In particular, allegations regarding demand of dowry as a condition precedent for performance of Nikah between the complainant's nephew and Ms Aliya-appellant No.3 in this appeal were also false and unfounded.Aggrieved by the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, the appellant preferred a Criminal Revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, who dismissed the same as barred by limitation.The appellant then preferred a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Delhi for quashing complaint No.180/1 of 2002 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate and all 4 proceedings consequent thereto.The High Court has, as mentioned above, dismissed the said petition holding that since no judicial proceedings were pending in any Court at the time when the complaint under Sections 211 and 500 IPC was filed by the respondent-complainant, the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. was not attracted nor was there any illegality in the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate summoning the appellants to face trial.Warrants were issued for the arrest of the accused, all of whom surrendered before the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, who passed an order releasing them on bail.

['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT Sanjay Misra, J.The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 9/10th November 2000 passed by the District Magistrate Juunpur dismissing the petitioner from service.The main grounds upon which the said order has been challenged by the petitioner is that the said order was not proceeded by any proper enquiry proceedings and immediately after submission of the reply to the charge sheet, the enquiry officer without conducting any proper enquiry and in violation of the principles of natural justice has submitted his enquiry reports finding the petitioner guilty of the charges leveled against him.Reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice issued thereafter was also not considered by the respondent No. 1 who has passed the impugned order.The facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Ahalmad in the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer Jaunpur.On 19.5.1997 a first information report was lodged against the petitioner by one Mohan Lal Prajapati which was registered as case crime No. 75 of l999 under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/218/120B of the Indian Penal Code.It is stated that on the basis of allegations made in the said first information report, a charge sheet dated 27.3.2000 was issued to the petitioner.The said charge sheet has referred to a preliminary enquiry report.The petitioner submitted his reply on 13.4.2000 and asked for permission to examine the witnesses whose statements were being sought to be relied upon and also asked to be permitted to lead his evidence and for personal hearing.It is alleged by the petitioner that enquiry officer has neither fixed any date nor summoned the petitioner at any date for the enquiry.The respondent No. 1 without considering the reply of the petitioner has proceeded to pass the impugned order of dismissal.A counter affidavit has been filed wherein the averments made by the petitioner to the effect that he was not given any opportunity of hearing has been denied in as much as it has been stated that since the enquiry officer has given reasons for recording his findings, therefore, the principles of natural justice has been complied with.It is alleged that said Ram Devar Yadav had changed the number from execution case from 5 of 1996 to 6 of 1996 in the phostat copy of the power of attorney.On the basis of the said forgery Ram Devar Yadav submitted an application for withdrawing the compensation.In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has re-iterated his averments to the effect that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner for cross examination of the prosecution witnesses or to lead his evidence in defence and opportunity of hearing was not given to him by the enquiry officer.It has been staled by the learned counsel for the petitioner that other person namely Hari Shanker Yadav who was also dismissed by the respondent No. 1 filed Civil Misc.

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

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

Prosecution's case in short is that on 1.5.1995 at about 1.30 pm, R.A. Mishra (P.W.1) Junior Engineer of MPEB went to the Village Kachhyaguda, Police Station Ladhora, District Tikamgarh to examine the electric connection of the respondent.At about 1.30 p.m it was found that the respondent was running a thresher with the help of a direct wiring from L.T line.He did not take any connection from MPEB and no meter was found in 2 that connection.3-4 bags of wheat were found prepared by help of that thresher.Shri Mishra prepared a Panchanama (Ex.P/2) at the spot and seized a motor, starter and wires etc. A siezure memo Ex.P/1 was prepared.Thereafter, a complaint was made to the SHO, Police Station Lidhora.It was also mentioned in the report that the respondent abused him with obscene words and threatened him.The case was registered at crime no.69 of 1995 by the Police and after due investigation a charge sheet was filed before the trial Court.The respondent abjured his guilt.He did not take any specific plea but, he has stated that he was not using any thresher and therefore, Shri Mishra could not seize the thresher.He accordingly seized a motor lying in the hut of the respondent.The respondent was falsely implicated due to enmity with line man Panchu and Hallu.Kishorilal (D.W.1) and Ram Bharose (D.W.2) were examined from the side of the defence.After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, learned JMFC Jatara acquitted the respondent from all the charges.I have heard learned counsel for the parties.If the respondent would have threatened the complainant then such threatening must be corroborated by the other eye witnesses.As far as the case of theft of electrical energy is concerned, offence under Section 39 of the Act could be made out but, no Magistrate could take cognizance of that offence if an appropriate complaint is not filed by a competent person as per provisions of Section 50 of that Act and therefore, it was not for the Sub Engineer to lodge an FIR before the Police but, it was for him to get a complaint lodged by the Electrical Inspector.He was required to report the matter to the Electrical Inspector who, could lodge a complaint and therefore, the learned Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 39 of the Act and therefore, no conviction could be directed for that offence.Therefore, the learned JMFC has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charges of offence punishable under Section 39 of the Act.

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.Shortly stated, the prosecution case runs as under :--There were inimical relations between the appellant and the acquitted accused on one hand and the informant Nana Kute P.W. 6, his wife Akkatai P.W. 7, his father Dada Kute P.W. 8 and his brother, the deceased Ausinath Kute, on the other.The details of the said enmity have been furnished by the informant, Akkatai and Dada In their evidence but, we do not want to burden our judgment by setting them out.Suffice it is to mention that the enormity of the enmity was such that at the time of the incident, the informant and others on one hand and the appellant and the acquitted accused on other hand were not on speaking terms.On 25-7-1985, the informant-Nana Kute and Dilip son of Prayagabai, were working in the field of the latter.After the work was over, the informant asked Dilip to take away the bullock cart and told him that he would collect the labour charges from Prayagabai.Thereafter, the informant (sic) towards his house by footpath.On the way near the field of Rama Chaugule, he met Kisan Ghatole, the appellant and the acquitted accused Rajaram.While he was talking with Kisan Ghatole, the appellant came between him and Kisan and inflicted a fist blow on his stomach and pushed Kisan.When he asked him why had given a fist blow, he replied that he would show the force of the blow.Thereafter, the appellant went to his house and the informant returned to his house.On reaching his house, the informant narrated the incident to his father Dada, his brother Ausinath and his mother.Ausinath told him that he would go and pacify the appellant's party and he should wait.The time was about 6.30 p.m. As Ausinath started alone, the informant's mother who understandably was nervous followed him along with the informant's wife Akkatai.The informant's mother and Akkatai met the appellant in the field of Dhurpabai.The informant saw this from his house and proceeded in the direction.On hearing the cries of his wife Akkatai, he started running with a stick in his hand towards the field of Dhurpabai.No sooner had he reached the aforesaid field, he saw the appellant inflicting two knife blows, one each on the chest of Ausinath, who fell down as a result thereof.Thereafter, the appellant came and inflicted two knife blows on the person of the informant.The acquitted accused Sukhdeo who had also reached there, along with the other acquitted accused persons, inflicted axe blow on the back of the informant.Thereafter, the informant started moving his stick.The informant's father also reached in the meantime.He and the informant's mother fell down on the body of Ausinath in a bid to save him.Thereupon, the acquitted accused Ishwar Shinde inflicted a stick blow on the forehead of the informant's father.The acquitted accused Uttam and Sukhdeo with axes in their hands and the acquitted accused Rajaram, Ganpat and Ishwar with sticks in their hands also tried to assault the informant and others and they scuffled with them.In the meantime, Hariba Kute, Pralhad Kute and Rama Kute came there.The appellant and the accused ran away towards Shindewadi, Pralhad Kute brought a bullock cart.Ausinath was put in the same and brought to Sangola.Hariba Kute, the informant and his parents also accompanied Ausinath in the bullock cart.Ausinath was taken to Government dispensary at Sangola where the doctor pronounced him dead.Seven persons namely Deoppa Ishwar Shinde, Ganpat Maruti Shinde, Rajaram Ganpat Shinde, Uttam Rajaram Shinde, Sukhdeo Rajaram Shinde, Ishwar Maruti Shinde and Murlidhar Appa Shinde were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions case No. 30 of 1986 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149 and 324 r/w. 149, IPC.Vide judgment and order dated 22-7-1986, the learned trial Judge acquitted accused other than Deoppa Ishwar Shinde on all the counts but, convicted and sentenced Deoppa Ishwar Shinde in the manner stated hereinafter :--(i) Under Section 302, IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer four years R.I.;(ii) Under Section 324, IPC (No separate sentence was awarded).Aggrieved by the aforesaid convictions and sentence, Deoppa Ishwar Shinde has preferred the present appeal.Evidence of Assistant Sub-Inspector Uttam Tatya P.W. 10 shows that on 25-7-1985 at 10.45 p.m. the informant Nana Kute came at Sangola police station and he recorded his FIR and registered an offence on its basis.His evidence also shows that at 1.45 a.m. on 26-7-1985, the acquitted accused Ishwar, Rajaram, Ganpat, Uttam and the appellant came in the police station.They had injuries on their person.The appellant lodged an FIR on the basis of which he registered the offence.The evidence of ASI Uttam Tatya shows that he sent the informant-Nana, the appellant and the acquitted accused for medical examination.Evidence of Dr. Ramesh Ukarande P.W. 3 shows that on 26-7-1985, he was working as Medical Officer at Sangola dispensary and at 11 a.m. same day, he medically examined the informant-Nana Kute and found on his person the following injuries:--(i) incised wound 1" x ½" x ¼" on left infra-scapular region;(ii) incised wound 14" x ¼" x 1/8" on lateral aspect of left elbow joint;In his opinion, the said injuries were simple in nature; were attributable to a sharp and hard object, and were approximately 24 hours old.He also opined that injury No. 1 could be caused by a weapon like axe and injury Nos. 2 and 3 by a knife.The evidence of Dr. Ukarande also shows that on 27-7-1985, he medically examined the informant's father Dada and found on his person a contusion, 1" in diameter on left supra orbital region which was simple in nature; attributable to hard and blunt object; and aged about 48 hours old.The evidence of Dr. Ukarande also shows that on 28-7-1985, he examined Ratnu Vithoba Yelpale and found on his person a contusion which was 1" in diameter on anterior aspect of right knee joint, attributable to a hard and blunt object, and caused within 24 hours.Going backwards, the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased Ausinath was performed by Mr. Ramesh Ukarande, who found on it the following external1. incised wound ¾" x ½" x 3" just below the left nipple;2. incised wound ¾" x ½" x 2 ½" between 7th and 8th ribs right axillary line;3. contusion ¼" in diameter on left wrist joint dorsal aspect;4. contusion 1" in diameter on right hypochondric region.Fracture of 7th, 8th and 9th ribs on right side.On internal examination, he found a incised wound on left side of heart; left lung highly conjested; and haematoma 1" in diameter on lower lobe.In his opinion, injury Nos. 1 and 2 could be caused by a hard and sharp object and injury Nos. 3 and 4 by a hard and blunt object.He also opined that injury Nos. 1 and 2, coupled with injury to heart, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.Dr. Ukarande found the following injuries on the body of the said persons:--Appellant-Deoppa Ishwar Shinde:Contusion 2" x ½" (LP) intra scapular region.2. Contusion 2" x ½" (RP) scapular region.C.L.W. x ½" x ¼" near left ear.Acquitted accused-Ganpat Maruti Shinde:Incised wound 2" x ½" x ¼" dorsal aspect, left hand.C.L.W. 1" x ½" x ¼" right parietal region.Contusion 1" diameter Rt.middle forearm fracture.Acquitted accused-Rajaram Ganpat Shinde:C.L.W. ½" x ¼" x 1/8" midforearm' (LT).C.L.W. 1" x ½" x ¼" Lt. parietal region.Acquitted accused Ishwar Maruti Shinde:Contusion 1" on dorsal aspect Lt. hand.Acquitted accused Murlidhar Appa Shinde:C.L.W. 2" x ½" x ¼" central part of skull.The case was investigated in the usual manner.During the course of investigation, a knife was recovered on the pointing out of the appellant-Deoppa Ishwar Shinde in the presence of public panchas but, we are not adverting to the details about the recovery because, the same in our judgment is not necessary for the decision of this appeal.On completion of investigation, the appellant and the acquitted accused were charge-sheeted.They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.During trial, in all the prosecution examined 12 witnesses.Three of them namely the informant-Nana Kute, Akkatai and Dada Shankar P.Ws.6, 7 and 8 respectively were examined as eye-witnesses.They deposed in respect of the incident in the manner set out by us in para 2 of this judgment.The defence suggestion given to them in their cross-examination was that while the appellant and the acquitted accused Ganpat were going to their house by footpath, Sopan, Ausinath (deceased) and the informant came across the footpath and started beating them with sticks and axes.The appellant and Ganpat raised cries, hearing which the acquitted accused Rajaram, Murlidhar and Ishwar came and they were also assaulted by them.The eye-witnesses of course denied the said suggestion.The learned trial Judge partly believed the prosecution version as unfolded by the aforesaid eye-witnesses: acquitted accused other than the appellant; and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated in para 1, above.Hence, this appeal.We have heard learned counsel for the parties; and gone through the entire material on record.As we have mentioned earlier, their injuries were medically examined a little before midnight on 25-7-1985 i.e. the date of incident.In other words, their injuries were examined within five to six hours of the incident taking place.

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

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

1 .2018 2 KB CRM No. 6929 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 27th August, 2018 in connection with Arambagh Police Station Case No. 1054 of 2017 dated 18.11.2017 corresponding with G.R. Case No. 2016/2017under Sections 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code.The prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.((Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2

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

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

The Appellants / A.1 and A.2 are acquitted.Further, the Appellants are at liberty to file Miscellaneous Petition before the trial court to claim the refund of Fine of Rs.1,000/- each paid by them in S.C.No.17 of 2014 upon such petition being filed, the trial court shall dispose of the said Petition at an early date, of course in the manner known to Law.The Bail Bond executed by the Appellants and the sureties shall stand terminated.02.02.2017Index : Yes / NoInternet : Yes / NossdToThe Union Territory of Puducherry Rep. By The Station House Officer, Thiruvanallar Police Station, KaraikalThe Public Prosecutor, Puducherry.The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Karaikal, PuducherryThe Appellants have preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 31.10.2014 in S.C.No.17 of 2014 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karaikal.The Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karaikal while passing the Impugned the Judgment in S.C.No.17 of 2014 dated 31.10.2014 at Paragraph No.19 among other things had observed as under:...From the evidence collected in the above case, P.W.1 has not sustained grievous injury but only a simple injury.The other two ingredients are well available in the evidence let in by the prosecution through the witnesses P.Ws. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in this case.The evidence of the prosecution witnesses are cogent and convincing.Hence this court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt in this case that the accused have voluntarily caused simple hurt to P.W.1 and deterred him from discharging his official duty as Public Servant.The accused have not shattered the evidence of the prosecution.The defence taken by the accused that the present case has been falsely registered against them.But they could not say as to why the false case was registered against them either in the cross examination made with the witnesses or at the time of answering the questions framed and put by the court u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The doctor P.W.4 denied the suggestion put by the learned counsel for the accused saying that the injury noted by him on P.W.1 could not have been caused by falling and dashing with rough object.This suggestion was also put with P.W.1 by the learned counsel for the accused during cross-examination.In the above circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 333 IPC r/w 34 IPC .But at the same time, the prosecution has proved its case beyond all the reasonable doubt that the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 332 IPC r/w 34 IPC.and resultantly found the Appellants / A.1 and A.2 guilty in respect of an offence under Section 332 read with 34 of IPC and convicted the Appellants/ Accused by sentencing them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Year each and further directed them to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of said fine amount, they were directed to undergo default sentence of Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months each.The Learned Counsel for the Appellants further submits that P.W.1 in his evidence had stated that at 7.45 or 8.00 hrs (P.M.) the complaint was received by the police and that since he was in an unconscious stage, he does not know what was written in the complaint (Ex.P.1).Moreover, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that he had not mentioned to the Doctor specifically as to who had beaten him.Furthermore, P.W.1 had stated that when he affixed his signature in the complaint (Ex.P.1), he was in semi conscious stage.Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants refers to the evidence of Nurse of the Government Hospital to the effect that the complaint was written by the Police Head Constable when Mohan gave the complaint she know about the same and at that time, the said Mohan (P.W.1) was in an unconscious stage and further that only on the basis of the complaint given herself and one Anitha, the complaint was written and she does not remember whether her signature was obtained in the said complaint.In effect, the stand of the Appellants is that there is discrepancies in regard to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 about the authorship of the complaint and when P.W.3 had categorically deposed (in his cross examination) that the complaint (Ex.P.1) was written by Head Constable then, the trial court was wrong in ultimately convicting the Appellants / Accused under Section 332 IPC r/w 34 IPC by imposing necessary punishment.The Learned Counsel for the Appellants points out before this Court that P.W.5 (Ward Attender) in his evidence (in cross examination) clearly stated that the complaint was written by the Police Man, but he does not know whether the said Police Man was the S.I. Of Police or an Head Constable.Further, the Learned Counsel also proceeds to state that at the time of giving complaint, P.W.5 was not there along with the complainant and therefore, he does not know about the details of the complaint.P.1, Complaint, the Complainant (P.W.1) had affixed his signature.Although Ex.P.1  Complaint was written based on the complaint given by herself and one Anitha and that the complaint was written by the Head constable, this Court comes to an irresistible conclusion that the Evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in regard to the writing of Ex.P.1- Complaint do contradict the evidence of P.W.7 (Head constable) who had stated in his cross examination that he does not know who had written the complaint.Further, P.W.7 in his evidence had stated that P.W.1 had submitted a written complaint to him and that P.W.1 was in a conscious state when he gave the complaint and that he was not in an unconscious state.In the instant case, the evidence of P.W.7 (Head constable) runs contrary to the evidence of P.W.1 (Complainant) and the contradiction between the evidences of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.7 affects the credibility of the prosecution case, in the considered opinion of this Court.The origin of Ex.P.1- Complaint is in simmering doubt in the present case.The contradictions in regard to the evidences of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.7 unerringly point out to the crumbling of the prosecution case.Besides the above, this Court pertinently point out that the charges levelled against the Appellants / A.1 and A.2 by the Respondent / Prosecuting Agency is that on 30.08.2012 at about 20.00 hrs at Community Health Centre, Thenur, Thirunallar voluntarily caused grievous hurt to one Mohan / Complainant, a public servant, in the discharge of his duty and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 333 read with Section 34 of IPC.16. P.W.4 (Doctor) in his evidence had deposed that on 30.08.2012 when he was on duty, Mohan aged about 30 son of Kasinathan (P.W.1- Complainant) came to his hospital at 7.50 hrs and he examined him and on his examination he found that blood was coming out from his nose and he provided treatment to him and further that he informed who had beat him and the son of Senthamarai residing at Serumavilangai (Nedunkadu main road) beat him and issued Wound Certificate, Ex.P.3 and gave an intimation, Ex.P.4 to Police and he further stated that the injury that had taken place would occur based on the punches with hands.It is the evidence of P.W.4 (in cross-examination) that only after the complainant informing him about the manner of occurrence of injury, he came to know about it and in the wound certificate, first four lines were returned by one Dr.Rekha and later two lines were returned by him and again three lines were returned by one Rekha and in short, the Ex.P.3 was returned by two Doctors.19. P.W.7 in his evidence (in Chief Examination) had stated the Written Complaint (Ex.P.1) was given by P.W.1 (Complainant) and on the basis of that, he came to the police station and registered a case and the printed FIR is Ex.P.6 in Crime No.126 of 2012 under Section 332 r/w 34 of IPC and placed the same for perusal of Sub-Inspector of Police etc.,It is to be pertinently pointed out the 'Burden of Proof' is also on the prosecution.In fact, the accused are presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty.Moreover, the benefit of deficiency as proof would be available to the persons charged.It cannot be forgotten that the same evidence, which is required to be established to prove an offence under Section 332 of IPC is required to be proved to establish an offence under Section 333 of IPC, except with an intent of establishing that the Accused caused 'Simple Hurt', it is to be proved that the accused caused voluntarily 'Grievous Hurt'.Moreover, the term of 'Grievous Hurt' is defined under Section 320 of IPC and 'Voluntarily causing Grievous Hurt' is explained under Section 322 of IPC.Viewed in that perspective, this Court holds that the Respondent / Prosecution had not established its case against the Appellants / A.1 and A.2 beyond reasonable doubt.Therefore, this Court to prevent an aberration of justice and in furtherance of substantial cause of justice sets aside the Judgment of the trial court dated 31.10.2014 in S.C.No.17 of 2014 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karaikal.Consequently, the Appeal succeeds.In fine, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.The Additional Sessions Court, KaraikalThe Superintendent of Jail , Central Prison, Kalappet, Puducherry.The Record Keeper, High Court, MadrasM.VENUGOPAL,J.,ssdCrl.578 of 201402.02.2017http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.1. Leave granted.This appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh againstjudgment and order dated 6th November, 2012 passed by the High Court ofMadhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Criminal Revision No.72 of 2007 reducing thesentence awarded to the respondent under Section 304A of the Indian PenalCode ("IPC") from RI for one year and under Section 337 IPC from RI forthree months to RI for 10 days which was the period already undergone byhim.On 22nd November, 1997, the deceased Sushila Bai wife of PW 4 RamCharan along with her husband was returning from Village Ragho Garh totheir home in village Kudhaidher.The respondent accused had drawnelectricity wire from the pole upto his field which was not visible in thedarkness.Ram Charan got trapped in the wire and became unconscious.Thedeceased Sushila Bai received electric shock in the process of removing thewire.On receiving the information PW 5 Mishrilal, brother of Sushila Baiand PW 1 Kallu reached the site of the incident along with PW 3 Goverdhanand PW 2 Somlal.It was found that Sushila Bai had died while Ram Charanwas injured but alive.He was taken to the hospital.FIR was lodged.Post mortemwas conducted on the dead body and after investigation, the respondentaccused was sent up for trial under Section 304-A/337 IPC.The accuseddenied the allegations and alleged that he was falsely implicated.The prosecution examined PW 6 Dr. N.K. Sharma to the effect that thedeceased and Ram Charan received injuries by electric current and thatSushila Bai had died due to shock of the current.PW 1 Kallu as well as PW4 Ram Charan clearly deposed that the wire was laid by Mehtaab from thepole to the field which was lying naked and resulted in the death ofSushila Bai.This action clearly amounted to the offence alleged.Thesaid evidence was corroborated by the other witnesses.Accordingly, thetrial Court convicted the respondent-accused under Section 304A and 337 IPCand sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and pay fine of Rs.500/- indefault to undergo further RI for one month under Section 304-A and toundergo RI for three months under Section 337 IPC.The conviction andsentence having been upheld by the Court of Session, the respondentpreferred a revision petition before the High Court.Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the State of Madhya Pradeshhas preferred this appeal.We have heard learned counsel for the parties.On beingsatisfied on an application or on its own motion, the Court ought to directgrant of interim compensation, subject to final compensation beingdetermined later.Such duty continues at every stage of a criminal casewhere compensation ought to be given and has not been given, irrespectiveof the application by the victim.At the stage of final hearing it isobligatory on the part of the Court to advert to the provision and record afinding whether a case for grant of compensation has been made out and, ifso, who is entitled to compensation and how much.In default, hewill undergo RI for six months.The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent...........................................J. [T.S. THAKUR] ...........................................J.[ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]NEW DELHIFEBRUARY 13, 2015

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

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

REVN231+232.13.odt 3The complainant Anil Wamanrao Nathine is the Police Constable.On 22.1.2008 at 9.30 pm, he along with Police Constable Ganesh Bondre and Shrawan Thakare went to the mess of Shri Kolhe for dinner.The accused were also came there for dinner.On seeing both the police constables, the accused abused in filthy language and threatened to kill them.So also there was scuffle between informant and accused persons.The complainant therefore lodged complaint against the accused persons.On the basis of the said complaint the offence was registered vide Crime No.3012/2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The investigation was conducted.The spot panchanama was prepared.The statements of the witnesses were recorded.The accused were arrested and produced before the court.The prosecution has examined in all six witnesses.The relevant witnesses are the complainant Anil Wamanrao Nathine (PW-2), Gulab Laxmanrao Kolhe (PW-4) and Ganesh Wamanrao Thombre (PW-5).::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 :::REVN231+232.13.odt 4While they were having dinner, both the accused came to that place.On seeing policemen they uttered "fukatche khaun rahile, thyna haddi taka".The complainant asked the accused to let them have dinner.The accused however abused them in filthy language by saying "tumachya maychi pudi, thmhi yethun nighun ja, tumacha murder karin".The complainant asked them the reason for the abuse.On that the accused persons had a scuffle with the complainant.The testimony of PW-2 Anil shows that he had gone to mess belonging to Kolhe along with Ganesh Bondre and Shrawan at about 9.30 pm.ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT 1] These Criminal Revision Applications have been directed against the judgment and order dated 21.05.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ashti in Regular Criminal Case No.130/2008, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, has convicted the applicants (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for the sake of brevity) for the offence punishable under Section 294 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.They are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506-II read with::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 ::: REVN231+232.13.odt 3 Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.2] The prosecution case in nutshell is as under :::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 :::After the completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ashti against the accused.The charge was framed against both the accused for the::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 ::: REVN231+232.13.odt 4 offence punishable under Sections 294, 506-II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The learned trial Judge, after recording the evidence and after hearing both the sides, convicted the accused as aforesaid.With their able assistance, I have gone through the record and the proceedings of the case.4] The learned advocate for the applicants contended that the learned trial Judge has not considered the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses in its right perspective and has erroneously convicted the present applicants.5] Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the judgment passed by the trial court and submitted that the learned trial Judge has assessed the evidence led by the prosecution::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 ::: REVN231+232.13.odt 5 witnesses in its right perspective and based on their evidence, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 :::REVN231+232.13.odt 56] In order to substantiate the rival contentions of both the sides, it would be advantageous to go through the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses.According to the complainant (PW-2) Anil Wamanrao Nathine that on 22.01.2008 at 9.30 pm , he along with head constable Ganesh Bondare and Shrawan Thakare went at Kolhe's mess for dinner.They gave order for dinner.They placed order for dinner and while they were having dinner, the accused persons uttered filthy by saying "khana khana aye, inkubi haddi dalo".There was no reason for the accused persons to make any comment on the police personnels while they were::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 ::: REVN231+232.13.odt 6 having their dinner.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 :::REVN231+232.13.odt 67] The evidence of PW-2 Anil and other two witnesses has not been shattered in the cross-examination on that aspect of accused using abusive language.The presence of the accused at the place of incident is also not disputed seriously.It was suggested to the witness that three police personnels had asked both the accused to pay the bill of the mess on their behalf and as they refused to do so, they have been falsely implicated in this case.All these suggestions have been denied by the witness.When PW-2 Anil asked the accused persons to allow them to have dinner, the accused abused them in filthy language.They uttered 'tumchya maychi pudi, tumhi ithun Nighun Ja, tumacha murder karin".Anil then asked them as to why they were abusing.At that time, Anil was manhandled and therefore lodged complaint vide Exh.24 with the police.8] The evidence of PW-4 Shravan Thakre shows that he accompanied PW-2 Anil to the hotel.While they were having dinner, the accused persons came to that place and said that "sale policewale khana khane aye, inkobhi haddi dalo".In the cross-examination, an improvement is pointed out by the defence that the accused said that::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 ::: REVN231+232.13.odt 7 "sale policewale ashe matle, mar dalunga".The testimony of PW-2 as well as PW-4 shows that there is corroboration in the testimony of PW-2 and PW-4 to the effect that the accused persons entered in the hotel where they were having the dinner and at that time the accused said to the complainant and others that "sale policewale khana khane aye inkobhi haddi dalo", so both the accused have abused in abusive words.However, there is no convincing evidence on record with regard to the threats given by the accused.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 :::REVN231+232.13.odt 79] Overall assessment of the evidence shows that the accused persons have abused the complainant in abusive language.The courts below should have assessed the evidence in its proper perspective.The accused have undergone sentence of 15 days.In view of the facts and circumstances, the judgment passed by the trial Court needs to be modified.Hence, the following order is passed :ORDER 1] Both Criminal Revision Applications are hereby partly allowed.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 :::REVN231+232.13.odt 82] The accused are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 294 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period, which they had already undergone.However, both the accused are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 506 (II) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.JUDGE Gulande::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 :::

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

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

"The FIR has been registered on the complaint of Sanjay Ex.PW1/A wherein, he has alleged that he resides at the address as mentioned in his complaint Ex.PW1/A and he is running a shop of repairing the mobile phone at F-5/133, Sultan Puri, which is situated on the walking distance of two minutes of his house and on 11.12.2015, at CRL.LP.126/2018 Page 1 of 9 about 9.00 PM, he closed his shop and on the intervening night of 11/12.12.2015 at 3.00 AM, owner of his shop had telephonically informed that some noises of breaking were coming out of his shop and the owner of his shop resides at the upper floor of the said shop and this complainant without wasting time had taken his neighbour Sapan with him and arrived at his shop and found that three boys were standing outside of the said shop and they asked to their fourth companion to come out of the said shop and the fourth boy came out from the broken shutter of the said shop and all the four boys ran towards one direction and when, this complainant and his neighbour Sapan tried to apprehend this accused Joshim near Government toilet, this accused took out knife and threatened to kill the complainant and his neighbour, but, anyway, they succeeded in nabbing this accused and on hearing the noise, many people gathered at the spot and this accused, who was apprehended by them, had revealed his name as Joshim, son of Vicky @ Kanatulla R/o F-7/W-49, Jhuggi No. 176, Sultan Puri, Delh and this accused was handed over along with knife recovered from him to police and on searching one mobile phone maker of which Gild of brown colour was recovered from the pocket of his pant and this complainant has also alleged that this mobile phone came to his shop for repairing and also alleged that 25 mobile phones and Rs.20000/- were found to be stolen from the shop of this complainant and all these mobile phones were to be repaired by him and alleged that all the four boys had broken the shutter of his shop and stolen away his 25 mobile phones and Rs.20000/-, and on such complaint FIR No. 1187/2015 was registered under Section 458/360/411/34 of IPC and 27 of Arms Act. The disclosure statement of the accused was also written by the IO, wherein, he has disclosed the name of co-accused Deepak S/o Ramesh R/o F-7, W-49, Jhuggi No. 160, Sultan Puri Kwin @ Manwa S/o Om Prakash R/o F-131, Sultan Puri, Kadu R/o Bengali Park, F Block, Sultan Puri.126/2018 Page 1 of 9126/2018 Page 2 of 9To bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution examined 06 witnesses in all.Statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC by the learned Trial Court wherein he pleaded not guilty and denied all prosecution charges.The respondent did not lead any evidence in his defence.At the outset, I deem it appropriate to peruse the testimonies of relevant witnesses examined by the prosecution.Landlady of the complainant was examined as PW-5, who deposed as under:-"I made a telephone call on the mobile phone of Mr. Sanjay but he did not take up.Thereafter, I made a call on the mobile phone of Mr. Suresh, brother of Mr. Sanjay.Mr. Suresh picked up and I informed that I heard some noise of shutter of the shop of Mr. Sanjay."Mr. Sanjay Kumar (Complainant) was examined as PW-1 and during his examination-in-chief dated 21.03.2016, he deposed as under: -By the present Leave Petition filed under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.') the State seeks leave to appeal against the order/judgment dated 27.09.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), North West District, Rohini Courts, in Sessions Case No. 53084/16, whereby the respondent (accused before the Trial Court) was acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 458/380/397/411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as 'IPC').Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Trial Court, are as under:-But none of them was apprehended by the police and the CRL.LP.126/2018 Page 2 of 9 IO had filed the charge sheet under Section 458/380/397/411/34 of IPC against this accused Joshim only."Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for State contended that the impugned judgment dated 27.09.2017 is based on conjectures and surmises, the same was against the facts and law and the same be set aside, acquitting the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 458/380/397/411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; that the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned judgement has failed to appreciate that the respondent was apprehended red handed while committing theft along with his three other accomplices; that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the testimony of prosecution witness including that of the complainant which supports the prosecution theory; that the learned Trial court has placed undue weightage on the minor discrepancies/contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, contrary to which all the statements are consistent and corroborative in nature and there are no major omissions and contradictions in the aforesaid testimonies; that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider that the knife along with the money stolen was recovered from the accused on the spot.126/2018 Page 3 of 9Per contra, Mr. Ashish Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court and the same does not call for any interference by this court.Learned counsel for the state further contended that the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 are inconsistent and there are various material contradictions in the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 which go to the root of the prosecution case.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record."On 11.12.2015 at about 9.00 pm I closed my shop and went to my house.During the night of 11.11.2015 and 12.11.2015 at about 3.00 pm a call was received on the mobile phone of my brother that some voices CRL.LP.126/2018 Page 4 of 9 were coming from my shop and probably the shutter of the shop was broken."126/2018 Page 4 of 9Mr. Suresh Kumar, brother of the complainant (PW-1) was examined as PW-6 who deposed that:"In the meantime, I received the call on my mobile phone from Ms. Asha, landlady of the shop of my brother Sanjay.She informed me that she has heard some noise of shutter if the shop of Mr. Sanjay."PW-2 Mr. Sapan Kumar, friend of the complainant, who accompanied the complainant (PW-1) to his shop, deposed as under:-"During the night at about 3 A.M I received a telephone call on my mobile phone from landlady of the shop of my friend Mr. Sanjay........ She further informed that she was making call on the mobile of Mr. Sanjay but the same was reported to be switched off so she made call on my mobile phone.I also tried to contact Sanjay on his mobile phone but the same was reported to be switched off."126/2018 Page 5 of 9 different version with regard to the receipt of the information about the alleged incident.According to PW5 (Landlady) she informed PW-6 (Complainant's Brother) about the alleged incident as PW-1 (Complainant) was not responding to her calls.To the contrary, PW-2 (Complainant's Friend) claimed that PW-5 (Landlady) informed him about the alleged incident.126/2018 Page 5 of 9The case of the prosecution is that 25 mobile phones and Rs. 20,000/-were stolen from the shop of PW-1 (Complainant) and the accused was apprehended at the spot.It is pertinent to note that no such recovery was effected from the accused though he was apprehended at the spot.To add, PW-1 (Complainant) who has a mobile repairing shop, failed to bring any evidence on record to show the names of his customers to whom the phones belonged.Only one phone make - GILD was allegedly recovered from the accused.The prosecution failed to procure the names of the customers to whom the phone belonged.No register or diary barely mentioning the details of the customers to whom the phone belonged was maintained by the complainant.Even vague details were not given by the complainant which creates a doubt on the story of the prosecution.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Ct-34 (AD) In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 12/07/2018 in connection with Sainthia P.S. Case No. 146/2018 dated 07/07/2018 under Sections 379/411/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)And In the matter of: Biswajit Kar ....petitioner.Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu Mr. Tapas Kumar Ghosh Mr. Tanmoy Chowdhury ...for the petitioner.Mr. Madhusudan Sur Mr. Debajyoti Deb ...for the State.The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Sainthia P.S. Case No. 146/2018 dated 07/07/2018 under Sections 379/411/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)The Investigating Officer has filed a report to the effect that the petitioner has complied with the notice issued under Section 41A of the Code and the petitioner's statement has been recorded.Considering the material on record and the nature of the charges, there may not be any need for the petitioner to be detained in custody at this stage.In addition, the petitioner will also report to 2 the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) 3

['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Sessions Judge, Pilibhit respectively disallowing the prayer to release the Truck U.P.I. 4821 in favour of applicant Gurmez Singh.It is the admitted position in the instant case that the Truck No. U.P.I. 4821, was given to Gurmez Singh applicant on 2-3-1985 on hire-purchase basis-financed by National Finance Company, Civil lines, Station Road, Pilibhit and an agreement was executed between the parties on 2-3-1985, stipulating therein that the applicant Gurmez Singh shall continue to pay regularly 36 monthly instalments each instalment consisting of Rs. 3550/- to the aforesaid Company.In order to perceive as to what had been agreed between the parties in the aforesaid agreement, I would like to place certain significant terms as below.In para 4 of the aforesaid agreement, it was given out that without prejudice to the other rights of the owners under this agreement, the owner may terminate, with or without notice, the hiring of the Motor Vehicle, and forthwith retake and recover possession of the same (a) If any monthly hire, or a part thereof or any other dues, as per terms and conditions of this agreement are in arrears and remain unpaid for a period of seven days after the due date due for the payments for any reason whatsoever.In para 5 of the aforesaid agreement it is stipulated that in the event of the hiring being terminated by the owners on account of breach of any terms and conditions as from 4(a) to 4(i) above and the hirer is called upon to restore possession of the Motor vehicle to the owners, and the hirer fails to give possession of the Motor Vehicle or creates any opposition to its repossession, and thus keeps the Motor vehicle in adverse possession, he shall be liable both, criminally and civilly and pay double the amount of average monthly hire stipulated in this agreement for the period he remains in adverse possession of the Motor vehicle, after the termination of the hiring without any prejudice to the owner's right of repossession.In the light of the above agreement, it crystallises that applicant had himself agreed to the effect that in case of default in any of the instalments, he would be liable to deliver back the truck without any obstructions or hindrance to the owner.I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties.I have also carefully perused the counter-affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and supplementary affidavit filed in the above petition.From a careful reading of the above documents, it surfaces that Daljeet Singh, in the capacity of his being a partner in National finance Company-respondent No. 2 in the instant petition, lodged a report at police station Sungarhi District Pilibhit on 20-11-87 alleging that Gurmez Singh, applicant had surrendered the Truck U.P.I. 4821 out of his free-will to him on 24-5-87 on account of his having failed in paying the instalments in accordance with the terms agreed between the parties and as the aforesaid truck was in a most rickety and worsted condition, it was given for repairs to Balbir Singh, the partner of the aforesaid National Finance Company.The truck was completely renovated and when it was stationed at the partner's shop for being painted at bye-pass road, Gurmez Singh arrived there at about 3-30 p.m. on 20-11-1987 and on the pretext of having a trial of the truck of driving it, he persuaded Balbir Singh to part with the keys of the Vehicle.Thereafter, Gurmez Singh- started the aforesaid truck and sped away.When Gurmez Singh did not return with the truck for sometime, Daljeet Singh searched for the truck and Gurmez Singh but they were nowhere traceable and, consequently, the report aforesaid was lodged at the police station.It also finds mention in the aforesaid report lodged at the police station that considering the aforesaid conduct of Gurmez Singh, he (Daljeet Singh) apprehends that he (Gurmez Singh) had disposed of the truck by cheating him.On receipt of the aforesaid report, a case under Sections 406/420, I.P.C. was registered at the police Station Sungarhi District Pilibhit vide Crime No. 247 of 1987, against applicant Gurmez Singh.Thereafter, investigation followed and the aforesaid Truck was found abandoned the same day near Bareilly Road ahead of Jahanabad tri-junction by the Police during the course of investigation and it was taken into possession by the police as case property.During investigation, applicant Gurmez Singh and opp.party Daljeet Singh respondent 2 moved their respective applications under Section 457, Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate Pilibhit, Seeking the return of the truck to their respective possession.The aforesaid Judicial Magistrate upon a consideration of the submissions advanced by both the parties, directed the interim release of the aforesaid Truck in favour of respondent Daljeet Singh on 28-11-87 by a composite order and the prayer for release of the truck on behalf of Gurmez Singh was disallowed, while releasing the aforesaid truck in favour of Daljeet singh, the learned Magistrate imposed a condition that the truck shall be released to Daljeet Singh subject to his furnishing two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and an undertaking in the like amount to the effect that he will not dispose of the truck without obtaining prior permission of the court and further on demand by the court, he shall produce the same before the court.On his being unsuccessful in the lower appellate's court as well, the applicant Gurmez Singh preferred this application under Section 482, Cr.Thereafter, the truck was given for repairs to Balbir repairs to Balbir Singh, a partner of the aforesaid National Financing Company.After the truck had been completely repaired and rennovated and while it was stationed at the painter's shop at bye-pass road, applicant Gurmez Singh arrived there at about 3-30 p.m. on 20-11-87 and on the pretext of taking a trial of the vehicle and by taking key from Balbir Singh, another partner of the National financing Company, he sped away the vehicle and when he did not return for quite sometime a search was made and ultimately a report was lodged the same day at Police Station Sungarhi by Daljeet Singh whereupon a case under Sections 406/420, I.P.C. was registered against the applicant.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the order dated 26.11.2014 passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, Ghaziabad Case No. 35 of 2014 arising out of RC No. 120 of 2012 A0003 CBI, ACB, Ghaziabad, under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, PS CBI/ACB, Ghaziabad.The Bank Authority having mis-appropriated the money has falsely implicated the applicant.No criminal liability can be fixed on the applicant.Thus, she is entitled for the relief prayed for.Smt. Renu Saxena, the present applicant, co-accused Smt. Bimla Devi and Smt. Kanchan executed sale deed dated 29.03.2011 in the office of Sub-Registrar-III, Meerut for the property House No. 1237 (half part), Shiv Shakti Nagar, Meerut, in which the co-accused Bhudev Singh was the witness.All the aforesaid accused-persons executed the sale deed in fictitious names.Thus, there was sufficient evidence before the trial court to take cognizance and summon the accused-applicant.There are allegations of criminal conspiracy against the present applicant, for substantive offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Shri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the CBI has further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down in Dr Monica Kumar and another vs State of U.P. and others, 2008 (9) SCALE 166 that inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material.

['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 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 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(A) Devprasad Himanshu Sengupta (PW7), firstlywent to Walni Outpost of Khaperkheda Police Station for .....4/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 4narration of incident.However, he was asked to lodge areport.Thereafter, he came to his house and then rang up toKhaperkheda Police Station and informed police aboutcommission of robbery in his house.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::(B) The telephonic information was received byAssistant Police Inspector Rajesh Awdumbar Dudhalwar(PW20) and accordingly he went to spot of incident.He wentto house of Smt.Shampa (PW2) (wife of Devprasad) andrecorded report of Smt.Her oral report is at Exhibit::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 5Smt.Shampa recites that on 24.4.2002 at about 1:15 O'clock inthe noon, her husband Devprasad (PW7) went to village Binafor attending a marriage and in the house she, her mother-in-law Smt.Rama, and her two daughters, Jiya aged 12 years andBulbul aged 9 years, were present.Front door of her house(quarter) was latched from inside.At 1:40 O'clock in thenoon, 3 persons entered the house by pushing the front door.At that time, Smt.Shampa had taken her bath and stepped outof bathroom.Those 3 persons were looking for something in3 different rooms.When she made enquiry as to how theyentered the house and what they are looking for, at that timea person, wearing a navy blue coloured full sleeves shirt andfaded blue coloured jeans and who was of dark complexion,short heighted and slim and having beard and whose hairwere combed backward, inserted revolver in her mouth andthey took her to bedroom where Television Set was kept andasked her to give cash, gold and silver available in the houseby threatening to kill all the persons present in the house.The .....6/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 6oral report further recites that she told them that she was nothaving locker keys as doctor (her husband) had taken thesame with him.Thereupon, they snatched gold ornamentsfrom her person.One person remained with her and twopersons took search of the bedroom in which the TelevisionSet was kept.That time, she took out cash from almirahamounting to Rs.600/- and gave the said to them.Thereafter,they extended threats to kill her two children and under thefear she showed keys of almirah and, thereafter, they openedthe almirah and looted various articles.It is also stated in theoral report that out of those 3 persons, one was of 6 feet tall,fair complexion, and aged about 27 years; another was of darkcomplexion and short having grown up beard; and third wasshort and whose age must be 26 years.All of them weretalking in hindi language and they were in her house till 2:00O'clock in the noon.Dr. AshokMadhavrao Ganjare (PW1) is one of panchas.He went to his house, collected photographs from hishouse, and showed the said photographs to Smt.Shampa(PW2).Thereupon, Smt.Shampa pointed out the accused inthe photograph as one of intruders.On 26.4.2002, theInvestigating Officer got information that Shambabu had goneto his village Bhawara, District Hamirpur (U.P.).Therefore,he went to the village Bhawara.However, Shambabu was notpresent there.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::On 25.5.2002, he came to know that both theaccused are arrested by Jaripatka Police Station.Accordingly,he arrested the accused.By the impugned judgment and order ofconviction, the appellants in these appeals are convicted foroffence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code andsentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and topay a fine of rs.1000/- and in default of payment of the fineamount to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 3::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::In this judgment, the appellants will be referred toby their original positions in charge.Accused No.1 Shambabu, is represented by learnedsenior counsel Shri Anil S.Mardikar along with Advocates ShriC.R.Thakur and Rishabh Khemuka.Facts giving rise to the present appeals canconveniently be stated as under:The crime wasregistered against 3 unknown persons.(C) The oral report (Exhibit 12) lodged by .....5/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::(D) Investigating Officer Rajesh Dudhalwar .....7/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 7(PW20) prepared spot panchnama (Exhibit 10).He seized motorcycle of Shambabu,accused No.1 under seizure panchnama (Exhibit 39).During Police Custody Remand, Shambabu gave .....8/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 8his disclosure statement that he sold the ornaments at Agra.Accordingly, he was taken by the Investigating Officer to Agra.Shambabu led the police party to a Goel Jewellers atSultanpura where Puranchand Vithalal Agrawal (PW12) waspresent.Those gold bars were seizedin presence of panchas under seizure panchnama (Exhibit 30).::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Shambabu, accused No.1 also led the police partyto Ramdas Jewellers where Ramdas Mulchand Agrawal(PW13) was present.From his shop also, gold bars wereseized under seizure panchnama (Exhibit 32).(E) Rajjan, accused No.2, gave discovery statementpertaining to fact that where he concealed the revolver.Theadmissible portion is at Exhibit 49 and Exhibit 50 is recoverypanchnama.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 9 (F) After completion of other usual investigation,Investigation Officer Rajesh Dudhalwar (PW20) filed finalreport in the Court of jurisdictional Magistrate.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::(G) Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate in whoseCourt the final report in Crime No.44/2002 was filed waspertaining to offences under Section 392 read with Section 34of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 25 of theArms Act, 1959, found that the offences are exclusively Triableby the Court of Sessions.Till filing of the chargesheet and committal, thirdunknown accused was not traced.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 10 (H) In order to bring home the guilt of the accusedpersons, the prosecution examined in all 20 witnesses and alsorelied on various documents duly proved during course of theTrial.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::(I) After appreciation of the prosecution case,learned Judge of the Court below acquitted both the accusedof offences under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code andunder Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, however,convicted them for offence under Section 392 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Hence, this appeal.Shampa (PW2) and her husband .....::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::(i) Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at (1982) 1 SCC 700;(ii) Mohd.Abdul Hafeez vs. Sate of Andhra Pradesh, reported at AIR 1983 SC 367; andAlso, he relied on the procedure for holdingidentification parades, as mentioned in the Criminal Manual.He submitted that though the prosecution proved that theretook the robbery in the house of Smt.Shampa (PW2), the .....12/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 12prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that theappellants are the culprits.He, therefore, prayed for upsettingthe judgment recording the conviction against the appellants.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Learned counsel Shri R.M.Daga for the appellant inCriminal Appeal No.413 of 2004 adopted the submissionsmade by learned senior counsel.He submitted that he has noother submission.Per contra, learned Additional Public ProsecutorShri M.K.Pathan for the respondent/State vehementlysubmitted that evidence of Smt.Shampa (PW2) and evidenceof Devprasad (PW7) shows that in Test Identification Paradethey identified both the accused.It is his submission that inaddition to identification by these two prosecution witnessesin the Test Identification Parade, even during the course of theTrial, they identified as persons who committed the crime intheir house.It is his submission that since both the accusedare identified during the course of the Trial, which is a .....13/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 13substantive piece of evidence, the said is sufficient to upholdthe impugned judgment.In additionto the said, it is his submission that there is a corroboration inthe nature of seizure of the gold from Jewellers PuranchandAgrawal (PW12) and Ramdas Agrawal (PW13) who alsoidentified both the accused as persons who sold the gold tothem.He, therefore, submitted that the appeals be dismissed.CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::At the outset, I would like to mention that thoughboth the accused were charged for offences under 397 of theIndian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 25 of the ArmsAct 1959 and they were acquitted by learned Judge of theCourt below of the said charge.The prosecution accepted theverdict of the Trial Court to that extent by not preferring any .....14/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 14appeal.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Therefore, this Court is required to answer aquestion posed to it as to whether the prosecution proved theguilt of the accused for offence under Section 392 of theIndian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt.Though the prosecution examined in all 20witnesses, all panch witnesses turned hostile.Also, RafiqAhmad Abdul Rehman (PW8), who runs a Chicken Centre atWalni, who was examined by the prosecution to fix thepresence of the accused persons at the relevant time of thecommission of the offence in the vicinity of the spot of theincident, has turned hostile.Similarly, Macchindra RupchandShelare (PW18), who was examined by the prosecution toshow that he was driver of vehicle who took Shambabu,accused No.1 to Dongargadh, has also failed to support theprosecution case.The law regarding appreciation of witnesses, who .....15/-However, to supportthe prosecution case even the law laid down in the said casecannot be applied since there is nothing in evidence of the saidhostile witnesses by which one could state that to a slightestextent they supported the prosecution case.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::The prosecution also examined Dr.SomshubhraUpresh Gupta (PW3).His evidence is also not relevant fordeciding the present appeals since his evidence shows that hekept his gold ornaments in the house of Smt.Shampa (PW2)which were also looted away.A Jeweller Ashokkumar Khemrajji Daga (PW14)from Dongargadh is concerned, learned Judge of the Courtbelow himself recorded a finding that the prosecution failed toestablish that Shambabu, accused No.1 sold the goldornaments to him.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 16::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::After keeping aside the evidence of hostilewitnesses Rafiq Ahmad (PW8) and Macchindra Shelare(PW18) and evidence of Dr.Somshubhra Gupta (PW3) andjeweller Ashokkumar Daga (PW14), the Court is required toevaluate and scan evidence of following witnesses to record itsfinding and they are:1] Smt.Shampa Devprasad Sengupta (PW2);2] Devprasad Sengupta (PW7) husband of Smt.Shampa(PW2); 3] Arundhati alias Jiya Devprasad Sengupta (PW10);4] Puranchand Vithalal Agrawal (PW12); 5] RamdasMulchand Agrawal (PW13); 6] Naib Tahsildar PrakashRamrao Mahajan (PW17), and of course Investigating OfficerRajesh Awdumbar Dudhalwar (PW20).Devprasad (PW7), was not present in the housewhen the incident took place.According to the prosecution,he noticed presence of Shambabu, accused No.1 in proximityof the actual incident of robbery in the vicinity of the spot of .....17/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 17the incident.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Shampa (PW2) and her daughter Arundhati(PW10) were present in the house at the time of occurrence ofthe incident.Puranchand Agrawal (PW12) and RamdasAgrawal (PW13) are owners of jeweller's shops situated atAgra and according to the prosecution, the looted propertywas sold to them.Naib Tahsildar Prakash Mahajan (PW17)conducted Test Identification Parade.ABOUT TEST IDENTIFICATIONAdmittedly, neither Smt.Shampa (PW2);Devprasad (PW7) husband of Smt.Shampa (PW2); Arundhati(PW10); Puranchand (PW12) nor Ramdas (PW13) wereknowing any of the accused prior to time when they came incontact with them at different point of time.From the evidence of Investigating Officer RajeshDudhalwar (PW20), it is clear that from the descriptions given .....18/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 18by Smt.Shampa (PW2) he zeroed down his suspicion onShambabu, accused No.1 and accordingly he went to hishouse and collected the photographs from his house.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::In order to ascertain identity of the accusedpersons, after they were arrested on 25.5.2002, theInvestigating Officer gave a requisition (Exhibit 42) to TalukaMagistrate for holding and conducting Test IdentificationParade and accordingly the Test Identification Parade washeld by Naib Tahsildar Prakash Mahajan (PW17) at tahsiloffice at Saoner and per the prosecution, both Smt.Shampa(PW2) and Devprasad (PW7) identified both the accused.TheTest Identification Parade memorandum Part-I is at Exhibit 13.Whereas, Test Identification Parade memorandum Part-II is atExhibit 13-A.Learned senior counsel stepped up a very seriouschallenge not only to the procedure adopted by Naib TahsildarPrakash Mahajan (PW17) but also authenticity of the Test .....19/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 19Identification Parade itself.According to him, if the record ofthe case is properly examined in its correct perspective, thereis a serious doubt as to whether really on 25.5.2002 the TestIdentification Parade was held.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Exhibit 13 shows that on 25.5.2002 at 2:40 in thenoon, Test Identification Parade (Part-1) was held in the Courtof Tahsildar, Tahsil Office at Saoner, in which Smt.Shampa(PW2) and Devprasad (PW7) identified both the accused.Exhibit 13-A, the Test Identification Parade, showsthat Naib Tahsildar Prakash Mahajan (PW17) completedentire procedure including writing of memorandum (Part-II)on 25.5.2002 at 4:00 O'clock in the noon.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 20::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::In the backdrop, holding of the Test IdentificationParades by two witnesses, my attention was drawn to Exhibit42 and remand papers.Exhibit 42 is a requisition given by InvestigatingOfficer Rajesh Dudhalwar (PW20) to Taluka Magistrate,Taluka Office, Saoner on 25.5.2002 for holding TestIdentification Parade of the accused persons in CrimeNo.44/2002 registered at Khaperkheda Police Station.Thesaid requisition shows that the Test Identification Parade isrequired to be held for identification of the accused bySmt.Shampa (PW2).The said requisition also recites that on25.5.2002 at 00:30 hours the accused persons are arrested inthe crime.From Exhibit 42, it is clear that InvestigatingOfficer Rajesh Dudhalwar (PW20) was intending that TestIdentification Parade should be through witness Smt.Shampa(PW2) alone since name of Devprasad (PW7) is not finding .....21/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 21place in the said document.The prosecution has not filed anydocument on record to show that prior to holding of the TestIdentification Parade any summons was given to Devprasadthat he should remain present in the tahsil office at Saoner foridentification purpose.Therefore, his presence for thepurpose of the Test Identification Parade in the tahsil office atSaoner itself creates a doubt.It is altogether different that hemay accompany his wife Smt.Shampa to the tahsil office atSaoner but there was no occasion for Naib Tahsildar PrakashMahajan (PW17) to ask him to identify the culprits who werestanding with dummies.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Perusal of the record creates a very serious doubtas to really the Test Identification Parade was held at tahsiloffice at Saoner on 25.5.2002 between 2:40 O'clock in thenoon and 4:00 O'clock in the noon.File-D of the record consist of remand papers alongwith vakalatnamas, various applications for bail papers, .....::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 22summons warrant, and misc.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::By the said, Investigating Officer RajeshDudhalwar (PW20) sought police custody remand.One of reasons in the said remandpaper for claiming the police custody remand is at item No.7and it recites as under:"vkjksihaph vksG[k ijsM d#u ?ks.ks vkgs- rlsp ?kVukLFkGkoj xqUgk dsY;kps uarj iksyhlkauk cksVkps Bls feGkys vkgs R;kdfjrk vkjksihrkaps cksVkps Bls ?ksowu rikl.kh dj.ks vkgs-"For the Test Identification Parade, identification ofthe accused and also for obtaining finger prints for comparingthe same with the finger prints found at the spot of theoccurrence, learned Magistrate passed an order on 25.5.2002 .....It would bevery useful to reproduce the remand order by learnedMagistrate and the said is reproduced herein under:::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::"O Accused produced before me on 25.5.2002 at 4:15 p.m. (emphasis is supplied).No complaint.I.O. present.Case diary seen. ............"From the order, it is clear that the accused personswere produced before learned Magistrate for claiming theirpolice custody remand at 4:15 p.m. and one of reasons for thepolice custody remand was for holding Test IdentificationParade.If that be so, no explanation is coming on recordfrom the prosecution side as to how documents Exhibits 13and 13-A recite time as 2:40 in noon and 4:00 in the noon.The aforesaid creates a doubt in the mind as toreally the prosecution conducted the Test IdentificationParade, as stated in documents Exhibits 13 and 13-A.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 24::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::On 25.5.2002, at 00:30 hours, the accused werearrested in a cognizable office.In the present case, in connection with thecommission of the cognizable offence, the Investigating Officerdetained the accused persons after arresting them at 00:30hours.Therefore, it was well within the right of theInvestigating Officer to do all investigations within 24 hours ofthe arrest of the accused persons and if the InvestigatingOfficer was of opinion that it would be impossible to complete .....25/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 25the investigating without the presence of the accused persons,for authorization of their detention, the Investigating Officerwas bound to move before learned Magistrate for extension ofperiod as envisaged under Section 57 of the Code of CriminalProcedure.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::How to conduct investigation, is a sole prerogativeof the Investigating Officer.In his wisdom, he can take allnecessary steps for fruitful investigation.One of such stepscould be holding of Test Identification Parade.Documents Exhibits 13 and 13-A show that thesaid was done between 2:40 in the noon and 4:00 O'clock inthe noon.Thus, well within first 24 hours of the arrest of theaccused persons, the said part of investigation was done by theInvestigating Officer.In that view of the matter since the TestIdentification Parade was already over, there was no reasonfor the Investigating Officer to claim police custody remand .....::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 26for the reason of holding the Test Identification Parade.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::In this case, it is also to be seen that whether theTest Identification Parade was held properly and how muchweightage should be given to it.The Test Identification Parade was conducted byNaib Tahsildar Prakash Mahajan (PW17).In this context, clauses 7 and 21 of the saidCriminal Manual under the head procedure for holding Test .....27/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 27Identification Parades are relevant and those are reproducedherein under:::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::"(vii) After the parade is arranged, one of the two respectable persons should be sent up to bring the accused from the lock-up.Care should be taken to see that when the accused is being brought from the lock up, the identifying witnesses do not have an opportunity of seeing him.They should be kept in quite a different room, out of sight of the lock-up.(xxi) The most important part of the memorandum will be the statements made by the identifying witnesses.These should be very carefully recorded, alongwith the questions asked to the identifying witnesses.(This recording need not be in the question and answer form).For example, an identifying witness may be asked if he is able to identify any one in the parade as the persons who fired the shot, and the identifying witness may point out the accused and may add that it was not the accused who actually fired, but that the accused was standing by the side of the man who had fired the shot.In that case, whatever the identifying witness states, should be carefully noted, as far as possible in his words (translated into English)."::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 28In the above context, the Court will have toscrutinize evidence of Naib Tahsildar Prakash Mahajan(PW17) who conducted the Test Identification Parade.Hisevidence shows that after receipt of requisition (Exhibit 42),he directed the police to arrange more than 12 dummycandidates.He called two panchas.He asked both theaccused persons to stand amongst the dummy candidates asper their wish.As per clause 7 of the Criminal Manual, beforeIdentification Parade, identifying witnesses should not have anopportunity to see accused person.In this context, it would be useful to noticeevidence of Devprasad (PW7).He stated on oath that afterabout one month of the incident, he was called in SaonerTahsil for identification and he and his wife sat in the corridor,meaning thereby that they were not sitting in room.Noevidence is brought on record by the prosecution which clears .....::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 29a doubt regarding not having an opportunity to them to seethe accused persons when these two prosecution witnesseswere sitting in the corridor.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::In addition to that, Naib Tahsildar PrakashMahajan (PW17), who conducted the Test IdentificationParade, candidly stated that when the accused persons werebrought to the Tahsil Office, that time the faces of the accusedpersons were not masked.On the contrary, he stated thatthey were uncovered.Further, Smt.Shampa (PW2) was already shown photographsof Shambabu, accused No.1 by the Investigating Officer duringthe course of the investigation.Evidence of Naib Tahsildar Prakash Mahajan(PW17) shows that he has not followed clause No.21 of the .....30/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 30Criminal Manual inasmuch as after holding of the TestIdentification Parade, he has not recorded statements ofSmt.Shampa (PW2) and Devprasad (PW7).::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Thus, from the aforesaid, insofar as TestIdentification Parade is concerned, following things emerge:(i) by giving requisition (Exhibit 42), the Investigating Officer asked to hold Test Identification Parade for identifying the accused by Smt.Shampa (PW2) alone;(ii) there is no document available on record to show that Devprasad (PW7) was asked to attend Saoner Tahsil Office for identifying the accused persons in the Test Identification Parade;(iii) in addition to that, Investigating Officer Rajesh Dudhalwar (PW20) is silent that even he orally directed Devprasad (PW7) that his presence .....31/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 31 is required at Saoner Tahsil Office to facilitate the Test Identification Parade;(iv) Smt.Shampa (PW2) and Devprasad (PW7) were sitting in corridor and there is no evidence that there was no opportunity for them to see the accused persons before they were taking inside the room where the Test Identification Parade took place;(v) when the accused persons were brought to Saoner Tahsil Office for their identification, at that time they were unmasked and their faces were uncovered;(vi) after completion of the Test Identification Parade, statements of the witnesses were not recorded by Naib Tahsildar Prakash Mahajan (PW17); and .....32/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 32::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::(vii) Smt.In Hasib vs. State of Bihar AIR 1972 SC 283, this Court observed that a vital factor for determining the value of an identification parade is the effectiveness of the precautions taken by those responsible for holding them against the identifying witnesses having an opportunity of seeing the persons to be identified by them before they are paraded with other persons and also against the identifying witnesses being provided by the investigating authority with other unfair aid or assistance so as to facilitate the .....33/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Shampa (PW2)and Devprasad (PW7) on the point of identification in theCourt.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 36 Smt.Shampa (PW2), after identifying the accusedpersons, states that Shambabu, accused No.1 was holding arevolver.In the oral report (Exhibit 12), she narrated asunder:::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::".............. a person wearing navy blue coloured full sleeves shirt and faded blue coloured jeans and who was of dark complexion, short heighted and slim and having beard and combed his hair backward inserted his revolver into my mouth."Thus, in the First Information Report it wasspecifically reported by the first informant that person havingdark complexion was holding a gun in his hand and he wasshort heighted person.However, in cross-examination, sheagreed Shambabu is having fair complexion.In any case, she did not state Shambabu is havingblack complexion when she identified him in the Court.Further, from evidence of Devprasad (PW7) it isbrought on record that height of Shambabu is about 5' feet 10"::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 37inches.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Therefore, in any case, Shambabu, accused No.1cannot be termed as a person having short height as claimedin the First Information Report.In the First Information Report or even from hersubstantive evidence, Smt.Shampa (PW2) never claims thatshe was able to identify the accused persons because of somespecial characteristics noticed on the persons of the accused.In that view of the matter, when there is varianceof the description of Shambabu, accused No.1 in the FirstInformation Report and from the witness box, it would be veryhazardous on the part of the Court to record a finding that in .....38/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 38this circumstance the Court is bound to give sanctity for theidentification of the accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Similar is the case in respect of Devprasad (PW7) isconcerned.It is true that Arundhati (PW10) identified theaccused persons.According to the prosecution, the said girl waspresent at the time of the incident.She was at the time of theincident aged about 12 years.Though she was witnessed to thecrime, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, during thecourse of the investigation, in the Test Identification Parade, thesaid witness was not produced by the prosecution to identify theaccused persons.There is one more reason for not accepting theevidence of Smt.Shampa (PW2) and Arundhati (PW10).According to these two witnesses, the main door of the housewas latched from inside.It is not brought on record that except .....39/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 39that door there exists any other way for entry in the house.None of these two witnesses claims that they opened the door.The spot panchnama (Exhibit 10) does not show any signs thatthe door was broke open.In this backdrop, suggestion given tothese two witnesses that they were not present in the house atthe time of the incident assumes importance and their presenceitself comes under cloud.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Abdul Hafeez vs.Puranchandand Ramdas are owners of jeweller's shops situated at Agra.According to the prosecution, when Shambabu, accused No.1 .....40/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 40was in police custody remand, on 28.5.2002 he gave hisdisclosure statement to the effect that he sold gold ornaments atAgra and, therefore, Investigating Officer Rajesh Dudhalwar(PW20) along with Shambabu and other staff members went toAgra.At the Agra, Shambabu led the police party to GoelJewellers wherein Puranchand was present.As per the evidenceof the Investigating Officer, Puranchand told him that hepurchased the gold ornaments from Shambabu, melted thoseornaments, prepared gold strips, and produced that gold barsbefore him and he seized those gold bars under seizurepanchnama (Exhibit 30).::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Similarly, as per the evidence of the InvestigatingOfficer, Shambabu led the police party to the shop of RamdasAgrawal (PW13).He came to know from Ramdas that hepurchased the gold ornaments from Shambabu, accused No.1and, thereafter, he melted the same and prepared gold barswhich were seized from him under seizure panchnama (Exhibit .....::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 41::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::32).Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted thatthe seizure of the gold-bars from the shops of the aforesaid twoprosecution witnesses and they identifying Shambabu, accusedNo.1 in the Court the person from whom they purchased thegold-bars is a corroborative piece of evidence.I find myself unable to agree with the submission oflearned Additional Public Prosecutor.If evidence of PuranchandAgrawal (PW12) and Ramdas Agrawal (PW13) are perused,evidence of Puranchand shows that about 1½ year back one ladyand three men had come to his shop and those persons wantedto sell gold ornaments to him.However, he was not ready topurchase those gold ornaments.One of men told him that allthe articles belong to him were stolen away and there is amarriage of his sister and due to that he wanted to sell theornaments.Evidence of Puranchand further reveals that sincehe was not ready to purchase the ornaments, they went away.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 42After one hour, all of them came to his shop and they broughtmelted piece of the gold weighting 31 grams which he purchasedat the price of Rs.17,000/-.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Insofar as Ramdas (PW13) is concerned, hisevidence also shows that Rajjan, accused No.2 along with twoother came to his shop and told him that he wanted to sellornaments of his wife.However, he shows reluctance topurchase the ornaments.Thereafter, he asked him firstly to meltthe ornaments, bring pure gold, and then only he will purchasethe same.After, half an hour, Rajjan again came to his shop.Atthat time, it was weighing 40 grams.He purchased that the saidgold at price of Rs.21,000/- from Rajjan.From the evidence of these two prosecutionwitnesses, it is clear that they are giving altogether differentnarrations as to how the gold strips came in their possession.Asper the evidence of Investigating Officer Rajesh (PW20), whenhe visited their shops and seized the gold bars, at that time it .....::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 43was narrated by these prosecution witnesses that they purchasedthe gold ornaments and then melted and converted it into thegold bars.However, in the Court they are deposing exactly theopposite.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::In any case, the Investigating Officer was knowingthat the gold seized from these two prosecution witnesses wasstolen property in its original state.Therefore, it was very clearthat these two persons were receiver of the stolen propertywhich is punishable under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code.However, these two persons were not booked for the saidoffence by the Investigating Officer.It is altogether differentthat whether the prosecution would have been successful inproving their guilt for the offence under Section 411 of theIndian Penal Code.However, they were not booked for the saidoffence.The said shows that the Investigating Officer showedsome leniency in their favour by not registering the offenceagainst them which clearly brings them under the thumb and .....44/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 44dictate of the Investigating Officer.Therefore this Court is notready to attach any importance to the identification of theaccused persons by these two prosecution witnesses in the Courthall.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::As noticed in the earlier part of this commonjudgment that in the first remand paper the Investigating officerclaimed police custody of the accused persons for obtaining theirfingers' prints because according to the said remand paperfingers' prints were found on the spot at the time of theinvestigation.When the police custody remand was granted, theInvestigating Officer must have taken all steps for obtaining theirfingers' prints for comparing the fingers' prints taken from thespot of the incident.However, the prosecution case is totallysilent about the said aspect.Therefore, that circumstance, in myconsidered view, goes in favour of the accused persons.The re-appreciation and the reevaluation of theentire prosecution case and conspectus of all the aforesaid .....::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 45discussions made in this common judgment leads me to passfollowing order:::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::(i) The criminal appeals are allowed.(ii) The judgment and order of conviction dated 24.3.2004passed by 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur inSessions Trial No.572/2002 is hereby quashed and set aside.(iii) Both appellants are acquitted of the offence under Section392 of the Indian Penal Code.(iv) The appellants are on bail.Their Bail Bonds standcancelled.JUDGE!! BRW !! ...../-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::

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

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

The deceased Disco alias Sukumari, a girl aged 5 yearswas the daughter of P. Ws 1 and 6, the father and the motherwho were drummers by castes.They belong to villageBadachatra, an interior part of Mayurbhanj District.Theyhad three children and the deceased was the eldest.He named their newly borndaughter.He took his meals in their house and went awaysaying that he would come with the new dresses for thenewly born daughter.Next day i.e. on 9.11.88 he came totheir house in the morning with new dresses.He told theparents that he would take the deceased with him to BombayChhak to get new dresses for the other two children.He tookhis lunch and went with deceased towards Bombay Chhak.Sometime after his departure P.W 6 told her husband P.W.1 toproceed to Bombay Chhak as the deceased might be crying.Accordingly P.W. 1 accompanied by one Sambhu proceededtowards that Chhak.On the way they met one Babuli and askedhim whether he had seen the accused and the deceased towhich he replied in the negative.P.W. 1 came back to thevillage and sat in the shop of P.W. 2 who informed that hehad seen the accused going towards village Tulsibanialongwith the deceased.P.W. 1 and Sambhu then went to thatvillage but could not find them there.Therefore they wentto Jharpokharia Police Station and gave a report to theOfficer-in-charge P.W.11 stating that the deceased.P.W. 1again went to the Tulshibani Village where a person informedhim that he has seen the accused going towards his house.P.W. 1 went there and enquired the accused.He told P.W. 1that the deceased had gone back home but P.W. 1, caughthold of him but the accused squirmed away from his grip.P.W. 1, however, again caught him and took him to hisVillage and according to P.W. 1 302on being questioned the accused confessed to have raped andcommitted murder of the deceased.The accused is alleged tohave pointed the place where he had thrown the dead body,whereafter P.W. 1 and others proceeded in that direction.P.W. 11 the Police Officer also came in a jeep and took theaccused into custody, drew up F.I.R. and sent the same tothe Police Station for registration of a case.The accusedis alleged to have led the Police party to the spot wherethe dead body was lying.P.W. 11 found the deceased lyingwith injuries on her vagina and other parts.He held theinquest in the presence of P.W. 4 and others and sent thedead body for post-mortem.P.W. 7 conducted the post-mortem.A girl aged five years was a victim of rape andthereafter murder.The sole appellant before us was tried,convicted and sentenced to death by the Sessions Court andconfirmed by the High Court.He noticed abrasions all over the body.He alsofound one bruise on the left side of the forehead and alacerated wound of 2.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep starting fromthe posterior angle of vagina along the perinium upto theanus.On internal examination he found the followinginjuries."(1) Soft tissues and muscles below the external injuries to the neck were contused with extra- vassation of blood into the soft tissues.(3) The hymen was torn and the floor of the vagina i.e., vaginal channel was lacerated.This injury corresponds to external injury No. 15."The Doctor opined that all the injuries were antemortemand homicidal in nature and cause of death was due toasphyxia and shock as a result of strangulation and also dueto injuries to the vagina.He also opined that the injurieson the neck suggest that the deceased was strangulated bypressure of hands.So far injury to the vagina is concerned,he was of the opinion that the same could have been causedby forcible penetration of a male organ.The accused alsowas examined on 10.11.88 itself by another Doctor P.W 8 forsome abrasions on his genital.P.W. 8, however,categorically stated that on examining the accused he couldnot find any recent sign of sexual intercourse.Theprosecution relied on some blood stains which were found onhis dhoti but the accused explained away by saying that theywere caused by the bleeding of his gums.The accused whenexamined under Section 313 pleaded not guilty.He however,admitted that he went to the house of P.W. 1 but denied therest of the case.The trial court did not accept the P.W. 1, s evidenceregarding the extra-judicial confession alleged to havebeen made by the accused.It held that nobody else hasmentioned about this extrajudicial confession and at anyrate it was supposed to have been made in the presence ofthe police.We have also examined the evidence of P.W. 1 aswell as the evidence of the other witnesses.The trial courthas rightly rejected this part of the prosecution caseregarding the alleged extra-judicial confession.P.W. 6, who is no other than the wifeof P.W. 1, did not even mention about it.The trial court, however, relying on the othercircumstances convicted the accused under Sections 302 and376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to death subject toconfirmation by the High Court and for seven years' rigorousimprisonment for the offence of rape.The sentences aredirected to run concurrently.The High Court confirmed theconviction and sentence awarded by the trial court.(d) Recovery of the dead body of the deceased on the showing of the accused-That the accused pointed out the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying inside a paddy field;(e) Presence of injury on the genital as well as stains of blood on the wearing apparel and nailclippings of the accused."The evidence of P.Ws 1, 2 and 6 are relied upon insupport of the first circumstance namely that the deceasedwas last seen in the company of the accused.P.W. 1 thefather and P.W. 6 the mother deposed that on the day ofoccurrence the accused came to their house and took thedeceased towards Bombay Chhak to purchase new clothes.Theaccused only admitted to the extent namely that he had beento their house and denied the rest of the prosecution case.However, we shall accept the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 6 to theeffect that the accused took the deceased on that day toBombay Chhak.Even otherwise the distance between the two villages is notmuch.P.W. 2 isalso a native of the same village to which P.Ws 1 and 6belong.He deposed that on a Wednesday he had been tovillage pond to take his bath at about 12 noon and whilereturning she saw the accused going towards east with aminor girl aged about 5 years but P.W. 2 does not say thatthe deceased was in his company.He, however, proceeded todepose that he found P.W. 1 searching for some one andthereupon P.W. 2 told him that he has seen the accused witha minor girl going towards the paddy field.He admitted thatdid not know whose daughter was in the company of theaccused.In the cross-examination he further admitted that he did not talk to theaccused.No. doubt P.W. 2's evidence, to some extent,corroborates the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 6 but unfortunatelyeven at the stage of inquest this circumstance namely thatthe deceased was last seen in the company of the accused,was not noted.We will advert to this aspect at a laterstage.The important and crucial circumstance heavilyrelied upon by the prosecution is the alleged recovery ofthe dead body of the deceased on showing of the accused andthe accused pointed the place where the body of the deceasedwas lying.Having carefully gone throughthe evidence of P.W. 1 we find that he has improved hisversion from stage to stage.As already noted both thecourts below were not prepared to place any reliance on hisevidence regarding the extra-judicial confession about whichhe made no mention at any earlier stage.As far as therecovery of the body is concerned, P.W. 1 however deposedthat he managed to catch hold of the accused and brought himto the village and that the police came in a jeep and tookthe accused into custody.Then all of them went towardspaddy field which had been pointed by the accused and onsearch they found the dead body.P.W. 11 the InvestigatingOfficer deposed at he went to village and found the accusedto have been detained.He therefor prepared the F.R.I. andsent the same for registration of the crime.Then hearrested the accused and his evidence and his evidencethereafter to put in his own words reads as under: "The accused pointed out the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying and thereafter led me to the paddy field wherefrom I could recover the dead body of the deceased Disco.As there were good number of persons present apprehending danger to the accused I sent him to the police station.During course of investigation, I examined witnesses, seized the dhoti (M.O. iii),Shirt (M.O.The dead body of the deceased was lying in the paddy field where there were paddy plants which had been damaged and scattered.According to this evidence the accused is alleged tohave taken P.W. 11 and others to the open paddy field wherethe dead body was lying.It is only thereafter that theinquest report was drawn up.However, P.W. 11 stated in hisevidence that before going to the paddy field the F.I.R. Ex.P. 10 was drawn up by him.P.W. 6does not say anything about this aspect.As a matter of factthe trial court has noted the discrepancies in the evidenceof P.Ws 1 and 11 and it is observed as under:"The Investigating Officer, P.W. 11 has stated something more about the find of the dead body.He speaks that the accused pointed out the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying and thereafter led him to the paddy field wherefrom the dead body of the deceased could be recovered.Though this part of this evidence has not been supported by P.W. 1,but from the evidence of both P.Ws 1 and 11 coupled with the evidence of P.W.4 I am persuaded to hold that on the showing of the accused, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from a paddy field."His evidencedoes not in any manner incriminate the accused.P.W. 4deposed that the dead body of the deceased was found lyingin paddy field and that the police held inquest over thedead body in his presence and that the inquest report is P.1 in which he put his signature as a witness.Nothing moreis stated by him.He does not even refer to the presence ofthe accused at the place where the dead body was found or atthe time of inquest, which was held also there.If ready the body has beendiscovered at the instance of the accused there should havebeen discovered at the instance of the accused there shouldhave been a panchanama and a mention about the same in theinquest report.P.W. 11 categorically in his evidence hasstated that after sending the F.I.R. the accused wasquestioned and the body was discovered there-after at the instance of the accused and the inquest washeld over the dead body and P.W. 4 was a panch witness tothe inquest and he also affixed his signature in the inquestreport.But as mentioned above P.W. 4 does not say anythingabout the accused being present anywhere near the placewhere the dead body was found nor there is a reference tothe accused in the inquest report.The only two remainingwitnesses P.Ws 1 and 11 namely the father of the girl andthe Investigating Officer respectively have contradictedeach other.That is the type of evidence regarding thiscrucial circumstance.It is highly dangerous to accept thesame and hold that the dead body was discovered at theinstance of the accused.On the other hand there is any amount of doubtand suspicion about the accused having shown the place ofoccurrence.We may also point out at this stage that thecircumstance that the deceased was last seen in the companyof the accused was not mentioned in the inquest report.Therefore the first circumstance also namely that thedeceased was last seen in the company of the accused is notestablished beyond reasonable doubt.However, when once itis held that the crucial circumstance namely the discoveryof the body at the instance of the accused is notestablished, then the other circumstances are hardlysufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.The courtsbelow have also observed that the accused gave a falseexplanation.According to the prosecution case the accusedis supposed to have stated to P.Ws 1 and 6 that he sent awaythe deceased in a truck.The courts below held that thisexplanation is false mainly on the surmise that a minorgirl could not have come back on her own in a truck.We arenot convinced that on this surmise alone we can hold thatthe accused has given a false explanation.It is notuncommon in villages for children to go about the field andwalk short distances while coming back to the village.Inany event the accused had given an explanation that he sentthe girl back to the village in a truck and the same cannotbe held to be not plausible and therefore false.Then the last circumstance relied upon by the courtsbelow is the presence of some abrasions on the genital ofthe accused and presence of stains blood on the wearingapparels and nail clippings.The prosecution wanted to showthat because of the penetration the accused sustained theabrasions on his penis.When P.W. 8 stated that he couldn't findany sign of sexual intercourse atleast within one hour ofhis examination then it is only a mater of conjectures as towhen the accused had any intercourse.The accused is a managed 57 years and it is not as if he was not used to sexualintercourse.In any event the prosecution has notestablished that the accused had an intercourse on the dayof the occurrence.

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

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

Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that due to the property disputes, the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant with wooden log and that the defacto complainant sustained injuries and the injured discharged from the hospital.He would further submit that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner.Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.Considering the above fact and circumstances of the case and the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.Page 2 of 4[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.Page 3 of 4O.P No.9339 of 2020 25.06.2020http://www.judis.nic.in Page 4 of 4Page 4 of 4The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 324, & 506 (ii) of I.P.C in Crime No.1306 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.http://www.judis.nic.in Page 1 of 4 Crl.O.P No.9339 of 2020Page 1 of 4The case of the prosecution is that there was a property dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and it is alleged that the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant.Hence, the complaint.[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.25.06.2020 asihttp://www.judis.nic.in Page 3 of 4 Crl.O.P No.9339 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.The Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur,The Inspector of Police, Thiruvarur Police Station, Thiruvarur District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Madras.

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

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

2 Facts leading to the institution of the present appeal can be summarized thus :(a) The prosecutrix used to reside in a hostel at village Lasangaon for the purpose of school education.To celebrate holy month of Ramzan, she had returned to her parental house located at Room No.12, New Mhada Transit Camp Chawl No.A/50, Kokari Agar, Antop Hill, Mumbai.The prosecutrix / PW1 then attempted to contact her mother telephonically, but could not.Because of the horrified incident, being disturbed mentally, she consumed eighteen tablets of medicine of her mother and became unconscious.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::Zuber Khan returned to the house along with father of the prosecutrix.They saw the prosecutrix lying in the house in unconscious condition.The prosecutrix was then immediately admitted to Sion hospital, Mumbai, for medical treatment.(c) According to the prosecution case, the prosecutrix regained consciousness on 4th October 2007 and she narrated the incident to her parents.She did not disclose the same to police on that day.On the next day i.e. on 5 th October 2007, the prosecutrix reported the incident to police and accordingly, the First Information Report (FIR) (Exhibit 10) came to be recorded.Consequently, Crime No. 206 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with 34 of the IPC came to be registered with Wadala T.T. Police Station, Mumbai, against the appellant / accused and his two associates.After registration of the crime in question, investigation started.The prosecutrix has clearly deposed about the incident by giving details thereof while in the witness box.The evidence of the prosecutrix shows that her mouth was gagged at the time of the incident.the judgment and order dated 20th December 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.2 of2008, thereby convicting him of the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 376(1) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).The appellant / accused is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 341 read with 34 of the IPC, and for the avk 1/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc offence punishable under Section 376(1) read with 34 of the IPC, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::Police recorded spot panchnama by visiting the spot of the incident.Clothes of the prosecutrix came to be seized.Statement of witnesses were recorded and the avk 3/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc appellant / accused came to be arrested.His clothes were also seized.Papers of medical treatment of the prosecutrix came to be collected.Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis.On completion of routine investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::(d) After committal of the case, Charge for the offences punishable under Section 341 read with 34 of the IPC and under Section 376 read with 34 of the IPC came to be framed against the appellant / accused.He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.(e) In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant / accused, the prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses and also relied on documentary evidence.PW1 is the prosecutrix and the report lodged by her is at Exhibits 10 and 10A. PW2 Kamrunissa Khan is the mother of the prosecutrix.PW4 Dr.Gene Thomas is Medical Officer working with Lokmanya Tilak avk 4/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc Hospital, Sion.She treated the prosecutrix and subsequently referred her for further examination to Gynecologist PW6 Dr.Rajesh Dere, working in the said hospital.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::(f) After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial court was pleased to convict the appellant / accused and he was sentenced as indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment.3 I have heard Ms.Nasreen Ayubi, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant / accused.By taking me through the entire record and proceedings, the learned advocate argued that the evidence adduced by the prosecution goes to show that the family of the prosecutrix and that of the appellant / accused were avk 5/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc on hostile terms.Though PW2 Kamrunissa Khan claimed that the appellant/accused had given threats of dire consequences to her, strangely enough, no report of such threats came to be lodged by her at any point of time.The enmity between the parties points out that the appellant/accused is falsely implicated in the crime in question by the prosecuting party, because of dispute over electric connection to the house of the prosecutrix and her mother.It is further argued that forensic evidence in no manner supports the case of the prosecution and Chemical Analyser's reports are negative.The learned advocate by pointing out evidence of the prosecutrix as well as her mother PW2 Kamrunissa Khan argued that the incident in question allegedly took place in a populous locality of the slum at Antop Hill.However, no independent witness is examined by the prosecution to show that the appellant/accused and his associates entered the house or ran away from the said house because of sound of falling of utensils.Arrest panchnama of the appellant/accused is not prepared nor proved during the course of the trial.With this, the learned advocate argued that the appellant/accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::My attention is drawn to the statement of the prosecutrix in the cross-examination that because of ramzan nobody came out of the house at the relevant time.It is further argued that evidence that evidence of PW6 Dr.Rajesh Dere fully supports and corroborates the version of the prosecutrix.5 I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the record and proceedings.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::the mouth of the prosecutrix as well as her mother PW2 Kamrunissa Khan shows that the prosecutrix was residing in a hostel at Lasangaon for the purpose of education and she had returned just 20 -22 days back to her parental house to celebrate holy month of Ramzan.As seen from the evidence of PW2 Kamrunissa Khan, at the time of the incident, her daughter i.e. PW1 was alone at the house.There is no material in cross-examination of both these witnesses to infer that there was somebody else accompanying the prosecutrix at the time of the incident at her home.On this backdrop, let us examine what the prosecutrix deposed about the actual incident.7 It is evidence of the prosecutrix that at about 6.00 p.m. of 2nd October 2007, she was preparing food at her house.She further deposed that the appellant / accused accompanied by his two associates entered in her house.One of the associates of the appellant / accused closed the door from inside and another avk 8/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc gagged her mouth.Her thighs were pressed by both of them and then, the appellant / accused removed the salwar and committed rape on her.As per version of the prosecutrix, then she kicked the appellant / accused causing his fall on the utensils kept in the house.Because of the sound of falling of utensils, the appellant / accused and his associates ran away from the spot.The prosecutrix further stated that, thereafter, she tried to contact her mother by making a telephone call.Her evidence shows that she was out of house for that purpose for five minutes.She could not contact her mother.Then, she decided to commit suicide and consumed 18 tablets of medicine prescribed to her mother and became unconscious.In her cross-examination, it is elicited from her that on 4 th October 2007 itself, she disclosed the incident to her mother as well as to the doctor.Her cross-examination further reflects that she was an indoor patient at the hospital for twelve days.The prosecutrix further admitted that in front of her room, there is a lane and avk 9/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc thereafter a chawl.People used to go by that lane.It is worthwhile to note that evidence of the prosecutrix that the appellant / accused entered inside her house accompanied by his two associates and raped her with active assistance of his associates is not at all challenged in the cross-examination.Even no suggestion of denials are given to the prosecutrix during the course of her cross-examination by the defence.However, let us attempt to scan the evidence of the prosecution in order to ascertain whether version of the prosecutrix gains corroboration from other evidence on record.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::The report lodged by the prosecutrix is at Exhibits 10 and 10A. When it is compared with her substantive evidence before the court, it is seen that evidence of the prosecutrix is perfectly in consonance with her FIR and as such, she stands corroborated by the FIR lodged by her.10 PW2 Kamrunissa Khan in her chief-examination itself has stated that she had dispute with the appellant / accused over avk 11/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc the issue of electric connection and as she could not pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- demanded by the appellant / accused on that count, she was subjected to threats and the appellant / accused threatened her that he will do such an act that she will remember him throughout her life.No doubt, hostility is a double edged weapon, but many a times, it acts as a motive for commission of crime.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::11 The mother of the prosecutrix further deposed that upon finding her daughter unconscious on 2 nd October 2007, she took her to Sion hospital where she was admitted as an indoor patient.PW2 Kamrunissa Khan further deposed that on 4 th October 2007, her daughter (PW1) regained consciousness and had disclosed to her that on 2nd October 2007, the appellant / accused Murgan along with two unknown persons entered in the house and the appellant / accused forcibly committed rape on her.12 From cross-examination of PW2 Kamrunissa Khan it is brought on record that it was in the morning hours of 4 th October avk 12/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc 2007 itself that PW1 had disclosed the incident to this witness.It is also elicited from the cross-examination of PW2 Kamrunissa Khan that the distance between Wadala T.T. Police Station and her house can be travelled within a span of five minutes.She also admitted that she had not disclosed the incident to police on 4 th October 2007 but with an explanation that she was under the shock of the incident.This witness has also admitted that her house is surrounded by other houses where people reside.This witness further admitted that she had not lodged any complaint about threats given by the appellant / accused.13 On appreciation of evidence of PW1 prosecutrix and her mother PW2 Kamrunissa Khan, it is crystal clear that the incident in question was disclosed by the prosecutrix to her mother in the morning hours of 4 th October 2007 when the prosecutrix regained consciousness.This narration constitutes former statement of the prosecutrix in respect of the incident when her mind was unpolluted from the external interference.Use of such former statement of the prosecutrix can be made to avk 13/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc corroborate her version as per the provisions of Section 157 of the Evidence Act. Evidence of PW2 Kamrunissa Khan disclosing former statement of the prosecutrix made to her immediately after regaining consciousness after the incident in question, fully corroborates the version of the prosecutrix.14 The line of cross-examination of PW2 Kamrunissa Khan - mother of the prosecutrix is to the effect that despite knowing about the incident on 4 th October 2007 itself and though her house is very near to the jurisdictional police station, no attempts were made by the prosecuting party to lodge the FIR against the appellant / accused.The testimony of the mother of the prosecutrix contains answer to this aspect of the matter.She deposed that she was under mental shock.One may argue that the incident in question took place on 2 nd October 2007, the prosecutrix regained consciousness on 4th October 2007, her parents as well as the doctor were informed about the incident on 4th October 2007 itself, but still the FIR came to be lodged on 5 th October 2007, and therefore, there is delay in lodging the FIR, avk 14/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc which is fatal to the prosecution.However, it needs to be kept in mind that the prosecutrix has deposed that on 4th October 2007 because of pain and agony of the incident she could not lodge report to the police.Her mother PW2 Kamrunissa Khan has stated that as she was under mental shock after hearing the disclosure by the prosecutrix, she could not lodge the report on 4 th October 2007 itself.If properly explained, delay in lodging the FIR in the matter of sexual offence is of no consequence.Valuable reference can be had to this proposition from the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarath 1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered and enumerated several reasons for delay in approaching police in sexual offences.Those are as under :::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::(1) A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non- permissive Society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred.1 AIR 1983 Supreme Court 753 avk 15/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc (2) She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracised by the Society or being looked down by the Society including by her own family members, relatives, friends and neighbours.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::(3) She would have to brave the whole world.(4) She would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her own husband and near relatives, and of her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered.(5) If she is unmarried, she would apprehend that it would be difficult to secure an alliance with a suitable match from a respectable or an acceptable family.(6) It would almost inevitably and almost invariably result in mental torture and suffering to herself.(7) The fear of being taunted by others will always haunt her.(8) She would feel extremely embarrassed in relating the incident to others being over powered by a feeling of shame on account of the upbringing in a tradition bound society where by and large sex is taboo.avk 16/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc (9) The natural inclination would be to avoid giving publicity to the incident lest the family name and family honour is brought into controversy.(10) The parents of an unmarried girl as also the husband and members of the husband's family of a married woman would also more often than not, want to avoid publicity on account of the fear of social stigma on the family name and family honour.(11) The fear of the victim herself being considered to be promiscuous or in some way responsible for the incident regardless of her innocence.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::(12) The reluctance to face interrogation by the investigating agency, to face the court, to face the cross examination by Counsel for the culprit, and the risk of being disbelieved, acts as a deterrent.In the light of these observations, though infact a marginal delay in lodging the FIR finds explanation in the case of the prosecution, even if it is assumed that there is some delay in lodging the FIR, it is of no consequence.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::double edged weapon and can prove to be a motive for commission of offence.In the case in hand, the prosecutrix and her family members were residing in a slum area.As seen from the evidence of PW2 Kamrunissa Khan, it was the appellant / accused who had demanded an amount of Rs.2,000/- for getting electric connection to her room.The appellant / accused is not an employee of electric supply company.This indicates that the appellant / accused was in a dominating position to demand an amount of Rs.2,000/- from the family of the prosecutrix for getting supply of electricity to their house.Considering the fact that parents of the prosecutrix were residing in the slum area having dominance of the appellant / accused, the fact that PW2 Kamrunissa Khan had not lodged report of previous threat by the appellant / accused to the police, cannot be given any overbearing importance to reject her testimony.For these reasons, testimony of the prosecutrix as well as her mother are found to be reliable and trustworthy.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::of the prosecutrix is the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution on record.Evidence of PW4 Dr.Gene Thomas, so also contemporaneous papers of medical treatment of the prosecutrix which are at Exhibit 15A congruously shows that it was in the night intervening 2nd October 2007 and 3rd October 2007 and precisely at about 2.32 a.m. of 3 rd October 2007, that the prosecutrix was admitted to Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Hospital.Evidence of PW4 Dr.Gene Thomas shows that after regaining consciousness, the prosecutrix /pw1 had given history of sexual assault, and therefore, she was referred to gynecologist i.e. PW6 Dr.Rajesh Dere.As per version of PW6 Dr.Rajesh Dere, on 4 th October 2007, he examined the prosecutrix and recorded history given by her in medical case papers (Exhibit 15A).As per version of this witness, upon examining the prosecutrix medically, he found evidence of reddening in surrounding area of introitus hymen present marginally.There was a bruise mark, pink in colour on right elbow, medial side of the prosecutrix.PW6 Dr.Rajesh Dere deposed that after medical examination of the avk 19/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc prosecutrix, he opined (Exhibit 22) that there is evidence of recent sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix with evidence of sign of struggle.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::17 Evidence of PW4 Dr.Gene Thomas and PW6 Dr.Papers of medical treatment of the prosecutrix show that the attending Medical Officers i.e. PW4 Dr.Gene Thomas and PW6 Dr.Rajesh Dere had recorded the history as sexual assault by three persons.Name of the appellant / accused is figuring as the culprit in the history recorded at 8.15 a.m. of 4th October 2007 by the Medical Officers in the medical case papers at Exhibit 15A. These medical papers also reveal that upon internal examination of the prosecutrix, the Medical Officers found her hymen absent as well as reddening in area around introitus hymen.PW6 Dr.Rajesh Dere had recorded history given by the prosecutrix at 1.15 p.m. of 4 th October 2007, as reflected in medical case papers Exhibit 15A wherein the prosecutrix had narrated about sexual assault by the appellant / avk 20/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc accused.This medical evidence is fully corroborating the version of the prosecutrix.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::18 Clothes of the prosecutrix came to be seized vide seizure panchnama Exhibit 13 in presence of PW3 Mohd. Nasir Shaikh by the Investigating Officer PW7 P.S.I. Suhas Anant Yadav.Evidence of PW3 Mohd. Nasir Shaikh, to the effect that upon seizure, clothes of the prosecutrix were sealed, is not challenged in the cross-examination.It shows that salwar and kurta of the prosecutrix were stained with human blood.This implies that the prosecutrix was subjected to violence and corroborates her version about the incident.19 Undoubtedly, the place of the incident is surrounded by several houses.It is a populous area.House of the prosecutrix was having lane in front of it, which was used by passers by.The defence has criticized the avk 21/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc version of the prosecution by stating that, still, no independent witness who had seen the appellant / accused and his associates entering in the house or leaving the house, so also hearing sounds of falling of utensils are examined by the prosecution.This submission is not having any merit because evidence of the prosecutrix shows that her mouth was gagged at the time of the incident in question.It was the month of holy Ramzan and the prosecutrix has stated that because of this reason, nobody was coming out of the house.Even otherwise, when available evidence is sufficient for proving the guilt, the non- examination of other witnesses, though available, does not render the prosecution case suspect.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::20 In the result, the prosecution has established that the appellant / accused with the help of his associates wrongfully restrained the prosecutrix / PW1 and committed rape on her.The sentence imposed is also legal and appropriate.The appeal is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::

['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

It is the case of the prosecution that one Rama Shankar Satvi was staying at Village Khutal, Taluka Wada, along with his wife Sitabai and son Vijay and with deceased Ujwala and their children.The deceased Ujwala married with accused No.1 Vijay prior to about six years from the date of the incident.It is the case of the prosecution that initially for about 1 and ½ years since their marriage, the accused No.1 and the deceased, were staying happily.Subsequently, the accused No.1 started beating the deceased and was also subjected to illtreatment and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 4 APEAL 906 of 1990 cruelty.It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused No.2 also treated the deceased with cruelty.The deceased used to complain about the said illtreatment to her brother Laxman Balu Mali and Mother Gangabai Mali and brother-in-law Bhaskar Balu Komb.As per the case of the prosecution, on 15-04-1986, the deceased Ujawala left the house for doing the labour work, but she did not return in the evening.Thereafter, her father-in-law i.e. Shankar, tried to search her in a nearby area and ultimately found that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself at a tree.He thereafter, informed the police officer of at Wada Police Station.Krishna V. Patil (PSI) made entry in the register as an accidental death and thereafter, went to the scene of the offence and removed the deadbody from the tree.Inquest panchanama was prepared.When he reached at the field, he saw that the deceased has hanged herself to a tree and that she was not alive.He further deposed that he then returned to his house and narrated the said incident to her son and wife and gave complaint to the police.In the cross-examination, the said witness has admitted that the deceased wife had not seen the accused No.1 at the time of their marriage.He however, admitted that the deceased used to stay for about 7-8 days and she used to go back to the parents house for a long time.He has stated that the deceased was his younger sister and that the marriage has taken place prior to 7 hears of the incident.He deposed that for initial 1 and ½ years, the deceased and her husband were staying happily and subsequently, the accused No.1 started beating her.He stated that the deceased had came to their house 4-5 days prior to the incident of hanging.On inquiry, the deceased told that she was beaten by accused Nos.1 and 2 and she will go back to her matrimonial house after she becomes all right.The said witness stated that after 2-3 days, the husband and sister-in-law of the deceased came to their house and took her back to their house.In the cross-examination, the said witness explicitly admitted that he is not having any medical certificate to show that the deceased was treated by Doctor.He stated that at the relevant time, he was Medical Officer at Rural Hospital, Wada.The said doctor had performed postmortem examination of the deceased.He has deposed that at the time of external examination, he found that the neck of the deadbody was stretched and face congested and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 11 APEAL 906 of 1990 swollen.In her evidence, she stated that prior to the 8 days of the incident, the deceased had been to her parental house and there was a swelling on her neck.On an inquiry, the deceased told that she was assaulted by her husband.In the cross-examination, the said witness admitted that the accused No.1 gave two mounds of paddy as dowry at the time of marriage.The sister of the deceased Smt.DATE : 27TH AUGUST, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.) : -This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th December, 1990 passed by the learned 8th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No.323 of 1987, by which the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 2 APEAL 906 of 1990 learned Sessions Judge has convicted both the appellants under Section 498(A) read with Section 34 as well as under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ( for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as IPC).By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused No.1 under Section 498(A) read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- and in default, to suffer one month rigorous imprisonment.The appellant/accused No.1 is also convicted under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC and was sentenced to suffer one year R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default of which, the appellant/accused No.1 shall suffer one month R.I.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::The appellant No.2 who was the original accused No.2 in the above Sessions Case, was also convicted under Sections 498(A) read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default, to suffer R.I., for one month.She was also convicted under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I., for one month.The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has pointed out to the Court that the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 3 APEAL 906 of 1990 appellant/accused No.1 Mr.Vijay Rama Satvi, has died.We accordingly directed the learned APP to make an inquiry about the same and today, she has confirmed the said fact that the appellant No.1 has already died.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::In this connection, she has placed on record a fax message which she has received from the concerned police station.The said fax massage is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification.In view of the above factual position, the above appeal stands abated qua appellant/accused No.1 Mr.Vijay Rama Satvi.Now, the above appeal is required to be decided regarding appellant/accused No.2 only.At the time of hearing of the above appeal, this Court has also issued notice to the accused for enhancement of the punishment, bearing Suo Motu Criminal Petition No.1 of 1991 and the same is also taken for hearing with the present appeal.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::The deadbody was thereafter sent to the hospital for post-mortem and Dr.Waran, conducted the post-mortem.A complaint was accordingly lodged vide Exh.32 against the aforesaid accused.Offence was registered at C.R.No.I-41 of 1986 under Section 498(A) and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.Subsequently, both the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 5 APEAL 906 of 1990 accused came to be arrested.After completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted in the Court of J.M.F.C., who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::On 08-06-1989, a charge was framed against both the accused under Section 498(A) and 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.Both the accused did not plead guilty to the charges levelled against them.During the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, Mr.Laxman Balu Mali was examined as P.W.2, who was the brother of the deceased.Mohan Ramchandra Waran (P.W.3) was also examined by the prosecution, who had conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased.The mother of the deceased was examined as P.W.4 and the brother-in-law Mr.The investigating Officer Krishna Vithoba Patil, was examined as P.W.7 by the prosecution.The learned Sessions Judge by his impugned judgment and order dated 19-12-1990, came to the conclusion that both the accused are guilty for an offences punishable under Section 498(A) and 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly awarded sentence, as stated above.It is the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction, which ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 6 APEAL 906 of 1990 is challenged by both the accused by way of present appeal.As pointed out earlier, at the time of admitting the appeal, since the Court was of the opinion that sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, is required to be enhanced, a notice was therefore, issued to both the accused to show cause as to why the sentenced awarded to them should not be enhanced.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has committed grave error in convicting the accused under Section 498(A) as well as 306 of Indian Penal Code.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the marriage between the deceased Ujwala and the accused No.1, was solemnized prior to seven years from the date of incident and the deceased unfortunately was not willing to cohabit with the accused No.1 and she infact, dislike the accused No.1 from the beginning.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that from the evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased frequently used to go at her maternal house and was not willing to come and stay with the husband, but on the insistence of her parents, she used to go back at her matrimonial house.It is submitted by him that the deceased and accused belonging to a tribal community and in the said community, the husband gives dowry to a wife, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 7 APEAL 906 of 1990 which fact was established in the evidence.The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that it is not a ground where the deceased committed suicide on the ground of demand of dowry amount.It is submitted by him that there is absolutely no medical evidence brought on record by the prosecution to establish that the deceased was subjected to illtreatment or beating at the hands of either the accused No.1/husband or mother-in-law.The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously submitted that none of the neighbours of the vicinity have been examined by the prosecution to prove the fact that the deceased was subjected to illtreatment or beating by the accused Nos.1 and 2 in any manner.It is contended by him that as a matter of fact, the father-in-law of the deceased informed the police about the incident in question.He noticed the deadbody of his daughter-in-law which was found in hanging condition on a tree in the forest.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that when there is no evidence about any sort of illtreatment by the appellants, the learned Sessions Judge could not have convicted the appellants/accused for an offences punishable under Section 498(A) and 306 of Indian Penal Code.It is submitted by him that if really, it is the case of illtreatment on the part of the husband or mother-in-law of the deceased, at least during the period of 6-7 years of married life, the parents of the deceased could have lodged their protest in this behalf, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 8 APEAL 906 of 1990 before the in-laws of the deceased or either by filing any police complaint.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was not willing to stay with the accused No.1 husband and she was interested in getting divorce.But since the amount of dowry was required to be repaid by the parents of the girl, that they were insisting the deceased to go back to the matrimonial house and that is the reason why perhaps, she committed the said act of suicide.The learned APP in her turn, supported the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.The learned APP contended that as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, especially from the evidence of the mother and brother, brother-in-law and sister of the deceased, it is clearly established that the deceased was subjected to illtreatment and was beaten by the appellant/accused, which ultimately resulted into this unfortunate incident.It is submitted by the learned APP that simply because no complaint has been filed regarding illtreatment or beating against the appellants/accused, it cannot be said that the factum of such illtreatment narrated by the deceased to her relatives, is unbelievable.The learned APP further submitted that since allegations was also made against the mother-in-law of the deceased, she has been rightly convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence awarded to the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 9 APEAL 906 of 1990 appellant/accused No.2 is required to be enhanced.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned APP for the State at some length and have also gone through the evidence on record.In order to find out whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused, it is necessary to weigh the evidence adduced by the prosecution.The prosecution has examined Mr.Ramashankar Satvi (P.W.In para No.3 of his deposition, he stated that on the date of incident, the deceased had gone for work on the field.She did not return back in the evening.He therefore, went to see as to what has happened.The said witness further admitted that no quarrel had taken place between him, his son and his wife with the deceased in any manner.He further ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 10 APEAL 906 of 1990 stated that he had already complained to the parents of the deceased that she was not staying in the matrimonial house and that she had informed her parents that she did not like her husband.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::The prosecution has also examined Laxman Balu Mali (P.W.He also found that there were two abraded superficial injuries on the calf and the age of which were 6 to 12 hours.Except the same, there was no other injuries on the deadbody of the deceased.The cause of the death is stated to have been asphyxias with apoplexy due to hanging.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::The mother of the deceased Gangabai Balu Mali was examined as P.W.4 by the prosecution.She also in her deposition, reiterated the fact that prior to 8-9 days of the incident, the deceased came to their house and stated that she was badly beaten by her husband.In her cross-The prosecution has also examined Mr.Krishna V. Patil (P.W.7) at Exh.21, who has registered the FIR.On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned counsel ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 12 APEAL 906 of 1990 for the appellants submitted that so far as the surviving accused is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence worth the name to suggest that the deceased was subjected to any illtreatment at the hands of the said accused.In this connection, it is required to be noted that the deceased and her husband i.e. original accused No.1, were residing happily for about 1 and ½ years since their marriage.There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that at the time of incident, by which time seven years have passed since the marriage of the deceased and the accused No.1, any grievance/protest in any manner was put forth by the parents of the deceased with the parents of the husband in any manner.It is required to be noted that on behalf of the appellant/accused, it is suggested by the learned counsel that since the deceased wife did not like the husband, she often used to go to her parent's place.The fact that the deceased wife used to go to her parents house frequently, can be said to have been established from the evidence on record.If for such a long period about of five years, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or illtreatment, at least it is expected from the parents of the girl to raise this issue with the parents of the husband or at least such things would have been narrated to other caste community people.The distance between matrimonial house and her parental house is about six kilometers.If any such illtreatment of such a nature had taken place, at least, the nearby neighbours residing in the adjoining houses, normally would come to know about the said aspect.However, no neighbours have been examined to prove the said fact.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::Waran (P.W.3) in his evidence, has also clearly stated that there was no other external injuries on the deadbody of the deceased except abrasion on the calf, which according to the learned counsel for the appellants, might have been caused when the deceased tried to hang herself by taking rope in her hand.On the contrary, at the time of marriage, infact the dowry was paid by the husband to the deceased wife.It is pertinent to note that for more than six years, no protest was lodged, nor any complaint was filed by the parents of the deceased in connection with the alleged illtreatment to the accused.Now in this appeal, the Court is required to consider the case of appellant/accused No.2 i.e. mother-in-law only.In our view, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the appellant/accused No.2 treated her daughter-in-law with cruelty or illtreated her in any manner.As a matter of fact, as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 14 APEAL 906 of 1990 deceased when she last visited her parental house, she made a complaint about illtreatment, which was attributed to the husband and she has not stated anything about her mother-in-law in this connection.Considering the evidence on record, in our view, it is not possible for us to believe that the deceased was subjected to illtreatment at the hands of mother-in-law i.e. accused No.2 or that she had beaten the accused, by which the deceased wife was compelled to commit suicide.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::Explanation to Section 107 states that any willful misrepresentation or willful concealment of material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of "abetment".It is manifest that under all the three situations, direct involvement of the person or persons concerned in the commission of offence of suicide is essential to bring home the offence under Section 306 of the IPC".::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::"My mother in law and husband and sister in law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me.They beat me and abused me.My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time.He has illicit connections with my sister-in-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::Considering the totality of the circumstances, as discussed above, especially when for all six years of married life, no steps were taken by the parents of the deceased by lodging protest in any form before any one, including before the parents of the deceased, in our view, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 17 APEAL 906 of 1990 it is not safe to convict the appellant/accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) as well as 306 of Indian Penal Code.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::In view of the above, in our view, the order of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellant/accused No. 2 is not sustainable.So far as the suo motu enhancement notice is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge has awarded one month rigorous imprisonment to the appellant/accused No.2 on the ground that she is an old lady.At the relevant time, she was 55 years of age.Considering the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the accused No.2 is guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498(A) and 306 of Indian Penal Code.In view of what is stated above, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and order recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, is set aside.The bail bond of appellant/accused No.2 stands cancelled.The suo motu Petition No.1 of 1991 is also disposed of ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. ) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

7 It is seen from the records, the petitioner was President of the fourth respondent Society.2 The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur.3 The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mannargudi, Thiruvarur District.4 The Managing Director, T-793, The Mannargudi Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Kamarajar Street, Pathaladi, Mannargudi, Thiruvarur District.5 R.Ayyappan Vice President and Executive Member, The Mannargudi Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Mannargudi, Thiruvarur District.W.P.No.3870 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.3932 of 201718.05.2017http://www.judis.nic.inThe petitioner has nothing to do with the allegations made by the respondents.The third respondent also lodged complaint to the Inspector of Police, CCIW, Thiruvarur.Followed by the same, the 5th respondent passed a resolution, dated 14.12.2016 by revoking the earlier resolution passed by the 4th respondent and passed a fresh resolution to the effect that the 5th respondent has taken charge as President of the Society.The respondents 4 and 5 have no authority for removal of the petitioner from the post of President.The competent authority is Registrar under Section 34 of the said Act. Therefore, the impugned resolutions passed by the respondents 4 and 5 are liable to be quashed.4 The learned Additional Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that statutory enquiry was conducted and the report submitted to the third respondent/Deputy Registrar.The said proceeding is still pending before the second respondent/Joint Registrar.He further submitted that on the basis of the enquiry report, a criminal complaint was lodged with the Inspector of Police, CCIW (CID), Tiruvarur and F.I.R. has been registered in Cr.No.4 of 2016 on 15.11.2016 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 408, 409, 468, 471, 471-A and 34 of I.P.C. for misappropriation of Rs.13,21,349/- against the petitioner and others.During the investigation, petitioner was arrested by the police on 16.11.2016 and he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Mannargudi and remanded to judicial custody for 13 days.Thereafter, he was released on bail on 28.11.2016 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur in Crl.The learned Additional Govt. Pleader further submitted that the resolution No.1 passed by the fourth respondent, dated 24.11.2016 removing the petitioner from the office of the President was subsequently cancelled by another resolution, dated 14.12.2016 passed by the 5th respondent/Vice President and other remaining Board members.Hence, the resolution, dated 24.11.2016 passed by the Managing Director ceased to operate and nothing survives to challenge the said resolution.6 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, learned Special Govt. Pleader for the respondent No.4 and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent and perused the materials on record.The third respondent ordered statutory inquiry into the alleged financial irregularities.The enquiry was conducted under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-op.Societies Act, 1983 and the report was submitted to the third respondent.On the basis of the enquiry report, the third respondent lodged a complaint and F.I.R. has been registered in Cr.No.4 of 2016 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 408, 409, 468, 471, 471-A and 34 of I.P.C. for misappropriation of Rs.13,21,349/- against the petitioner and others and the petitioner was arrested.Subsequently, he was released on bail.8 Further, Deputy Registrar/third respondent also forwarded recommendation for disqualification and removal of the petitioner from the post of President under Section 34 and 36 of TNCS Act to the second respondent and the said proceeding is still pending before the second respondent.At this juncture, the fourth respondent passed the impugned resolution by removing the petitioner as President of the Society.Subsequently, the 5th respondent passed the impugned resolution, dated 14.12.2016 by cancelling the resolution, dated 24.11.2016 passed by the 4th respondent.In the aforesaid resolution, it has been mentioned that on account of disqualification attracted against the petitioner, Rule 57 of the TNCS Rules, 1988 has been invoked and the 5th respondent assumed the office of the President and exercised the power under Rule 57 of the TNCS Rules, 1988 in the absence of the petitioner.9 Admittedly, the petitioner was arrested for the alleged offences as stated supra and subsequently released on bail.Further, it has been stated by the third respondent that on the basis of the enquiry report, the third respondent has recommended for disqualification and removal of the petitioner from the office of President under Section 34 and 36 of TNCS Act. The said proceeding is still pending with the second respondent.10 On a perusal of Section 36 of the Act, the President of the society shall be removed from the office by the competent authority viz., the Registrar.According to the learned Additional Govt. Pleader, the impugned resolution has been passed under Rule 57 of the TNCS Rules, 1988 when the office of the President is vacant or the President continue to absent, the Vice President shall exercise all the powers of the President.The Board authorised 5th respondent/Vice President to act as President.Subsequently, the petitioner was released on bail.In view of the interim order granted by this Court, the Joint Registrar/ second respondent has to pass orders on the proposal submitted by the Deputy Registrar/third respondent.11 The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submits that subsequently, final surcharge proceedings under Section 87(1) of the said Act has been passed wherein the name of the petitioner was dropped in the said proceedings.Admittedly, the criminal case registered in Cr.No.4 of 2016 by the Inspector of Police, CCIW (CID), Tiruvarur is still pending before the concerned Court.12 Recording the submission made by the learned Additional Govt. Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 that the petitioner assumed office of the President of the Society by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court, this writ petition is disposed of.However, liberty is granted to the respondents 2 and 3 to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.13 Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.No costs.Consequently, connected W.M.P.No.3932 of 2017 is closed.18.5.2017Speaking / Non Speaking orderIndex : Yes/No Internet : Yes/Novaan D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

9. PW-1 Tahir (informant) has stated that on 07.10.2012 in the night his daughter aged about 14 years was enticed away by the accused-appellant.He searched his daughter but could not get her.She was seen by Noor Hasan and Kasim being taken by accused accompanied by other accused persons who lived in neighborhood of informant.When he got this information in the next morning at 7.00 AM, he went to the police station, but the police advised him to search the daughter.After two days, he got the written report inscribed by a person and gave it to the concerned police station.After a month, his daughter was delivered to him by the police after completing the formalities.PW-2 victim has stated that on 07.10.2012, in the night, accused Sanjay, who is of her village, came to her house.She was sleeping with her mother.He got her and her mother to smell some thing and thereafter he picked her to railway station by cycle and thereafter took her to Haridwar by train.From Haridwar, he took her to Sidkul by auto-riksha and kept her in a room near factory.Whenever, she tried to alarm, he threatened her by dire consequences and on coming back in the evening he used to commit rape and sexually abuse her against her wishes.On leaving the room, he used to lock the door from the out side.When the accused took her to Roorki, a boy of her village saw her and informed her family member and the police.Thereafter, the police recovered her.She has further stated that at that time she was 13 years old.PW-3 Mohd. Kasim has stated that he knows the informant Tahir, his daughter and accused Sanjay.About a year ago when he had gone to forest to attend the call of nature, he saw the accused Sanjay going with victim catching her hand.This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 01.5.2015 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, District Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No. 205 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 272 of 2012 (State of U.P. Vs.Sanjay), whereby learned court below has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 363 IPC, for three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, three months additional imprisonment, for the offence under section 366 IPC, four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, three months additional imprisonment and for the offence under section 376 IPC, seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default, nine months additional imprisonment.All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently and the undergone period has been directed to be adjusted in the sentence.It has been further directed by the court below to give Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the victim.The brief prosecution story is that on 07.10.2012 in the night, the daughter of informant aged about 14 years was enticed away by the accused-appellant who lived in the neighborhood of victim.While they were going, they were seen by Noor Hasan and Kasim.In the kidnapping of victim, the family members of accused appellant, Mangat, Smt. Reena, Menkumar, Smt. Shakuntala have also assisted the accused-appellant.On the written report filed by informant, a case was registered against accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 363, 366 IPC.The case was investigated.The victim was recovered and her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Magistrate on the basis of which, offence under section 376 IPC was also added by the Investigating Officer.After completing the investigation, charge sheet was submitted for the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC against accused-appellant.The prosecution examined PW-1Tahir (informant), PW-2 victim, PW-3 Mohd. Kasim, PW-4 Dr. Renu Sharma, PW-5 SI Amar Singh, PW-6 Ravindra Singh, PW-7 Constable Indrajeet and PW-8 Dr. Surendra Singh, Radiologist to prove the incident and the documents such as written report, Ext. Ka-1, Supurdaginama, Ext. Ka-2, memo of clothes, Ext. Ka-3, statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., Ext. Ka-4, medical report of victim, Ext. Ka-5, Pathology and X-ray report, Ext. Ka-6 and 7, site map, Ext. Ka-8, memo of arrest, Ext. Ka-9, copy of G.D. Ext. Ka-10, memo of arrest and information Ext. Ka-11, charge sheet Ext. Ka-12, statement of victim Ext. Ka-13, photostat of admission register Ext. Ka-14, FIR Ext. Ka-15, carban copy of G.D. Ext. Ka-16, arrest of accused Ext. Ka-17 and X-ray report Ext. Ka-18 and X-ray plate Ext. I.The statement of accused-appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. who denied the incident and has stated that because of enmity with regard to election of Village Pradhan in which he had given vote to one Sukkha Khande, he has been falsely implicated in this case by the informant.After hearing the prosecution and defence and appreciating the evidence on record, the learned court below convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as above.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, this appeal has been filed in which the impugned judgment has been challenged.Heard Sri Sarvjeet Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order impugned in this appeal on the ground that judgment is illegal, perverse and based on surmises and conjectures.The testimony of witnesses does not support the prosecution story and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond shadow of any doubt.The victim was major as per medical report and she herself left her father's house with her own free will and consent and lived with accused-appellant on so many places without raising any alarm.He informed about it to the father of the victim in the morning.He investigated the case and recorded statement of witnesses and prepared the site map on the pointing out of informant.The accused was arrested on bus stand and mobile call details were traced and father of the victim was asked to provide birth certificate and photograph of the victim.On 03.11.2012 at Kailashpur bus station, accused was seen and effort was made to arrest him but any how he ran away.The victim was recovered with him on 04.11.2012 and accused Sanjay was arrested.The clothes of victim were taken in possession and after recording her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. she was delivered back to her father.Thereafter, along with medical report, charge sheet was filed before the court.14. PW-6 Ravindra Singh has stated that he is Principal in Primary Pathshala, Beri Jama, Block Baliyakhedi.On 20.10.2012, father of victim had come to the school and he asked to provide birth certificate of victim and seeing the attendance and admission register of victim, he provided birth certificate to him.PW-8 Dr. Surendra Singh is the Senior Radiologist who stated that on 5.11.2012 in S.B.D. Hospital, he conducted the x-ray of victim on the basis of which he prepared the medical report.In State of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh, AIR 1996 SC 1993, the girl was picked and taken to a tub-well and was raped and thereafter was dropped on her college gate and she appeared in examination and on returning back to her home place, she disclosed the event to her mother and then the FIR was lodged.In Dildar Singh vs State of Punjab, AIR 2006 SC 3084, where the victim was below 16 years in age and accused-appellant was her art teacher.Where she was kept in Haridwar, other were also living in other rooms of the building as there was common toilet and there was a window in the room opening from inside and she could cause alarm.Order dated - 02.08.2019 RCT/-(Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava)

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

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

DATED: FEBRUARY 22, 2019 P.C.:This revision application, filed by the applicants, who are the mother in law and the husband of the deceased Mangal, is directed against the order dated 5.7.2018 by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Solapur, rejecting the discharge application filed by the applicants/accused in Sessions Case No.9 of 2017 arising out of FIR No.154 of 2015 registered with Mohol police station, Solapur.The applicants/accused are facing charges under sections 498A, 323, 509, 504B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The marriage of the deceased and the applicant/husband took place on 8.5.2014 and she died on 23.4.2015 i.e., within one year Page 1 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 01:36:56 ::: revn.408.2018_912.docfrom the date of the marriage.Page 1 of 3::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 01:36:56 :::It is the case of the prosecution that after the marriage, whenshe was residing with the applicants, she was harassed, torturedmentaly as well as physically on account of various reasons.There was a demand of money from the deceased by theapplicants.So also, they used to assault her for not bringingmoney and not doing the househod work properly.On 5.4.2015,the complainant, the father of the deceased, on receipt ofinformation that Mangal had been brutally assaulted, she wasbrought to her maiden house and was admitted for treatment.The learned Counsel for the applicants/accused hassubmitted that there is no evidence against the applicants/accusedmuchless no evidence under section 304B of the Indian PenalCode.In the postmortem report, there is no mention of anyexternal or internal injury.In the absence of such proof of hisassault, it cannot be said that she died due to the assault orbeating.He further submitted that there is no evidence to showthat before her death, there was a demand of dowry or money by Page 2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 01:36:56 ::: revn.408.2018_912.docthe applicants/accused.Thus, the ingredients of section 304B ofthe Indian Penal Code are not seen in the evidence before theCourt and especially, in the statements of the witnesses and,therefore, he prays for discharge of the accused specifically fromsection 304B of the Indian Penal Code.Page 2 of 3::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 01:36:56 :::Learned Prosecutor while opposing this application hasrelied on the statements of the complainant i.e., the father of thedeceased, namely, Sanjay Hari Athavle, Sangeeta SureshGaikwad and Sangeeta S. Bansode and has submitted that thesewitnesses have stated that on 5.4.2015, Mangal was brutallyassaulted by the applicants/accused.She died due to the cruelbehaviour of the applicants/accused and, therefore, she supportedthe order of the learned Sessions Judge.Perused the record, the statements of the witnesses andconsidered the submissions of the learned Prosecutor as also thelearned Counsel for the accused.After going through this, I am ofthe opinion that prima facie, there is evidence to frame chargesunder the relevant sections.Hence, this application is rejected.(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) Page 3 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 01:36:56 :::Page 3 of 3::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 01:36:56 :::

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

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

Background facts as highlighted by the prosecution version sans unnecessarydetails are as follows:On the fateful day at about 9.30 a.m. deceased accompanied by Mansingh (PW4) and Gulabsingh (PW 7) was going from his village Talod to Alote.Theaccused persons were hiding behind bushes on the road near village Gharola.They were armed with lathies and farsies.When the deceased and theaforesaid two persons reached near the Khakhra, the respondents surroundedthem and started attacking the deceased with weapons with which they werearmed.His nose was cut.4 and 7 tried to intervene, but they werealso attacked by the accused persons as a result of which they alsoreceived injuries.The two witness rushed to the police station where PW 4lodged the FIR (Exhibit P-10).The deceased in injured condition was takento the hospital, and later he succumbed to the injuries.Post-mortem wasconducted and large number of injuries were found on his body.Duringinvestigation the alleged weapons of the assailants were seized.Afterinvestigation charge sheet was placed.Appellants were charged forcommission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34and Section 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short'IPC').During trial accused persons pleaded innocence.They were acquittedfor offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC, but wereconvicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC each, toundergo life imprisonment.Accused Bhanwar Singh was convicted for offencepunishable under Section 323 IPC, accused Bheru Singh also similarlyconvicted, and each of them were sentenced to undergo six months RI for theoffence.At this juncture it is to be noted that ten witnesses were examined tofurther the prosecution version.Apart from PWs.4 and 7 who claimed to beeye witnesses, one Jaswant Singh (PW 8) was also examined to substantiatethe claim that an oral dying declaration was made by the deceased beforethe said witness implicating the accused persons to be his assailants.TheTrial Court accepted the prosecution version and convicted the accused-appellants and sentenced them as noted supra.The matter was carried inappeal by the accused persons.Several circumstances were highlighted toattach vulnerability to the prosecution version.One of the circumstanceswas alleged manipulation of the FIR to indicate as if the same was lodgedat 10.25 a.m. The evidence of PWs.4, 7 and 8 were also subjected tocriticism on the ground that they did not inspire confidence.It waspointed out that the evidence of PWs 4 and 7 were recorded under Section164 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') andthat was a highly suspicious circumstance.Merely because there was no mention of a knife in the first informationreport.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. These two petitions under Art,of the Constitution are for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpusfor the release of Ram Ratan and Hawa Singh, who have beendetained under sec.Ram Ratan was a Head Constable and Hawa Singh was aConstable in the Security Unit of Delhi Police.While onduty, they were together said to have committed a cognizableOffence under Sec. 392/34 of IPC along with a member of thepublic.A.S. Pundir for the Petitioners.PG NO 1025 V.C. Mahajan, Mrs. A. Katiyar, Dalveer Bhandari and Ms.Subhashini for the Respondents.Immediately thereafter they were arrests and placedon suspension.The Court.however released them on bailWhile the case was under investigation the Commissioner ofPolice, Delhi (Mr. Vijay Karan) thought fit the detam themunder the National Security Act. Accordingly.he made themorders which are impugned herein.they havebeen summarily dismissed from service under Article 311(ii)(b) of the Constitution.The principal contention urged for the petitionersrelates to the oft-repeated question--that the ground ofdetention has no nexus to the `public order ' but purely amatter for "law and order".In order to appreciate the contention urged in thisregard it will be necessary to have regard to the orders ofdetention.The orders passed against the two detenu are ondifferent dates,but are similar in terms and it may besufficient if we refer to one of the orders.The ground ofdetention in each case relates to one incident which hasbeen stated as follows:That on 22.7.88, one Shri Jasbil Singh S/o Shri InderSingh R/o 5869/3 Ambala City (Haryana) reported that on21.7.88 he purchased some T.V. parts from Lajpat Rai Market.After purchase, he loaded the TV parts on rickshaw and askedthe rickshaw puller Shanker S.o Shri Vasudev R/o Old LajpatRai Market.Near Hanuman Mandir, who was known to him totake the parts to Patiala Transport near Libra ServiceStation G.T.K. Road.He himself went alone to PatialaTransport and waited for the rickshaw puller.At about 11.00pm.the rickshaw puller informed him that two police PG NO 1026personnel namely H.C. Ram Ratan and Constable Hawa Singhwho were previously posted in P.S. Kotwali along with amember of the public Prabhu Dayal who he knew has stoppedhis rickshaw near B block, Industrial Area, G.T.K. Road.Head Constable Ram Ratan caught him and started beating himand asked for a receipt for the goods.Constable Hawa Singhand Prabhu Dayal removed the parts and loaded in a TSR andwent away."It was also stated that those T.V. parts were recoveredfrom the detenu and the case was registered under sec.392/34 IPC in which the investigation was progressing.There then, it was said:xxx xxx.xxx xxx Sd/- (Vijay Karan) COMMISSIONER OF POLICE: Delhi As is obvious from the order, the Commissioner wassatisfied with the need to detain the person, firstlybecause, the person being a police officer was bound toprovide security and safety to the public and secondly, theoffence committed was "heinous" which has created a sense ofinsecurity in the minds of the public at large.The same was highlighted before us by Shri Mahajan,learned counsel for the respondents justifying the detentionorders.Society regards them as their guardian for itsprotection.

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

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

The husband and wife had three children.The relationship between husband and wife whilst living in America had been totally miserable.ORDER S.S. Nijjar, J.2. Facts as set out in the petition are brief and to the point.It is stated that the petitioner is an Indian National and resides permanently at Dagdi Chawl, Byculla, Mumbai with his mother, wife and children.He is stated to be presently lodged in Thane Central Jail, Dist.He is further stated to be president of a Political Party known as Akhil Bhartiya Sena.This Political Party is stated to be recognised by the Election Commission of India.In the petition itself it is stated that the petitioner is branded as a gang leader of a gang known as "Gawli Gang".He has been accused of entering into conspiracy to commit the murder of one Natwarlal Desai who Was shot dead on 19th August, 1997 in the compound of Tulsiani Chambers at Cuffe Parade, Mumbai.Accordingly to the petition, the prosecution case, is that when Natwarlal Desai got down from his car on 19th August, 1997 near his office, two persons fired shots at him.Having been wounded by gun shot injuries, Natwarlal Desai, hereinafter referred to as "the deceased", was removed to Bombay Hospital where he was declared to be dead.According to the petitioner, the prosecution case further seems to be that Gawli gang had demanded monies frorn the deceased and have threatened him on phone.It is also the case of the prosecution that the deceased had been to Dagdi chawl in August, 1997 once.After the incident FIR was recorded by one Namesh Chagganlal Shah and few statements were recorded.After the investigation was over, charge-sheet against the petitioner was filed Copies of some of these statements have been collectively attached with the petition.Since the statements and the panchanama are all in Marathi, Mr. Sabnis, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has very kindly made available for the Court English translations of all the documents.This is so, according to Mr. Sabnis, as the police had already falsely involved the petitioner in a number of cases.In all these cases, it is submitted by Mr. Sabnis, the petitioner has been released on bail In two cases registered under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, hereinafter referred to as "TADA", being Special Case Nos. 42/91 and 31/1994 the petitioner has been acquitted.In other two cases being 864/94 and 1062/95 the petitioner has been discharged.The petitioner has been granted bail in nine cases bearing Nos. TADA Spl.According to Mr. Sabnis, when the police did not succeed in the aforesaid cases they have foisted a case under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities-Act, hereinafter referred to as "MPDA".The writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of detention in that case is pending in this Court.The offence of conspirary is always used against the petitioner whenever the police fails to implicate him in any other case.This application has been rejected by order dated 5th December, 1997 which is impugned in the present writ petition.Mr. Sabnis has taken the Court through all the statements made in the present case by the prosecution witnesses.It is submitted that the story put forward by the prosecution is so improbable that no reasonable person could form the opinion on the basis of the same even if proved that the petitioner is guilty of the offences with which he is charged.First of all Mr. Sabnis takes the statement made by Mr. Ramesh Chhaganlal Shah, the partner of the deceased.He points out that in this statement which is recorded on 19th August, 1997 i.e. the day of the incident, the only allegation made is that Mr. Shah is sure that the said incident had resulted from the extortion matter.The relevant portion of the statement is as under.I am sure that the said incident has resulted from the extortion matter.The same is because about five/six months back three persons, had visited the residence of Mr. Natwarlal Desai at Vile Parle.Mr. Natwarlalbhai had told me demand was made by these (three) people by saying that they have come from the "Arun Gawti gang".Thereafter also Mr. Natwarlal had told me that threats were given on telephone by the "people of Arun Gawli".But on account of fear, we had not informed about the incident that had taken place.5/6 months back or about the telephonic threats to the police or had asked for the police protection.Mr. Sabnis states that this is a very general statement.No details whatsoever are given as to when the demands for extortion were made, by whom they were made.There is absolutely nothing in the statement to the effect that the petitioner himself had issued any threats.It is merely stated that according to the deceased demand was made by three persons who claimed that they had come from the "Arun Gawli Gang".Mr. Sabnis vehemently submits that this statement of Mr. Shah cannot be relied on at all as the same does not even mention the time at which it was recorded.In this statement Mr. Shah has stated that one other builder in the city had also been threatened for extortion by the same-gang.He further states that the said builder has lodged a police complaint at the Juhu Police Station.It is further stated as under:Today the police shows me a black colour pocket diary.I am sure that the said diary is of the deceased late Mr. Natwarlal.To my knowledge there is no uncle alive by name 'Mama' of the deceased late Mr. Natwarlal Desai nor the name of any of his relatives is 'Mama'.Learned counsel Mr. Sabnis states at this stage that a bare perusal of the statement would show that the police is fabricating documents and padding the case.The statements have been recorded merely to fill in the gaps in the prosecution case.He submits that the black diary emerges for the first time when the panchanama is being recorded.In order to introduce the black diary the following is recorded therein :--The first page of the said diary contains the particulars of the deceased person.Further, it is seen that there are other chits of papers containing thereon the phonenumbers and money account and some other nothings.The said diary and the (contains therein) are seen filled with full of blood half way down.The driver states that on the day of the incident he picked up the partner of the deceased whilst he was driving the deceased to the office.He says that his daily routine was that the deceased, would leave in his car (driven by this witness) and pick up Mr. Shah on the way to the office.He then describes the whole, incident as it takes place.He attributes the following words to one of the assailants.Chala Chala Kam Zale Aahe (i.e. come on, come on, the work is done.This driver also further states as under :On being asked as to Whether my owner Shri Natwalal Desai had received threats, I inform as follows : About 5/6 months back three Gawli Gang people had visited the residence of the owner Shri Natwarlal.I learnt that they had threatened Shri Natwarlal with regard to extortion.Once, 5/6 months back, I had, taken Mr. Natwarlal to the Dagdi Chawl at Byculla in the afternoon.At that time I had stopped the car near the temple, at that time 'Sheth' (Mr. Natwarlal) had returned back approximately after half an hour.At that time he was somewhat worried and fearful.He says it cannot even be imagined that the Driver would have been told about the threats of extortion.He submits that when the statement of the only son-in-law of the deceased is examined it will become apparent that the deceased had not even informed his only son in law about the demand of extortion.Therefore, he submits that it is incredulous that the deceased would have informed the driver about the extortion.A perusal of the said statement clearly shows that the son-in-law does not mention about any extortion demands.He rather goes on to say "My father-in-law Shri Natwarlal Desai has been murdered by some unknown persons by firing bullets on him from the revolver.To my knowledge he had no enemy nor he had any dispute with anyone." Mr. Sabnis further states that one of the so called assailants was actually eliminated by the police.Having eliminated him, (he police called three witnesses i.e. the driver, watchman and Peon of the deceased to identify the eliminated suspect.But whilst calling them, they were informed that the person they were going to identify is suspected to be one of the two persons who murdered the deceased.These facts are so recorded in the statements which have been pointed out to the court.Thereupon the wife left on 31st October, 1992, the matrimonial home and took the children with her.She filed a complaint before the New York police alleging sexual abuse of Nikita.the police investigated and found the allegation to be totally unfounded against the husband.The medical examination also showed that there was no evidence of any abuse.On 7th March, 1993 the wife returned to India.In the meantime the Family court at New York had ordered that the custody of the children be given to the husband.Even a warrant of arrest was issued against the wife.Therefore, whilst in India on 19th March, 1993 wife filed a complaint with the "Crime Against Women Cell (CAW Cell for short).She repeated the allegation that the husband had sexually abused Nikita in the United State.Thereafter she filed a petition for habeas corpus claiming custody of her children.She also filed a complaint on 14thAugust, 1993 before the Greater Kailash Police Station.FIR was registered as Crimde No. 197 of 1993 for offences under Section 354 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard on admission.Record of the court below be called for.The appellants have filed this appeal against the conviction and sentence dated 04/02/2020 passed by 1st Additional Session Judge, Multai District Betul in Session Trial No.114/2015 convicting the appellants under Sections 147, 333/149 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo R.I for 1 years and R.I for 3 years respectively with fine amount with default stipulation.In the circumstances, it is ordered that subject to payment of fine amount, if not already deposited, the execution of jail sentence of the appellant no.1 Navneet @ Golu, appellant no.2 Manish @ Ravindra, appellant no.3 Chintu @ Nitesh and appellant no.4 Ritesh shall remain suspended till 28th April, 2020 and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only)each with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.Certified copy as per rule (J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE tarun Digitally signed by TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Date: 24/02/2020 17:42:36

['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.

J U D G M E N T(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 705/2004)ARIJIT PASAYAT, J Leave granted.Over a petty matter the appellant is supposed to have committed fratricide.He was found guilty by the Trial Court for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.In appeal, conviction and sentence were upheld by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.Accusations which led to the trial of the accused are essentially as follows:Shri Sukh Dev alias Guddu (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was real younger brother of the accused.On 6.2.2000 at about 9.00 p.m. there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused.Cause of the quarrel was that the dogs of the accused had entered the kitchen room of the deceased and when the deceased had asked the accused to keep his dogs tied in the chains, verbal altercation took place and tempers flew, the accused went to his room, took out his gun and fired a gun shot at the deceased from a distance of about 35 feet, as a result of which pellets of the gun shot had pierced into the chest of the deceased.Information was lodged with the police, investigation was undertaken and charge sheet was filed.Accused pleaded innocence and false implication.During trial, father of the deceased and accused was the star witness as he claimed to be an eye witness.He graphically described the factual scenario.

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

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

(i) Bail Application No.973 of 2018, is allowed;rpa 4/5 909-ba-973-18.doc(v) Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and/or shall cooperate in concluding the trial expeditiously;

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Further proceedings shall remain stayed, till the next date of listing.11. List on 16.9.2016."In deference to contents of paragraph 8 of the order above extracted, it appears that Superintendent of Police, Unnao directed further investigation as is evident from the order passed by Superintendent of Police, Unnao placed on record as Annexure Nos.SCA-5 appended with the short counter affidavit.The relevant evidences have been placed on record.The evidences available on record have been reviewed.The petition has been filed on the strength of the pleadings that petitioner no.1, who is daughter of respondent no.4 fell in love with petitioner no.2 and wanted to marry him.Respondent no.4 was not ready to accept the marital arrangement, rather no.4 threatened the petitioners by saying that if petitioner no.1 did not break the relationship with petitioner no.2, they would be killed.Petitioner no.1 did not relent and left the house of the complainant/the parental house and eloped with petitioner no.2 of her free will for solemnising the marriage.In evidence of the fact that they are married, document Annexure No.2 has been placed on record.In view of the fact that the petitioners felt threatened from the family of petitioner no.1, the petitioners approached this Court by way of filing a joint petition vide Writ Petition No.9791 (M/B) of 2016 : Smt. Basanti and another Vs.State of U.P. and others.The plea taken by the petitioners in the said petition, appears to be to the effect that the petitioners have attained age of majority and have married of their free will, however, members of their families are not accepting the marriage and under the pressure of the family members, police are harassing them.This court vide order dated 5.5.2016 directed the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful matrimonial life of the petitioners, unless criminal proceedings are initiated.De hors the repeated stand of petitioner no.1, impugned proceedings were initiated at the instance of respondent no.4 vide impugned F.I.R. with the allegation that petitioner no.1 is 16 years of age and had been enticed/induced by petitioner no.2 to go with him.After registration of the impugned F.I.R., the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the F.I.R.Petitioner no.1, Basanti has filed her affidavit in endorsement of the facts pleaded in the writ petition.Petitioner no.1 Basanti is the prosecutrix and the victim of offence, allegedly the kidnappee.Alongwith the petition, the petitioners have placed on record medical examination report of petitioner no.1, according to which petitioner no.1, the prosecutrix, has been found to be 19 years of age.The petitioners have also filed statement given by petitioner no.1 in the course of investigation under Section 164 Cr.P.C. As per the statement, the prosecutrix/the alleged kidnappee has stated that her marriage was scheduled with Nar Singh.They were both in love with each other, however, her parents refused to get them married and therefore she left her parental home of her free will.Nar Singh met her near Kali Mitti and both got married in a Mandir and have been living as husband and wife.It has been stated in the counter affidavit in paragraph 15 that although the investigating officer proposes to file a police report in terms of judgement rendered in Smt. Shaheen Parveen's case (supra), however, the court below refused to return the chargesheet.In paragraph 16 of the affidavit, it has specifically been stated that the chargesheet which had earlier been filed needs to be cancelled, however, only photo copy of the chargesheet has been returned by the court concerned and there is a legal impediment in finalising the final report.Despite the conclusion recorded hereinabove, we are of the view, that in the facts and circumstances of this case, there should have been no difficulty whatsoever for the High Court to have exercised its judicial conscience for invoking the power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. From the narration of the facts recorded above, it emerges, that even though the respondent-complainant Madan Lal Kapoor, in his complaint dated 6.7.1993, adopted a clear and categoric stance, that his daughter Dr. Monica Thapar had been poisoned to death, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, the respondent-complainant ventured to suggest, that the appellants-accused had strangulated her.The Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, summoned two of the doctors who were members of the Medical Board which had conducted the post-mortem examination, and sought clarifications from them.He also recorded the statement of one of the said doctors.The Additional Sessions Judge, thereupon, ruled out the plea of strangulation.When the respondent-complainant himself was uncertain about the manner in which his daughter had allegedly died, the High Court should have viewed the matter keeping in mind the likelihood of the hurt caused to a father who had lost his daughter within one year of her marriage.Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent-complainant) had continued to represent before the SDM, Delhi, that he would produce the mother of the deceased, who knew the facts best of all.The fact that the mother of the deceased had not appeared to record a statement against the appellants-accused has to have some reason/justification.Would a mother who believes that her daughter had been poisoned/strangulated, restrain herself from recording her statement, despite the persuasion of her husband? Probably not.The order of the High Court is accordingly also set aside, but on grounds different from those taken into consideration by the High Court.Sub Inspector Uttam Singh Rathore of Police Station Bangarmau, District Unnao is present in court and also endorses this fact.Shri Rathore has further informed the court that husband and wife( prosecutrix) are happily living in their matrimonial home.

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

4 It is prosecution's case that PW-1 and PW-4 had a daughter, whowas called Pratibha.Pratibha got married to accused no.1 on 8 th May 1999.At the time of marriage, accused and original accused nos.2 to 7 wereresiding together at village Balhane, Taluka - Kalwan, District - Nashik.Pratibha had studied upto 12th standard.PW-1 and PW-4 spent for themarriage of Pratibha and also gave Rs.75,000/- to accused as dowry.Afterone month of marriage, Pratibha started to complain that accused was nottreating her properly and was demanding Rs.50,000/- for purchasing amotor-cycle.DATE : 17th FEBRUARY 2020ORAL JUDGMENT :1 This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated26th September 2003 passed by the First Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge,Nashik, acquitting the accused of offences punishable under Section 498 (A)(Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty ) andSection 306 (Abetment of suicide), read with Section 34 (Acts done byGauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2020 22:43:58 ::: 2/13 207.Apeal-95-2004.docseveral persons in furtherance of common intention ) of the Indian PenalCode (IPC).::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2020 22:43:58 :::2 Initially, there were 7 accused.3 On 12th February 2020 since nobody was present in Courtrepresenting respondents, the Court appointed Mr. Vaibhav Charalwar, anAdvocate, as Amicus Curiae.Pratibha informed PW-1 and PW-4 that accused used to abuseand beat her.::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2020 22:43:58 :::living separately at Pale Budruk village.Accused was Doctor, a generalpractitioner.It is alleged that accused was an alcoholic and he often used tobeat Pratibha after getting drunk and at that time, would also demand thatshe gets Rs.50,000/- from her parents.When Pratibha got pregnant, PW-1requested accused to send Pratibha to their house for delivery but accusedrefused to send Pratibha for delivery.Pratibha delivered a male child whileresiding at the house of accused.After delivery, when PW-1 and PW-4 wentto the house of accused to see the baby and make inquiries about Pratibha'shealth, at that time also Pratibha informed her parents that accused used tobeat her and demand money.2-3 days after the baby was born, PW-4 tookPratibha and the child to their house and after six weeks or so, the father ofaccused came and took Pratibha and the child home.6 On 21st June 2001, PW-1 received information that Pratibha dieddue to burns.PW-1, PW-4 and relatives rushed immediately to village PaleBudruk to the house of accused where they came to know that Pratibha hasbeen taken to Civil Hospital, Kalwan.PW-1, therefore, proceeded to PrimaryHealth Centre, Kalwan, where he saw the corpse of Pratibha.PW-1 tookpossession of the corpse and cremated her.7 The following day, PW-1 lodged report of incident with KalwanPolice Station based on which an offence was registered.After investigation,chargesheet was filed and accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to betried.The defence is of total denial.::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2020 22:43:58 :::11 PW-1 and PW-4 are alleging cruelty in the hands of accused andboth are saying that accused was demanding Rs.50,000/- to buy a motor-cycle.Apart from these general statements, there is nothing specific.PW-1 says that3. 1996 SCC (cri) 972Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2020 22:43:58 ::: 7/13 207.Apeal-95-2004.docaccused used to get drunk and assault Pratibha.PW-1 and PW-4 say that onone occasion when accused and Pratibha had gone to the parental home ofPratibha, accused beat Pratibha.Both do not say what steps they took whenthey saw their daughter being beaten.It would be quite natural to anyparent to atleast stop son-in-law from beating their daughter.They may havenot thought to lodge a police complaint but atleast the witnesses should havestated what they did when they allegedly saw their daughter being beaten.PW-1 says that when they visited the house of accused, they found accusedunder the influence of liquor in the evening and they found that Pratibhahad delivered a male child.But PW-4 does not say anything of that kind inher evidence.Infact PW-4 says that 2-3 days after delivery, accused reachedPratibha and her son to their house by hiring a vehicle.12 PW-1 admits that he has not stated in his statement recordedunder Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that after delivery ofPratibha, when he had been to the house of accused, he found accused underthe influence of liquor in the evening.PW-1 also admits that he did not tellthe police that he kept his wife (PW-4) in the house of accused to take careof Pratibha and he returned to the village.PW-1 admits that accused used togo for visits to other villages on a motor-cycle, whereas, the allegation isaccused was asking money to buy a motor-cycle.PW-1 says that even thoughhe was informed by Pratibha about the conduct of accused and demand ofmoney, he did not inform any of his relatives or complain about accused totheir relative - Vasant Pawar, who was also living in the same village as theGauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2020 22:43:58 ::: 8/13 207.Apeal-95-2004.docfamily of accused.PW-1 also admits that he never lodged any complaint tothe police about accused ill-treating Pratibha and demanding money to buymotor-cycle.PW-1 also admits that he never informed the Police Patil orSarpanch or other respectable persons of village Pale Budruk to persuadeaccused not to take liquor.::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2020 22:43:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2020 22:43:58 :::13 Similarly, PW-4 says that the grievance of Pratibha was not toldto anybody even to her sister and husband, who were from the same villagePale Budruk.PW-4 also admits that they never complained to Police Patil orSarpanch or other respectable persons of the village or neighbors of accusedabout the conduct of accused towards Pratibha.PW-5 and PW-6 also admitthat there are many omissions in their evidence.All these are interestedparties.What is very important is the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, who areindependent persons.14 PW-2, who was the Police Patil, says when he receivedinformation, he proceeded towards the house of accused and heard noise inthe house of accused and he saw crowd collected.PW-2 also says he went tofind out what happened and realised that the door of the house was lockedfrom inside and the child could be heard crying.PW-2 claims to have brokenopen the door with the help of a carpenter and found the child crying in oneroom and the dead body of Pratibha in another room.In his crossexamination, however, PW-2 says he never noticed existence of anymatrimonial dispute between accused and Pratibha.PW-2 also says norelative of Pratibha ever complained to him about the conduct of accused.::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2020 22:43:58 :::PW-2 has added that he came to know that Pratibha used to quarrel withaccused as he was financially helping his parents for cultivating their field.15 Similarly, PW-3, who was also a panch witness for the inquestpanchnama and the neighbor of accused, says he and his wife used tofrequently visit the house of accused and similarly, accused and his wife alsofrequently used to visit their house.According to PW-3, accused and Pratibhawere pulling well and there was no quarrel between them.PW-3 saysPratibha was not able to control her anger and would quarrel with accusedbecause he is used to financially assist his parents.16 Therefore, these two independent witnesses, i.e., PW-2 andPW-3 say that they did not notice any matrimonial dispute, Pratibha has nottold either of them that she was being ill-treated, neither PW-1 nor PW-4have informed PW-2 about the ill-treatment and these neighbors also do notstate that accused was a habitual drinker.These two prosecution witnesseshave in effect poured water over prosecution's case that accused used to getdrunk and beat Pratibha.17 It looks like Pratibha was unable to tolerate accused, who was amedical practitioner, financially helping his family.Infact on the date ofincident, it has come in the evidence of PW-3 that the grandmother ofaccused had come to visit them to see the great grandchild and in theevening, accused had taken his grandmother back to his parents' house onmotor-cycle.::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2020 22:43:58 :::

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

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

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned single Judgeof the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur upholding the conviction ofappellant No.1 Neku Khan for offence punishable under Sections 376, 147,323/149, 342, 458 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') The other appellants were convicted for offence punishable underSection 147, 323/149, 342, 458 and 366 IPC.Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:Between the intervening night 13.9.1984 and 14.9.1984 Muse Khan(PW-2), Janu Khan (PW-4), Prosecutrix (PW-5), wife Reshma, Indro (PW-6) wife of Bakhsu Khan, Makhni (PW-7) wife of Sachchu Khan weresleeping at the house of Bakhsu Khan in village Raivada, accused personsNeku Khan, Bakhsu Khan, Barkat Khan, Ali Sher and Same Khan arrivedon a Nisan vehicle, the accused Barkat was having the iron rod and the otherpersons were having lathis, they beat Muse Khan (PW-2) and placedProsecutrix daughter of Bakhsu in Nisan vehicle forcefully and went away,the accused Same Khan shut her mouth with hand and then got down atGida village with Prosecutrix, for some time walked on foot, after a whilethe accused Same Khan came with a camel and made Prosecutrix ride thecamel.Another man also rode and Neku Khan, Same Khan and BakhsuKhan walked on feet and then took her to the Dadi of the accused, strippedher clothes and dressed her with new clothes and ornaments and then NekuKhan did bed work like husband-wife, she stayed there for two nights and 2 for two nights Neku Khan did bed work with her, thereafter the policearrived there with her father, the accused persons ran away, the policebrought her to Mandli Police Station.After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed and sinceaccused persons pleaded innocence they were put on trial.Dr. Mangi Lal Bohra (PW 1) has proved the injuries caused to MuseKhan on the date of incident by the accused persons while abducting theprosecutrix.PW-2 is Muse Khan who is brother of prosecutrix and he hasdeposed that he was asleep when he was assaulted.He saw the accusedassaulting his brother and then saw them taking away his sister.The factthat Muse Khan was assaulted by the accused, stands corroborated by theevidence of Doctor who is completely independent witness.Ishaqu (PW 3)at whose place, the accused is alleged to have kept the prosecutrix.Theprosecution has proved the state of prosecutrix at the place of Ishaqu (PW3).(PW 4) Janu Khan , was also present when the abduction took place.Hesaw the accused assaulting Muse Khan and abducting the prosecutrix.He isthe person who has lodged the report of the incident to the police.Thetestimony of Muse Khan that he was assaulted and abduction of prosecutrixis thus corroborated by testimony of Janu Khan.The prosecution version 3 relied primarily on the evidence of Prosecutrix (PW 5).Two witnesses wereexamined by the appellant to show that the victim was married to appellantno.1 and therefore there was no rape as contended and no abduction.Thetrial court and the High court did not find any substance in the plea.Theyreferred to the evidence of PWs 2,4 & 5 and held the appellant guilty anddirected conviction and imposed sentence as aforenoted.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submittedthat the trial court and the High Court lost sight of the fact that the DWs 1 &2 categorically stated about the marriage of the victim with appellant No. 1.That being so the question of any rape or abduction as claimed does notarise.Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported thejudgment of the trial court and the High Court.We find that there was no evidence of the marriage as claimed.Theevidence of Bhouware Khan (DW 2) on which strong reliance was placed tocontend that there was a marriage, it did not in fact substantiate the claim.4 Bhouware Khan (DW 2) in his cross examination admitted that the Kaziwrites their nikah.No signature or thumb impression was obtained and theKazi Yusuf Khan who is claimed to have solemenised the nikah was notexamined.It is submitted that there is no need for such writing.But in anyevent DW 1 who is claimed to have settled the marriage accepted that sameis the procedure.Thus there was no other material adduced to say that theaccused no.1 and the prosecutrix were married.That being so theconviction of appellant No.1 as recorded by the trial court and maintainedby the High Court cannot be faulted.That being so the appeal fails so faras they are concerned.It is rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellants, that thereis practically no evidence to link with the other appellants i.e. Ali Sher,Bakhsu Khan and Barkat Khan with the crime.The bail bonds executed by them shall stand discharged.The appellants 1 5 & 2 Neku Khan and Same Khan shall surrender to custody to serve theremainder of sentence.The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The informant at the relevant time was working with one ManjunathDatta Revankar and was learning art of making of gold ornaments.OneDigambar Vyankatesh Kurdekar(since deceased) was also with him andhe also used to learn the same.The said Manjunath used to bring goldfrom Mumbai and as per the orders received from the customers theyused to prepare the gold ornaments.On 21/051997, said Manjunathbrought gold from Mumbai for manufacturing 110 pairs of gold earrings(d.kZQqys) and gave it to said deceased and went away his village.According to prosecution the said persons always used to give the goldfor polishing and designing to one Vikrant Seth of Kalva who after doingthe needful used to return the ornaments through his servant, namely,Raju Suresh Raikar, who was known to informant.The prosecution next contends that on 21/05/1997 the informantand the deceased as per direction of said Manjunath Datta Ravankarwent to the house of said Vikrant seth and handed over 110 pair ofearrings (d.kZQqys) for polishing and designing.The said ornaments werereturned by said Raju Suresh Raikar on 23/05/1997 at about 09.30 pm.He was learning the preparation of goldornaments under the guidance of Manjunath.The deceased was alsoworking with him under Manjunath.According to him, Manjunath used topurchase the gold from Mumbai and after preparation they used to giveto one Vikrant Seth, who is brother of A-1, for polishing the same.It is hisfurther evidence that on 21st May 1997 he and Digambar were present inthe house of Manjunath.Manjunath asked them to handover 110 earornaments of gold to Vikrant for making design on the same.He,therefore, took those 110 ear ornaments along with Digambar and wentto the house of Vikrant.When they reached there, one Raju SureshRaikar and Mahesh Suresh Raikar, the workers of Vikrant, were present.This witness handed over 110 gold ear ornaments to said Raju Raikar.He and Digambar returned back to the house of Manjunath.By the time,Manjunath had left the house for his village.Secondly, even he did not tell this material fact of having seenthe accused in the company of deceased to his co-watchman on the nextday when he joined duties to relieve his companion.Thirdly and, mostimportantly, on his own words, he did not tell anybody, till the policerecorded his statement, that he had seen the accused in the company ofdeceased on the date of incident.This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-Stateaggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24th April, 1998 passed by thelearned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 280 of1997 whereunder respondents/accused were acquitted of the offencesTrupti 1 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 ::: 903-apeal-911-1998.doc.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::Thereafter, the informant left for market.Trupti 2 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::According to prosecution at about 10-30 pm when the informantreturned to the flat he found the door was closed and therefore, heknocked but nobody opened it and therefore, he went on the back side ofthe flat and found that kitchen lights were on whereas light of the hall wasswitched off.Neither he could see anything nor hear any voice ofdeceased and therefore, he immediately returned to the main door of theflat and, meantime, he saw a person running towards staircase and alsofound the door of the flat opened.The prosecution then contends thatthe informant become suspicious and immediately entered into the flatand found deceased lying on the floor.He tried to awake him but he wasmotionless.He also did not find 110 pair of gold earrings (d.kZQqys) andthus got suspicious of the theft in respect of the said ornaments, cameout of the house and raised commotion.The people from the societygathered including the watchman.The informant narrated the wholeincident to the persons gathered there and also informed running of aperson towards the terrace of the building.The prosecution lastly contends that the person then rushed to theterrace and apprehended three unknown boys and brought them down.One of them was the brother of said Vikrant seth, namely, Raghu (A-1).Later on, the informant lodged the report with Kopari Police Stationand in the police station he came to know the other two persons asManjesh Jawaharlal Goutam (A-2) and Kishor Chandan Arya (A-3).Theinformant also alleged about theft of gold ornaments worth Rs.85,000/-.Trupti 3 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::On the basis of report of informant, C.R.No. 53 of 1997 for theoffences punishable under Sections 302, 397, 449, 347 r/w 34 of the IPCcame to be registered and after necessary investigation the accusedwere chargesheeted.The accused abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication.In such circumstances, according to learned APP, interference at thehands of this Court is necessary and the impugned judgment and orderof acquittal deserves to be reversed.Mr. Pethe, learned counsel for respondent-accused, on the otherhand, supported the impugned judgment and order of acquittal bycontending that the evidence adduced by the prosecution being notcogent and convincing and the fact that it does not prove the caseTrupti 4 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 ::: 903-apeal-911-1998.doc.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::In case of murder, factum of homicidal death assumes significanceand it is to be established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.PW-9 Medical Officer stated in her evidence (Exh. 36) that on 24thMay 1997, Kopari police referred the dead body of Digambar VyankateshKurdekar for postmortem and accordingly she conducted the same.During the postmortem, she found the following external injuries on thedead body :"1.Transverse bruise just below chin on anterior sufface of neck -reddish coloured above 4 X 1 cm.Oblique bruise on lt. Side of neck about 6 X 2 cm.reddish colour.Oblique bruise irregularity in between on lt. side of neck reddish colour 6 X 2 cm.Semi-lunar shaped abrasion on rt.and lt. Side of neck above and below of bruises mentioned above with concavity towards mandible.Bruises of posterior part of neck transverse reddish coloured 7 X 2 cm.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::6. Bruises on sternum 3 X 2 cm.Red coloured bruises on both lips in middle finger aspect of 0.5 c. to 1 cm in dimension each.It is her further evidence that after noting the external injuries, shedissected the dead body and found fracture of hyoid bone in front and inmiddle.According to her, the cause of death was due to violent asphyxiaand that might have been caused due to pressure of the hand on thethroat (trachea).It may be noted here that an inquest panchnama (Exh. 23) is dulyadmitted in evidence by the defence.If the postmortem report (Exh. 37)which is duly proved by PW-9 Medical Officer and the inquestpanchnama read in conjunction, then we notice that all the externalinjuries found on the dead body of the deceased correspond to theinjuries noted in the inquest panchnama.There is no challenge to theversion of the Medical Officer as to the cause of death in clear terms.Inthe light of medical evidence and as also the fact that the inquestpanchnama is also duly admitted in evidence, we have no difficulty inholding that the victim died of homicidal death.This is a kind of case where admittedly there is no direct evidenceproving the involvement of accused.The evidence of PW -1 Informantplainly suggests it being of a circumstantial nature.From the evidence ofmaterial witnesses viz. PW -1 to PW -4, PW-8 and PW-11, the followingcircumstances are pressed into service to bring home the charge by theprosecution :Trupti 6 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::(i) A-1 to A-3 were seen in the company of deceased soon before the death of latter by PW -4;(ii) PW -1 informant saw A-1 running hurriedly to the staircase leading to terrace at the time of incident;(iii) A-1 to A-3 were caught/ apprehended from the terrace of building;(iv) Recovery of 80 pairs of gold ornaments (d.kZQqys) from the possession of A-1 soon after incident;(v) Motive.Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved.In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused".It is his further evidence that on 23 rd May, 1997, said Raju Raikarbrought those 110 gold ear ornaments after polishing and designing theTrupti 10 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 ::: 903-apeal-911-1998.doc.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::same, which were received by him and then he handed over it to thedeceased.His evidence then shows that he went to Kopari market forbringing the clothes for relative of Manjunath.As the shop was closed,he went directly to Kalwa to reach Raju Raikar from cloth shop.Afterreaching Raju Raikar to Kalwa bus stop, he returned to the house ofManjunath.His evidence then further shows that the door of the house ofManjunath was closed.He knocked the door from outside but he did notget response.The said house is situated on the ground floor.Thereafter,he went to the backside of house of Manjunath and found that the lamp inthe bedroom was on, however, the lamp in the hall was off.Thereafter,he returned to the main door of the house and at that time he saw oneperson running towards the terrace of that building.He saw only thehands of that person.Being afraid, he went to his house and thereafterpushed the main door from outside.The door was already opened.When he entered into the house, he saw the deceased lying under thecot in the hall.The deceased was not speaking.Therefore, he came outof the house and raised hue and cry.Deposing further, according to him, many persons including onePurushottam Daulatram Mulchandani (PW-2) rushed to the house inresponse to his shouts.He narrated the incident to Purushottam.According to him, three persons went on the terrace to catch the persons,who had already rushed to the terrace.Those persons includedTrupti 11 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 ::: 903-apeal-911-1998.doc.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::Purushottam and one Kamlesh Raman Afre (PW-3).They brought threepersons by catching them from the terrace.He then identified theaccused who were brought from the terrace.His evidence lastly shows that on the same night his statementcame to be recorded by the police.He then proved his FIR (Exh.9).It ishis further evidence that the gold ornaments, which were with thedeceased, were found thrown on the terrace as well as in front of houseof Manjunath during the incident.The substantive evidence of informant broadly corroborates thecontent of FIR except to the extent relating to the concluding part of hisexamination-in-chief.His concluding part of evidence shows that theornaments, which were with the deceased, were found on the terrace aswell as in front of the house of Manjunath.It is absolutely not the case of prosecution or of the informant thathe had also gone to the terrace and himself saw the ornaments lyingthere.As far as his evidence showing that the ornaments were lying infront of the house of Manjunath is concerned, in the cross-examination,he clearly stated that when the person he saw running from the house ofManjunath towards terrace, he entered in the house and switched on thelamp but he did not see any ornaments lying in the house at that time.Ifthat was so, then how could this witness depose about lying ofornaments may be in front of the house of Manjunath.Trupti 12 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::Needless to say, this witness has contradicted himself on thismaterial aspect.It is also pertinent to know from the evidence of thiswitness that he was not able to see the person who had rushed towardsthe terrace but was able to see his hands only.It is only after thosethree persons were brought from the terrace, this witness identified A-1only inasmuch as admittedly he knew A-1 being the brother of VikrantSeth to whom they used to give ornaments for polishing.Since, according to prosecution, itwere PW-2 Purushottam Mulchandani and PW-3 Kamlesh Afre who hadgone to terrace and apprehended accused, their respective testimoniesbecome more important and therefore, need to be gone into carefully.PW-2 Purushottam Daulatram Mulchandani stated in his evidence(Exh. 20) that he resides on the ground floor of Kamlesh Housing Societyat Thane.Manjunath also resides on the ground floor of his building.On23rd May, 1997, after taking meal at about 9.30 p.m. when he was takinground in the compound of his building, PW -1 Nagu came to him at 10.30p.m. and told that there was some untoward incident in the house ofManjunath and the door of the house of Manjunath is not being openedso he should come for his help.Accordingly, he accompanied PW- 1 tothe house of Manjunath.When both of them went near the house ofManjunath, they found the door of the house was opened.According toTrupti 13 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 ::: 903-apeal-911-1998.doc.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::him, one servant of Manjunath was seen lying in that house.PW-1 alsotold him about somebody having run towards the terrace of the building.At that time, one Kamlesh Afre (PW-3) and one Haresh Mangwani alsocame there.Thereafter, he, Kamlesh and Haresh went on the terrace ofthe said building and found three persons sitting there.They caught holdthose three persons and brought them on the ground floor.The policewas then called and those three persons were taken by the police.The initial part of the evidence of this witness is something which isneither the case of prosecution nor the evidence of PW-1 informant.Ifwe go by the evidence of informant then it is only after he entering intothe house and seeing the deceased lying under the cot, he came out,raised hue and cry as a result of which the persons residing theregathered.Of those persons, PW-2 was one of them.The evidence of PW-2, on the other hand, depicts altogetherdifferent story inasmuch as according to him, after taking dinner when hewas taking round in the compound of building, PW-1 informantapproached him and expressed his apprehension of some untowardthings in the house followed by his request to accompany him.It is alsointeresting to note, according to this witness, that PW-1 had also told thiswitness that the door of the house of Manjunath was not being openedand thus sought help of this witness.Trupti 14 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::Suffice to say there is no consistency between the versions ofthese two material witnesses.The next part of the evidence of thiswitness shows that he along with Kamlesh Afre (PW-3) and HareshMangwani rushed to terrace and found that three persons were sittingthere.They then apprehended those three persons.It is absolutely not the evidence of this witness that those threepersons had hidden themselves or were in a position to hide themselves.This goes against the natural conduct of those three persons.Had theybeen guilty of committing something wrong, they would have attemptedto conceal themselves.Our inference gets impetus from cross-examination of this witness.In the cross-examination, this witness states that there are twostaircases to reach on the terrace of their building.The persons can useboth the terrace and the persons going from one terrace can come downfrom another terrace.However, it is not made clear whether the said twostaircases are side by side or for that matter, from one staircase one canapproach the terrace and by another one can exist without facing the firstone.For the sake of argument, if it is assumed that those three personswere involved in the commission of any offence then they could haveeasily made there escape good from another staircase.This materialTrupti 15 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 ::: 903-apeal-911-1998.doc.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::piece of evidence cannot be lost sight of.Another significant point,which can be noted down from the evidence of this witness, is that hedoes not say, like PW-1, about lying of gold ornaments either on theterrace or in front of the house of Manjunath.So except finding theaccused sitting on the terrace and bringing them to the ground floor, thereis nothing more which can in any manner further the case of prosecution.Let us see what PW-3, who also had gone to the terrace along withPW-2, has to offer.39. PW-3 Kamlesh Raman Afre stated in his evidence (Exh.21) that heresides on the ground floor in Kamlesh Housing Society, Thane.Manjunath also resides on the ground floor of his building.On 23 rd May,1997, at about 10.45 p.m., he heard some noise outside of his house.When he opened the door of his house, one person was lying facingdown in the house of Manjunath.One of the door of the house ofManjunath was seen opened.It is his further evidence that he was out ofhis house.He saw PW-1 and PW-2 present near the house of Manjunath.One Haresh Mangwani was also seen there and at that time, he came toknow that three persons had gone towards the terrace of his building.Thereafter, he, PW-2 and Haresh Mangwani went on the terrace of thebuilding and saw three persons hiding themselves.Thereafter, theybrought those three persons on the ground floor.Trupti 16 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::The evidence of this witness is also not free from blame for tworeasons.Firstly, according to him, this witness reached the house ofManjunath.He came to know that three persons had gone towards theterrace of his building.It is absolutely neither the evidence of PW-1informant, except A-1, nor that of PW-2 that those three persons hadgone towards the terrace of their building.On the contrary, the evidence of PW-2 shows thatthose three persons were simply sitting on the terrace.What therefore emerge from the testimony of all three materialwitnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 is that there is no uniformity,cohesiveness and consistency amongst their versions as regardsconduct of the accused and as also about the gold ornaments lyingscattered on the terrace and in front of the house of Majunath.We now come to PW-4 Ratan Kachru Bankar.According to prosecution, PW-4 is a star witness inasmuch as PW-4 had seen the accused in the company of deceased just before incident.This being so, the evidence of this witness, needless to say assumesgreater significance.Trupti 17 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::PW-4 stated in his evidence (Exh. 27) that at the relevant time, hewas working as a watchman in Kamlesh Housing Society at Thane.OneSawant (PW-6) was another watchman working with him.He knows A-1since prior to the incident as he used to visit the house of Manjunath.Asper his evidence, on 23rd May, 1997 he was present in the building sincemorning to evening.He attended his duty as a watchman till 9.30 p.m.and thereafter handed over his charge to another watchman, namely,Sawant (PW-6).It is his further evidence that before leaving the premises, heasked all the residents of the building to collect the water from the tap.He also visited the house of Manjunath for telling him to collect the water.When he rang the door bell of the house, one servant of Manjunathopened the door.He also saw three malepersons standing behind the said servant in the house of Manjunath andthose three persons were the accused.He then told those persons tocollect the water from the tap and went to his house.At a first blush, it would appear that everything is right with theevidence of this witness but gradually as we go reading his cross-examination, we get nothing but disappointment.In his cross-examination, he stated that on the following day of theincident, he resumed his duties at about 8.00 a.m. One Gupta was theTrupti 18 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 ::: 903-apeal-911-1998.doc.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::Secretary of the said society during that period.He did not disclose toGupta that he had seen the accused in the house of Manjunath on thepreceding night.He also did not tell his co-watchman on the next day ofthe incident that he had seen the accused in the house of Manjunath onthe preceding night.He further stated that his statement was recorded by the police on6th June, 1997 in the police station.According tohim, he did not tell anybody that he had seen the accused in the house ofManjunath till his statement was recorded.He further stated in hiscross-examination that he did not make entry in the register of duty on23rd May, 1997 that he attended his duties from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 pm.From the evidence of this witness, it is more than clear that his dutyhours were from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 pm.Even we take into considerationhis last part of cross-examination that he had gone to the house ofManjunath at about 9.30 pm., then there is no explanation as to why heremained there for about one and half hours more after his duties hourswere over.Although, this witness says that he had been to the house ofManjunath at about 9.30 p.m. but according to the evidence of PW-6Watchman, Ratan Bankar i.e., PW-4 had returned from the house of flatowners at about 9.30 pm.Thus, there is clear cut inconsistency betweenthese two material witnesses.Trupti 19 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::Lastly, he himself had not gone topolice station to apprise the police of having seen the accused in thebuilding premises and, more particularly, in the house of Manjunath alongwith deceased till the police called him in the police station and recordedhis statement.The above bothering conduct reflecting his questionable charactereven remotely do not allow us to throw weight behind his testimony.Needless to say, testimony of this witness does not inspire confidence asto the theory of last seen.Trupti 20 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::The evidence of PW-6 Kamlakar Dattatray Sawant, anotherwatchman of Kamlesh Housing Society (Exh.31), shows that on 23rdMay, 1997 he was present near the building of his society since 8.00 a.m.to 8.00 p.m. on the following morning.Ratan Bankar i.e., PW-4 isanother watchman of the said housing society whose duty hours werefrom 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 pm.His evidence then shows that on 23 rd May,1997 when he resumed his duty at 8.00 a.m., Ratan Bankar (PW-4) wasalso present near the said building.According to him, he requested PW-4 to wait for some time asthere was some difficulty in supply of water in the said society.Accordingly, PW-4 waited for some time to assist him.At about 9.15 p.m.on that day, he opened the valve of the pump for supplying the water tothe said society and then asked PW-4 to verify whether water hadreached in every flat of the said society.Accordingly, PW-4 went towardsthe flat owners and returned at about 9.30 p.m. and told him that waterhad already reached in every flat.From the evidence it can be seen that on the day of incident, therewas some problem with water supply system in the said society.Thiswitness asked PW-4 to wait for some time even though his duty hourswere over and sought his assistance.It is only at about 9.15 pm., thiswitness opened the valve of the pump and supplied water to the societyand after satisfying through PW-4 that water supply is restored to everyflat owners, PW-4 returned at about 9.30 p.m.Trupti 21 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 ::: 903-apeal-911-1998.doc.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::One Tolani, another panch witness, was presentwith him.In their presence, police took the personal search of theaccused.According to him, during the personal search of A-1, one paperpacket was recovered by the police and after opening it they found 80pairs of gold ear ornaments.PW-10 Mohansingh Pralhadsingh Duwar, who was working at therelevant time in the police station, also stated in his cross-examinationTrupti 22 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 ::: 903-apeal-911-1998.doc.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::We would be discussing his evidence shortly hereinafter.The evidence of PW-8 panch witness and as also PW-10 appear tobe very vague and cryptic.While the evidence of PW-8 shows that onpersonal search, one paper packet was recovered from the possession ofA-1, but it is nowhere disclosed from where the said paper packet wasrecovered.PW-10, on the other hand, simply stated that he hadrecovered 80 pairs of gold ear ornaments from the possession of A-1.Again there is no specification or details from where those 80 pairs ofgold ear ornaments came to be seized.The evidence of both thesewitnesses does not give an insight as to from where they seized 80 pairsof gold ear ornaments.As against above, the evidence of PW-11 Investigating Officer, wholater on came into picture after some part of investigation was carried outby PW-10, is quite interesting.PW-11 Krishnaji Mahadev Tavde stated in his evidence (Exh. 43)that on the following morning of the incident, he prepared the panchnamaof scene of offence.He found two pairs of gold ear ornaments on thescene of offence and therefore, attached the same under panchnama ofTrupti 23 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 ::: 903-apeal-911-1998.doc.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::scene of offence.It is his further evidence that he also found 18 pairs ofgold ear ornaments on the staircase of the house in Kamlesh HousingSociety and also attached those ornaments .What is need to be noted promptly from the evidence of thismaterial witness is that on the next day when he visited the place ofoccurrence not only he seized two pairs of gold ear ornaments from thescene of offence but also 18 pairs of gold ear ornaments lying on thestaircase of the building.This simply suggests that throughout night i.e.,right from the inception of incident till this witness reached at the place ofoccurrence, ornaments were lying in the flat and as also on the staircase.Intriguingly enough, neither informant says that when he enteredinto the flat, he saw two pairs of gold ear ornaments lying there nor PW-2and PW-3, who had rushed to the terrace, stated anywhere in theirrespective evidence that they noted 18 pairs of gold ornaments lyingthere.It is also to be noted here that all the accused were apprehendedthen and there only and were immediately taken to the police station andthat being so from where PW-11 found 20 pairs of gold ear ornaments issomething beyond comprehension.66 One more reason to question the whole recovery is that, accordingto prosecution, the deceased was having 110 pairs of gold ear ornamentswhile 80 pairs of gold ear ornaments were allegedly found from thepossession of A-1 and 20 pairs of gold ear ornaments were allegedlyTrupti 24 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 ::: 903-apeal-911-1998.doc.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::seized by PW-11 from the flat and staircase of the said society.Thus,there was alleged recovery of only 100 pairs of gold ear ornaments.In the cross-examination of PW-11, he stated that he investigatedabout 20 missing gold ear ornaments, however, he could not find thesame.In such circumstances, there could not have beenquestion of missing of 20 pairs of gold ear ornaments as already noted.Since the accused were apprehended on the spot itself, the question ofmissing of even a single pair of gold ear ornament was apparently notpossible.Be that as it may, the fact remains that alleged recovery of gold earornaments from the possession of A-1 is not cogently and convincinglyestablished by the prosecution.Therefore, on this count also theprosecution fails.We, therefore, conclude that requirements as propounded by theHon'ble Apex Court as enumerated hereinabove in the case of presentnature are not fulfilled by the prosecution witnesses and prosecution hasfailed to conclusively prove and complete the chain of circumstances soas to lead to a singular inference of guilt of accused.There are manypitfalls and infirmities galore in prosecution evidence.When takenTrupti 25 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 ::: 903-apeal-911-1998.doc.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::The impugned order isin accordance with law and neither it is perverse nor illegal.Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 00:29:30 :::

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Hon'ble Virendra Kumar-II,J.As per prosecution version, the complainant Patte son of Niranjan submitted a written report (Ex. Ka-1) on 30.6.2000 at Police Station Kotwali Maholil, District Sitapur.On the basis of written report submitted by the complainant check FIR (Ex. Ka-4) was registered on 30.6.2000 at 16.00 hours and crime number 198 of 2000 for offence punishable under Sections 307, 324 and 504 IPC was registered at Kotwali Maholi, District Sitapur.The G.D. of registration of crime (Ex. Ka-5) was also prepared.The complainant has narrated in written report that he is the resident of Village Bhatpurwa within limits of Police Station Maholi, Sitapur.On 29.6.2000, there was an altercation between the complainant and Cheena regarding tying of bullocks.The appellant Bindey son of Laltu wielded with country-made pistol came on 30.6.2000 at 12:00 p.m. and fired shot on his brother Lalmani.The country-made pistol was snatched by the family members of the deceased.The co-accused Cheena brought Kanta in the meanwhile and assaulted on the head of Smt. Moorha, who is wife of the complainant.Smt. Ramkali alias Bhutti (Bhutto), who is wife of Cheena was wielded with Bhali.The complainant brought his brother and wife at the police station.The complainant also submitted one country-made pistol of .12 bore in which empty cartridge was stuck at the police station while he lodged the F.I.R. Constable Dinesh Kumar Shukla prepared recovery memo (Ex. Ka-2).It is mentioned in this recovery memo that there was fire pin mark on this cartridge.The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witnesses.He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Ex. Ka-9).The deceased in injured state was medically examined.His report dated 30.6.2000 for medical examination and injury report (Ex. Ka-6) has been proved by the concerned doctor.Likewise, the report of the medical examination and injury report of Smt. Moorha alias Nisha wife of Patte has been proved as (Ex. Ka-7) by the concerned doctor (PW-5).PW-5 Dr. Sharad Chandra has proved both these injury reports.The underwear of the deceased was sent to forensic science laboratory, Mahanagar, Lucknow for medical analysis.The Joint Director of Forensic Science Laboratory has submitted report dated 26.12.2002 and found on big parts of underwear, human blood.This report was not challenged during the course of trial on behalf of the accused persons.Therefore, it is admissible in evidence under Section 293 Cr.P.C. because Forensic Science Laboratory is laboratory of State of U.P.On the death of the deceased, the Investigating Officer prepared inquest report (Ex. Ka-12).The Emergency Medical Officer informed the police personnel vide report (Ex. Ka-11).The Investigating Officer also prepared Photolash (Ex. Ka-13), sample of seal (Ex. Ka-14), Police form 13 (Ex. Ka-15), report to R.I. (Ex. Ka-16), report to the C.M.O. (Ex. Ka-17) for autopsy of the deceased.PW-1 Smt. Moorha alias Nisha was near her brother in law Lalmani, the deceased, who was lying in Bangla (Chapper) at 12:00 p.m on the date of incident after taking his lunch.The appellant Bindey wielded with country-made pistol came their and shot fire on Lalmani.The complainant Patte and Ghanshyam after hearing noise of fire came in Chhapper, which was situated outside their house and snatched country-made pistol from appellant Bindey.The appellant fled away from the place of occurrence.After sometime, co-accused Chenna and his wife Smt. Ramkali alias Bhutti (Bhutto) came at the place of occurrence.Cheena had wielded Kanta and Bhutti had wielded Bhali.The wooden part of Kanta i.e. its stick stuck on her head and she became unconscious.She regained her conscious at Police Station Maholi.PW-1 Moorha alias Nisha in her cross-examination has stated that her father-in-law Niranjan is alive.Laltu was his real brother, who has expired.There was a partition between Laltu and Niranjan in their lifetime itself.Both the parties are in possession of their shares.The main door of her house is in north side.The appellant Bindey came at the place of occurrence first then Cheena and then Smt. Ramkali alias Bhutti (Bhutto) reached there.The appellant Bindey firstly abused her.She has refuted this suggestion that the accused persons had assaulted her husband Patte and the deceased and then fire shot on Lalmani.The location of cot under Bangla (Chapper) was also disclosed by her.It is relevant to mention here that Investigating Officer has shown in site plan Ex. Ka-9 one door in eastern wall on north and one door in south.He is an uneducated and rustic witness, therefore, his opinion given about cartridge in cross-examination does not extend any benefit to the appellant.Moreover, he has stated in his examination-in-chief that when he handed over country-made pistol at Police Station, cartridge M-Ex-2, was inside it.32. PW-2 Patte in his cross-examination has further stated that he and his elder brother Ghanshyam were present inside their house, his mother had gone in grove and brother Chhail Bihari had gone in Village Newada on the date of occurrence.He has reiterated in cross-examination that Lalmani was lying on cot in Chapper.The main gate of his house and Chapper were at a distance of four hath.He and his brother Ghanshyam heard noise of fire at 12:00 p.m. He saw Lalmani on the ground, when he came out from the house.Bindey (the appellant) pointed country-made pistol towards him also and fled away in southern direction.He snatched country-made pistol from appellant Bindey.He saw blood on joot bag, which was laid on the cot.The villagers also reached at the place of occurrence after hearing noise of the fire.He could not see that other co-accused persons fled away in which direction.He brought the deceased Lalmani in injured state by tractor of Kishan Pal.His mother brought tractor from Kishan Pal.He reached at hospital in the evening at 5:00 p.m.His wife, elder brother and parents remained with Lalmani in the hospital.He has refuted this suggestion that he saw his wife with Lalmani in compromising position and he in grave and sudden provocation assaulted his wife.Lalmani intervened and tried to snatch country-made pistol from him and in the meanwhile fire was shot at Lalmani.This country-made pistol was not sealed by the Sub-Inspector in his presence.The recovery memo was prepared only and his thumb impression was obtained on it.He does not know about the inquest proceedings.He has stated that he does not know, what proceedings were conducted at the police station Kotwali Mohali.He also does not know, who signed the inquest report.38. PW-2 in his cross-examination has also stated that Cheena had wielded Kanta and Smt. Ramkali alias Bhutti (Bhutto) had wielded Bhali.He has stated that fire was shot first, then his wife was assaulted with Kanta.He has apprised the Investigating Officer that "on 29.6.2000, the complainant, his brother Patte and Khandani neighbour Cheena co-accused were having some dispute regarding tying of bullock.The appellant Bindey came on 30.6.2000 at 12:00 p.m., he had wielded Tamancha (country-made pistol) and fire shot on him.He sustained firearm injury in his abdomen/stomach and he fell down at the place of occurrence.He was speaking at this point of time, but this fact was not mentioned by him in G.D. He has specifically stated that he is not the medical expert and he could not state that the condition of the deceased was how much serious.Fresh blood was oozing.PW-3 Dr. S.S. Negi conducted autopsy of the deceased Lalmani alias Lalu on 1.7.2000 and found that rigor mortis along with staining after death, was present all over the dead body.He found the following injuries on the body of the deceased:-(I) Firearm entry wound of size 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x depth of abdomen on left side 11 c.m. over umbilicus.Margins were lacerated and blackened.On internal examination, peritoneum, stomach and right kidney were found lacerated.The brain, both lungs, liver, spleen and both the kidney were pail.Two litres liquid and clotted blood was found in cavity of abdomen.PW-3 S.S. Negi has opined that cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem firearm injury.He extracted a bullet from abdominal cavity of the deceased from right side of abdominal cavity.This appeal has been preferred on behalf of appellant Bindey assailing impugned judgment and order dated 5.10.2005 delivered by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Sitapur in Sessions Trial No. 164 of 2001 (State Vs.Bindey and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 302, 324 and 504 IPC of Police Station Maholi, District Sitapur.Learned trial court has convicted the appellant Bindey for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and amount of Rs. 5,000/- has been imposed with default stipulation to serve out additional imprisonment for six months.The trial court has acquitted the appellant Bindey for offence punishable under Sections 323/34 IPC and co-accused persons Cheena and Smt. Ramkali alias Bhutti (Bhutto) have also been acquitted for offence punishable under Section 302/34 and 323/34 IPC.The State Government of U.P. has not preferred any appeal against acquittal of the appellant Bindey and co-accused persons Cheena and Smt. Bhutti (Bhutto) for the aforesaid offences.The postmortem report of the deceased (Ex. Ka-3) was prepared.The Investigating Officer after conclusion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet (Ex. Ka-10) against the accused persons Cheena, Bindey, and Smt. Ramkali alias Bhutti (Bhutto).Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Sitapur framed charges against the appellant Bindey on 5.8.2002 for offences punishable under Section 302 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC and co-accused persons Cheena and Smt. Ramkali alias Bhutti (Bhutto) for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.The learned trial court has also framed charges against Cheena for offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and against Smt. Ramkali alias Bhutti for offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.All the accused persons including the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Learned trial court has recorded statement of PW-1 Smt. Moorha alias Nisha, PW-2 complainant Patte, PW-3 Dr. S.S. Negi, PW-4 Constable Dinesh Kumar Shukla, PW-5 Dr. Sharad Chandra, PW-6 S.I. Parmanand Ram.These witnesses have proved the aforesaid documents relied upon by the prosecution.The trial court has recorded the statement of appellant Bindey and co-accused persons Cheena and Smt. Ramkali alias Bhutti (Bhutto).All the accused persons including Bindey have stated that they have falsely been implicated in this crime.They have further stated that the Investigating Officer has not conducted impartial investigation.The witnesses have adduced their evidence due to enmity.The appellant and co-accused persons have stated that they would file their written statement also, but written statement is not available on the record of the trial court.The learned defence counsel has filed written argument only.Learned trial court has appreciated and analyzed the evidence of witnesses and convicted the appellant Bindey only and awarded the aforesaid punishment.None is responding on behalf of the appellant.Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record of Sessions Trial No. 164 of 2000 (State Vs.Cheena and others)PW-1 Smt. Moorha alias Nisha and PW-2 Patte are the witnesses of facts.They have adduced their evidence corroborating facts narrated in written report (Ex. Ka-1).They have proved this fact that all the accused persons including appellant Bindey are residents of their village.The appellant Bindey and co-accused Cheena are the real brother.Smt. Ramkali alias Bhutti (Bhutto) is wife of cousin brother in law of PW-1 Smt. Moorha alias Nisha and cousin brother of PW-2 Patte.Both these witnesses have stated that on previous day in the evening i.e. prior to the date of incident, there was an altercation between PW-2 Patte and co-accused persons regarding tying of cattle/bullocks in Bangla (Chapper).PW-2 Patte and his elder brother Ghanshyam were present inside of the house.PW-1 Moorha alias Nisha and PW-2 Patte have also stated that Lalmani and PW-1 Moorha alias Nisha were medically examined at District Hospital, Sitapur.The deceased Lalmani sustained injuries and succumbed to these injuries in the night at District Hospital.PW-2 complainant Patte has further stated that he dictated report to Anant Ram and after listening it, he appended his thumb impression on written report (Ex. Ka-1).He had handed over country-made pistol and cartridge, which was snatched from the appellant Bindey to Constable of the police station.He prepared recovery memo on which PW-2 Patte appended his thumb impression.He has proved his written report as Ex. Ka-1 and recovery memo (Ex. Ka-2).He has also proved country-made pistol and cartridge as material Ex.-1 and Ex.-2 respectively.She has further stated that deceased Lalmani alias Lalu was lying on cot in Bangla (Chapper), which is situated in north side of her house.She was standing on the eastern side of the deceased.This Chhapper was open on three sides.She has clarified the topography of her house and house of co-accused persons.23. PW-1 has specifically stated that the deceased was lying on cot after taking his meal/lunch ten minutes ago.The accused persons came there from northern side i.e. from eastern door of their house.One Chhapper in east side adjacent to house and another Chhapper of the complainant has been shown in east side of place of occurrence marked ''A'.From place marked ''B' the appellant shot fire on the deceased, this place is in front of south door of house of the appellant and co-accused persons.PW-1 is an uneducated and rustic witness, therefore, minor contradiction about direction appeared in her cross-examination are immaterial.PW-1 Moorha alias Nisha in her cross-examination has reiterated that her husband Patte and brother-in-law Ghanshyam were present inside the house and Bindey straightway fired on the deceased, while he (the deceased) was lying on cot, from a distance of 2-3 ''hath'.She has also stated that co-accused Cheena assaulted her with Banka.Lalmani alias Lalu after sustaining firearm injury fell down from cot on the ground on the eastern side.He snatched country-made pistol from Bindey in the meanwhile.This (Bangla) Chapper was laid on wall, which was 8-10 ''hath' high from the ground.She has denied this fact that the deceased Lalmani alias Lalu was murdered outside the Chapper.PW-1 Moorha alias Nisha in her cross-examination dated 1.1.2003 has clarified that brothers of Bindey and co-accused Cheena were Ram Kumar and Rameshwar, who have expired.Smt. Ramkali alias Bhutti (Bhutto) is the wife of Ram Kumar.She has refuted the suggestion that Ram Kumar was murdered and his dead body was found in Gossaiganj in Lucknow.She has further stated that her statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on third day of the incident at 12:00 p.m. She had apprised him about the place of occurrence, where the deceased Lalmani was lying on the cot.In her cross-examination dated 6.10.2003 and 1.12.2003, PW-1 has stated that deceased Lalmani was lying on Joot bag, which was laid on the cot.Therefore, blood was not soaked by the cot.The blood of the deceased fell down on Joot bag.She has refuted the suggestion that Lalmani was standing in the open place, when he was allegedly shot at.She has refuted the suggestion that she was sitting on the cot of the deceased.She has also refuted the suggestion that her husband Patte raised objection and prevented her to meet Lalmani.Her husband (PW-2) assaulted her by ''danda' in this regard.The deceased resisted assault of her husband, then her husband Patte fired on him by country-made pistol, which struck at Lalmani's stomach.She has further refuted this suggestion that the accused persons were falsely implicated in this crime due to enmity after due deliberations and consultations.PW-2 complainant Patte in his cross-examination has stated that he went to tie his cattle in Chapper, which was situated in eastern side of his house, where Smt. Ramkali alias Bhutti (Bhutto) slapped him.He apprised the scribe about his fact, but it was not mentioned in his written report.He cannot disclose any reason in this regard.He has denied this fact that Smt. Bhutti was widow of Ram Kumar and she is having five sons from relationship with Ram Kumar and after death of her husband, she was residing with co-accused Cheena as wife.PW-2 complainant Patte has refuted this suggestion that his younger brother Lalmani was having illicit relations with his wife and his wife Nisha was sitting on the cot of Lalmani on the date and time of incident, he objected about the conduct of his wife and assaulted his wife with stick.He has further refuted the suggestion that the deceased Lalmani resisted in this regard and intervened.He fired shot from country-made pistol, which struck Lalmani.He has also refuted this suggestion that he has changed country-made pistol, which was used by him and another country-made pistol was submitted by him at police station.PW-2 Patte has specifically stated that cartridge was factory made and it was of number 1 and it was not hand filled and it was having fire pin mark.The Presiding Officer has also made observations after inspecting the empty cartridge and mentioned in statement of PW-2 that empty cartridge was half filled by pieces of wads of diameter of one and half cm.Only one piece of wad could be extracted from the cartridge with help of Poker and half cartridge was empty.Since PW-2 has submitted empty cartridge M-Ex-2 at Police Station and PW-4 has mentioned in recovery memo Ex. Ka-2 that fire pin mark was present on its ''Paindi', therefore, his statement that this cartridge was not hand filled immaterial.33. PW-2 has further stated that the direction of cot was north to south and it was laid in the mid of Chhapper.This Chapper was also situated in the same direction and placed on wall of lane at a distance of four ''hath'.On this cot, Joot bag was laid.PW-2 complainant Patte has specifically stated that his wife, Lalmani, Ghanshyam did not snatch this country-made pistol.He has also stated in his cross-examination that when fire was shot by the appellant Bindey on Lalmani deceased, only his wife was present on the spot.PW-2 Patte has stated in his cross-examination dated 17.12.2003 that he had lodged FIR first then they went to hospital.The Investigating Officer has recorded statement of the deceased Lalmani in injured state at police station at 3:00 p.m. He was speaking at police station as well as at hospital.The deceased Lalmani was brought by tractor in the hospital and he stayed at police station for lodging the FIR and some Constable accompanied Lalmani for hospital.When Lalmani was sent for medical examination, then his report was lodged.He has refuted the suggestion that report of this crime was registered with due deliberations and consultations of the Sub Inspector.PW-2 has further stated that he came at hospital at 6:00 p.m. from police station.In his cross-examination dated 1.2.2003 and 17.12.2003, PW-2 complainant Patte has corroborated the statement of PW-1 that property had already been partitioned between him and co-accused persons.Both the parties were in possession of their shares.There was no dispute regarding partition of the property.39. PW-2 has further specifically stated that he does not know, in which circumstances, husband of Smt. Ramkali alias Bhutti (Bhutto), Ram Kumar was murdered.He has refuted the suggestion that Ram Kumar was murdered by them (complainant side) and they threw dead body of Ram Kumar on the place within the limits of Police Station Gossaiganj, Lucknow.PW-2 has also refuted the suggestion that there was any animosity on the basis of murder of Ram Kumar between family of PW-2 Patte and family members of accused persons and the accused persons have falsely been implicated in this crime due to this reason.The trial court after appreciation of the evidence of PW-1 and 2 has recorded finding that appellant Bindey shot fire on the deceased Lalmani, when PW-1 Moorha alias Nisha was standing near his cot.PW-2 complainant Patte snatched country-made pistol from the appellant Bindey with help of his family members.Therefore, co-accused persons, Cheena and Smt. Ramkali alias Bhutti (Bhutto) were not present at the point of time of first incident.Therefore, the trial court has recorded finding that the incident committed by Cheena and his wife Ramkali alias Bhutti (Bhutto) was not the part of the same transaction.They reached afterwards at the place of occurrence and allegedly assaulted PW-1 Smt. Moorha alias Nisha.The trial court has also considered argument of learned defence counsel that PW-2 complainant Patte himself fired shot on his wife PW-1 Smt. Moorha alias Nisha suspecting her illicit relations with Lalmani.He assaulted his wife, when Lalmani intervened, in the meanwhile fire shot by the complainant struck on body of the deceased.He also changed the country-made pistol used by him and submitted another country-made pistol at the police station.The trial court has recorded specific finding that when the appellant Bindey fired shot on Lalmani, PW-1 Moorha alias Nisha was present at the place of occurrence.PW-2 complainant Patte and his brother Ghanshyam were present inside their house and they reached at the place of occurrence hearing noise of fire shot by the appellant.The trial court has also observed that as per prosecution case, PW-1 Moorha alias Nisha and she was allegedly assaulted by co-accused Cheena with Kanta, but she sustained injury of blunt object.It is pertinent to mention here that the accused persons have taken specific defence that PW-1 Smt. Moorha alias Nisha was having illicit relations with Lalmani, the deceased and PW-2 Patte saw them in compromising position at the place of occurrence on the date and time of incident of this crime.PW-2 Patte first assaulted PW-1, who is his wife.The deceased intervened and tried to prevent PW-1, and in the meanwhile, PW-2 fired shot from country-made pistol, which struck Lalmani.Moreover, houses of PW-1 and PW-2 are situated in the same campus and it is divided only by a "Beda".The main door of house of accused persons was also situated in southern side, therefore, accused persons might have seen PW-1 and the deceased in compromising position.The appellant and co-accused persons have not adduced any other evidence in this regard.It is relevant to mention here that if PW-1 was really having illicit relations with the deceased Lalmani, who was her unmarried brother in law and she was not having cordial relations with her husband PW-2, then to get rid of her husband, she would have certainly named PW-2 as assailant of the deceased.No person will absolve the real culprit and would falsely implicate other innocent person on the basis of alleged enmity.On the other hand, learned trial court has also recorded finding of fact that the houses of both the parties are in same campus.It is divided only by "Beda" and they are Khandani.The trial court has also recorded finding that according to postmortem report, the deceased sustained firearm injuries and bullet was found from his body by the concerned doctor.The trial court has also recorded this finding that when appellant Bindey fired shot on Lalmani, no other witness except PW-1 Moorha alias Nisha was present there.No independent witness was mentioned in the FIR lodged by the PW-2 Patte.All the independent witnesses reached at the place of occurrence afterwards/after sometime.Therefore production of independent witnesses was not required by the prosecution.The trial court has analyzed and appreciated the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 on the basis of facts narrated in written report Ex. Ka-1 and site plan Ex. Ka-9 prepared by the Investigating Officer and found that house of co-accused persons was situated in northern side of place of occurrence.The chapper, in which, Lalmani was lying and the appellant Bindey fired shot on him, is situated near the house of the complainant and the appellant and co-accused persons.Therefore, topography of place of occurrence was not doubted by the trial court.The trial court has recorded finding that incident of firing was committed by the appellant Bindey below the Chapper as stated by PW-1 Smt. Moorha alias Nisha and PW-2 complainant Patte.The trial court has considered omissions and faults committed by the Investigating Officer as pointed out by the defence counsel that he had not collected bloodstained soil, he did not saw the cot, on which Lalmani was lying during the course of incident and he had not sent the bullet recovered from the body of the deceased for its comparison with the country-made pistol and cartridge submitted by the complainant.The trial court discarded this argument put forth by learned defence counsel and held that on the basis of omissions and faults committed by the Investigating Officer prosecution cannot be adversely affected.Learned trial court has also recorded finding that PW-1 Smt. Moorha alias Nisha and PW-2 complainant Patte were present on the place of occurrence when the appellant fired shot on Lalmani and their evidence is reliable.PW-4 Constable Dinesh Kumar Shukla has proved this fact that when the deceased was brought at police station in injured state, he was speaking.He sent him with request for his medical examination.52. PW-6 S.I. Parmanand Ram has stated that he sent PW-1 Moorha alias Nisha for her medical examination and he retained deceased Lalmani at police station.We have perused the statement of deceased Lalmani.His family members and complainant Patte snatched country-made pistol used by the appellant Bindey.It was submitted in the police station.After sometime, co-accused Cheena brought Kanta from his house and assaulted on the head of wife of his brother Patte.The stick of Kanta struck on the head of PW-1 Moorha alias Nisha.He has stated that wife of Cheena Smt. Ramkali alias Bhutti (Bhutto) had wielded Bhali.Cheena and Ramkali alias Bhutti (Bhutto) exhorted the appellant Bindey, therefore he fired on him.He was sent for medical examination by the Investigating Officer."The deceased Lalmani was medically examined at 5:50 p.m. by PW- 5Dr.Sharad Chandra and Smt. Moorha alias Nisha was medically examined at 6:00 p.m. at District Hospital Sitapur by him.The trial court has considered the argument of learned defence counsel that the circumstances, in which, the statement of deceased in injured state was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and circumstances in which, they were sent for their medical examination are suspicious and have not been proved by the prosecution.Therefore, the statement of the deceased recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating officer cannot come within the category of dying declaration.The trial court has discarded the argument of learned ADGC and held that statement of deceased Lalmani recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was proved by the Investigating Officer PW-6 was not reliable and acceptable, because the prosecution was obliged to prove specifically that the deceased was conscious and he was able to speak while the Investigating Officer recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The trial court has mentioned in his judgment that PW-5 Dr. Sharad Chandra has stated that he might have unconscious or semi conscious.Therefore, his dying declaration could not have been recorded.PW-4 Constable Dinesh Kumar Shukla has stated in his examination-in-chief that the complainant brought PW-1 in injured state and country-made pistol at Police Station.He handed over country-made pistol at police station.He prepared recovery memo Ex. Ka-2 of this pistol and cartridge.PW-4 in his cross examination has clarified that (on date of his cross-examination i.e. 23.3.2004) the cartridge, which was produced before the trial court was different from the cartridge of number 1 factory made, which was sealed by him.PW-2 has proved that cartridge was stuck in barrel of county-made pistol handed over by him at the police station.This crime was registered in presence of PW-6, but during his cross-examination, he is unable to disclose this fact that any cartridge was stuck in barrel of country-made pistol or not?The trial court has also observed regarding M-Ex.-2 during cross-examination dated 1.12.2003 of PW-2 that it was half filled by pieces of wads and it was half empty.PW-4 in his cross-examination has stated that the deceased in injured state was lying on trolley and he went and saw Lalmani on the trolley itself.But he has stated that the deceased sustained firearm injury in his stomach.He was lying in pool of blood.Therefore, he had not brought him from tractor trolley in police station.He prepared request for his medical examination and registered the crime and handed over the investigation to the Investigating Officer.He does not know whether the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Lalmani.60. PW-4 has stated in his cross-examination also that he prepared recovery memo of country-made pistol and cartridges submitted by the complainant.He has identified the country-made pistol, which was produced before the trial court at the point of time of recording of his statement.The wooden Benta was broken, as it was at the time of its submission at police station.61. PW-6 S.I. Parmanand Ram has stated that initial investigation was started by him and he recorded statement of Lalmani alias Lalu at police station.He recorded his statement as he apprised him.He has stated that on 4.7.2000 (correct date of death is 30.6.2000/1.7.2000 at 3:30 a.m.) injured Lalmani expired at District Hospital and then he converted the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.The Inspector Rudra Pratap Singh took over further investigation and he recorded statement of injured Smt Moorha alias Nisha and submitted charge sheet Ex. Ka-10 against the accused persons including the appellant.PW-6 in his cross-examination has only stated that Lalmani, when came at police station, he was able to speak.Lalmani did not lodge any FIR.He has refuted the suggestion that Lalmani when came at police station was not able to speak.He has accepted that no dying declaration of the deceased was recorded and he did not received any such dying declaration.He has stated that the complainant submitted a country-made pistol of .12 bore at the police station.In the recovery memo this fact is not mentioned that there was any smell of gun powder from barrel of country-made pistol.He has also accepted this fact during his cross-examination that no offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against the appellant.He had not sent country-made pistol and bullet for comparison and chemical examination at Forensic Science Laboratory.64. PW-6 has stated in his cross-examination that he has mentioned place mark ''A' in the site plan, where Lalmani was shot by the appellant, which is outside the Chappar, which was situated in eastern side of the house of complainant.The deceased Lalmani fell down after sustaining firearm injury at this place he had not found blood empty cartridge or bullet and piece of wad at this place.He has also stated that he did not mention the place, where Smt. Moorha alias Nisha sustained injuries.Although he inspected the place of occurrence on the pointing out by the complainant.65. PW-6 has stated that this fact was not within his knowledge that deceased Lalmani and Smt. Moorha alias Nisha were having illicit relations.He has stated that Smt. Moorha alias Nisha apprised him that she and complainant Patte snatched country-made pistol from appellant Bindey.She also apprised him that Cheena assaulted her with Kanta.He had not taken in his possession bloodstained Joot bag.He has refuted the suggestion that he conducted tainted and impartial investigation only to implicate the accused persons in this case.Therefore, the trial court has rightly discarded the argument of learned ADGC that statement of deceased recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. came in category of dying declaration.The trial court has specifically recorded the finding that although motive of the murder of Lalmani was dispute regarding tying of bullocks, which occurred in the evening of previous day of date of incident.The motive for committing the crime remained block in the mind of the accused and depends upon his thinking to commit any particular offence.There was no other reason to implicate the accused persons in this heinous crime.The PW-1 and PW-2 adduced their evidence regarding the facts and circumstances of this case.The accused persons had not adduced any evidence regarding animosity suggested by learned defence counsel to these witnesses.On the other hand the suggestion given by learned defence counsel to PW-2 was self contradictory, because it was suggested to PW-2 that his family members committed murder of Ram Kumar, who was brother of accused appellant Bindey and co-accused Cheena and due to this enmity, the accused persons were falsely implicated in this crime.There was no occasion for complainant side to have animosity with family of accused persons on the ground of murder of Ram Kumar.The appellant Bindey and accused persons had not adduced any evidence, in which circumstances, Ram Kumar was murdered by the complainant side.No document relating to murder of alleged Ram Kumar was brought on record of the trial court during the course of trial of this case.On the other hand, PW-1 and PW-2 have proved this fact that the property of Niranjan and late Laltu were partitioned in their lifetime itself and both the parties were in possession of properties which came in their shares.Therefore, there was no dispute between the family of complainant and accused persons regarding partition of any property.Therefore, learned trial court has rightly recorded the finding that there was no reason for the complainant party to implicate the accused persons falsely on the basis of any enmity.The trial court has also analysed and evaluated the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 on the basis of medical evidence adduced by PW-3 Dr. S.S. Negi and PW-5 Dr. Sharad Chandra and recorded specific finding that injury sustained by deceased Lalmani was of such nature and its direction was such, which could be sustained by him while he was lying on the cot and the appellant Bindey might have fired in standing position.Both the doctors PW-3 and PW-5 have proved this fact that the deceased Lalmani sustained firearm injury.Learned trial court has also considered argument of learned defence counsel that bullet was recovered from the body of the deceased, but country-made pistol submitted by the complainant was of .12 bore therefore, bullet cannot be used in the cartridge of .12 bore.The trial court has recorded finding that material Ex.-1 country-made pistol was not standard weapon, and hand filled cartridge of .12 bore may contain bullet.The trial court has recorded specific finding that there was no difference in oral and medical evidence.The trial court has also recorded finding that facts narrated in the written report Ex. Ka-1 had corroborated the statements of PW-1 Moorha alias Nisha and PW-2 Patte.The bullet was found in abdominal cavity of the deceased by PW-3 Dr. S.S. Negi.The country-made pistol was snatched by PW-2 from the appellant and it was submitted by him along with used cartridge at police station, while he lodged FIR Ex. Ka-1 at the police station.The trial court has observed during recording of statement of PW-2 that this cartridge of .12 bore was half filled with circular wads of size of its inner side.Only one piece of wad could be extracted with poker.The half of the cartridge was empty.No cross-examination was conducted by learned defence counsel, on the basis of size of firing pin of country-made pistol M-Ex-1, the empty space of the cartridge and size of bullet found in abdominal cavity of dead body of the deceased, to establish this fact that impact of firing pin could not be much enough to explode gun powder, for exit of bullet filled in empty part of it.The possibility of filling projectile/bullet only instead of pellets, in hand filled cartridge cannot be ruled out.The contents and components of it may consist of projectile/bullet along with gun powder.During cross-examination size of projectile/bullet and size of firing pin has not been clarified from witness PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6 by learned defence counsel.It was also not get clarified that bullet/projectile was of cartridge of 315 bore or 32 bore or of which bore? Projectile/bullet is small part of these cartridges, which may be easily filled in 12 bore cartridge in place of pellets.The size of firing pin might have been manufactured/adjusted in country-made pistol for use of such hand filled cartridge.Although the Investigating Officer has not sent country-made pistol material Ex.-1 and cartridge Material Ex.-2 for comparison of it by the ballistic expert, even then the appellant and co-accused persons could obtain expert's opinion to prove their defence version that the complainant PW-2 had changed country-made pistol used by him or bullet could not be fired from hand filled cartridge M-Ex.-2 by using it in country-made pistol M- Ex.-1 by the appellant.The exposition of law on the point of standard firearm and country-made pistol:-(3) Lacerated wound 1½ cm., diameter × muscle 1 cm.below injury (2) margin inverted and blackened.(4) Lacerated wound 1¼ cm.diameter × muscle 1 cm.out and below injury (1) margins inverted and blackened.(5) Lacerated wound 2½ cm.diameter × 1 cm.× muscle, 1½ cm.below injury (4) margin inverted and blackened.(6) Lacerated wound 1 cm.diameter × muscle 1½ cm.below and into (5) margins blackened and inverted.(7) Lacerated wound 5 cm.× 3 cm.muscle obliquely on postero lateral aspect of right arm, 19 cms below shoulder-margins everted.(8) Lacerated wound ½ cm.× km × muscle on posterior aspect of right arm 2½ cm.into middle of (7) margins everted.(9) Lacerated wound 1 cm.diameter × muscle -- just above (8) margins everted.(10) Lacerated wound 5 cms.× 4 cms.× muscle obliquely in right lumber region.3 cms right to middle margins everted (11) Lacerated wound 4 cms.× 2 cms.× muscle vertically 2 cms below (10) margins everted.(12) Lacerated wound 1 cm.diameter × muscle on right buttock upper part margins everted.(13) Lacerated wound 2½ cms × 1½ cms × peribonel cavity, horizontally 7 cms left and below umbilicus margins inverted.Loops of intestines had come out through wounds.The scalp was intact.He also stated that three wad covers were recovered from the right arm and three metal pieces were also recovered from the hip bone.In his opinion, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage on account of the above injuries, According to him the first six injuries were gun shot wounds on the right arm being inlet wounds; the margins were inverted and blackened.while injuries 10 to 12 were exit wounds corresponding to this injury.As regards metal pieces, that were recovered from injury 13, he could not definitely say to what they related and of what metal they were.Certain possibilities in the alternative were also elicited from him in his cross-examination, for, he first stated that injuries 1 to 6 could have been caused by one fire only and from a distance of 3 ft.but he again asserted that the injuries caused to right arm were possible to have been caused by more than one fire; similarly, the inlet injury 13 that had been caused near the umbilicus could have been caused from a distance of more than six feet, and could have been caused by two shots.Now beyond giving approximate distance from which the shots were fired by Accused 1 to 3 and further stating that during the firing the deceased had turned and Dhani Ram stating that the first shot fired by Accused 1 had hit Uma Shanker in his stomach, no further or precise details as to the exact distance from where the shots had been fired or other parts of the body where the shots had landed etc. were given by either of the two material witnesses, namely, Mannu Lal (PW 1) and Dhani Ram (PW 14).Even so, the High Court has taken the view that the prosecution version as given by these two witnesses does not fit in with the injuries as noted in the post mortem report.The High Court's reasoning in this behalf runs thus:"All the six injuries 1 to 6 are situate close to each other.Considering that the margins of all the injuries were blackened, the likelihood is that these are the result of one gunshot.No undue importance can be attached to the size of injuries 1 and 5 because the entry of the wads could cause a bigger wound.To expect two shots fired one after another or at the same time by two different persons to hit in the same area and both to be fired from a short range is difficult.On a consideration of the nature of these injuries 1 to 6 we are of opinion that they are the result of one gunshot fired from the right hand side i.e. from the west at the time the deceased was travelling from north to south.This shot was evidently fired from a distance of about one yard.Injury 13 is the inlet wound 2½ cms in length.As this injury corresponds to injuries 10 to 12, injury 13 must be the composite injury as a result of the pellets entering the body together.It may be mentioned here that three pieces of metal were recovered from the right hip bone showing that more than three pellets had entered the body.As the edges of gunshot wounds were not blackened, it must have been fired from some distance though not from a long distance, otherwise on account of dispersal more than one gun shot wound would have been found in that region.In case the firing took place first of all from near the Mathh Mata we would have expected injuries on the left side.This would also show that this part of the story is not correct.The nature of the injuries also strongly suggests that the assailants were on one side i.e. towards the west and the two shots had been fired one after another by the same person or by two different persons.The prosecution version is different."If the aforesaid reasoning is carefully scrutinised it will appear clear that quite a few assumptions have been made by the High Court and the reasoning also fails to take into account the alternate possibilities that were elicited by the defence itself in the cross-examination of the Medical Officer and it is by adopting such process of reasoning that the High Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution version does not fit in with the medical evidence.The High Court has observed "to expect two shots fired one after another or at the same time by two different persons to hit in the same area and both to be fired from a short range is difficult".In the first instance the observation is contrary to the medical evidence, for the doctor has categorically stated in his cross-examination that the right arm injuries (being injuries 1 to 6) could be caused by two shots, a possibility which was elicited during his cross-examination by defence itself.Secondly, the conclusion based on such observation to the effect that injuries 1 to 6 are the result of one gun shot is again contrary to the direct evidence of the two witnesses, for, both of them have stated that Swami Din (A-2) and Ram Gopal (A-3) emerged from the right hand side (i.e. from the west as the deceased was walking north-south) and fired two shots in quick succession one after another which must have hit the deceased Uma Shanker on his right arm.Further, we fail to appreciate how the High Court could observe to the effect that "in case the firing took place first of all from near the Mathh Mata we would have expected injuries on the left side and this would show that this part of the story is not correct".In fact, the evidence of both the witnesses has been that it was Sughar Singh Accused 1, who emerged from Matan-ki-Mathia side, i.e. eastern side and fired the first shot and according to Dhani Ram (PW 14) that shot hit the deceased in his stomach.Injury 13 is, therefore, quite consistent with the aforesaid story of the prosecution witnesses.It is also not possible to accept the High Court's view to the effect that: "the nature of the injuries also strongly suggests that the assailants were on one side i.e. towards the west and the two shots had been fired one after another by the same person or by two different persons; but the prosecution story is different".In our view, according to the prosecution version, Sughar Singh Accused 1 emerged from Matan-ki-Mathia (eastern side) and fired a shot in the stomach of the deceased and immediately thereafter Swami Din Accused 2 and Ram Gopal Accused 3 who had emerged from the western side fired a shot each, which shots must have hit the right arm of the deceased.This version of the prosecution witnesses would be clearly consistent with the injuries noted in the post-mortem report and medical evidence of Dr Chauhan.After all the incident of firing upon the deceased had taken place in broad daylight at about 2.30 p.m. during the course of which the three assailants had used firearms, namely, two guns and one pistol and such an incident had been witnessed by the two prosecution witnesses, namely, Mannu Lal (PW 1) and Dhani Ram (PW 14) from the close quarters and their evidence substantially tallies with the medical evidence on record especially in the light of the alternate possibilities elicited from the medical officer in his cross-examination by the defence itself.In view of such direct evidence of eyewitnesses of the firing being available on record some inconsistency relating to distance from which gun shots were fired between the evidence of medical expert and the eyewitnesses would be of no significance whatsoever (vide Karnail Singh v.In the case Capital Sentence No. 2126 of 1990 (Reference No. 4 of 1990) Mohd. Islam vs. State of U.P. (01.10.1992 - ALLHC) reported in 1993 All LJ 570 (DB), the Division Bench of this Court has held as under:-25A. Sri Kamal Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the evidence on record shows that the firing was done from a very close range but there was no blackening or tattooing around the injuries and therefore, eye witness account was in conflict with the medical evidence and should be discarded.Which showed that the distance between the appellant and Jamila Bibi was 1 1/2-2 paces.Learned counsel has submitted that as the hand of the assailant would have been stretched at the time of shooting, the actual distance between the barrel of pistol and Jamila Bibi could only be few inches and therefore blackening or tattooing around the injuries was an absolute must if the eye witness account was correct.Sri S. P. Singh learned Government Advocate has however, submitted that in the present case a country made pistol had been used and Ex. ka 2 (recovery memo) showed that refilled cartridges had been fired.According to learned counsel the opinion expressed in the authoritative text is with regard to standard factory made guns and cartridges and it will be too hazardous to discard the oral testimony on the basis of such opinion where a country made weapon and hand-filled cartridges have been used.Scorching was found up to a distance of 1 feet with the standard shot gun and up to 6 inches with the country made pistol.Tattooing was obtained upto a distance of 2 feet with the standard 12 bore shot gun and upto 1 feet with the country made pistol.Blackening was obtained upto a distance of 3 feet with the standard gun and 1 feet with the country made pistol.She was simply standing only during the course of incident at the place of occurrence.Therefore, the trial court, has acquitted appellant Bindey for offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC.The trial court has found that co-accused Cheena and Smt. Bhutti were not present during first part of the incident, when the appellant Bindey fired shot on Lalmani.Therefore, since Smt. Bhutti did not participate in the second part of the incident of assault on Smt. Moorha alias Nisha and there was contradiction in the statements of witnesses regarding use of Kanta and nature of injuries sustained by PW-1 Smt. Moorha alias Nisha, hence, the trial court has acquitted co-accused Cheena and Smt. Bhutti for offence punishable under Section 302/34 and for offence punishable under Section 323 IPC.The trial court has convicted only appellant Bindey for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.The other contradiction regarding presence of Ghanshyam and his mother at the point of time of incident when appellant Bindey fired shot on Lalmani on 30.6.2000 at 12:00 p.m. were not material contradiction.The trial court has recorded specific finding that although statement of the deceased Lalmani recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. could not be proved in category of dying declaration, even then the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is wholly reliable regarding the fact that appellant Bindey fired shot on the deceased Lalmani and he succumbed to firearm injuries sustained by him.80. PW-5 Dr. Sharad Chandra has medically examined Lalmani in injured state on 30.6.2000 at 5:50 p.m. He found firearm wound of entry of size 2.5 c.m. x 2 c.m. depth of this wound could not be proved, margins were inverted and blackening and charring were not present, but intestine was coming out from this wound.The injury was kept under observation and fresh blood was oozing.X-ray of this injury was advised.PW-5 has also proved injury report Ex .ka7 of injured Smt. Moorha alias Nisha.He has stated that on 30.6.2000 at 6:00 p.m., he medically examined Smt. Nisha and found the following injuries.(i) Lacerated wound of size 2 c.m.x 0.5 c.m.on head skin deep on mid of head, fresh blood was oozing.(ii) Lacerated would of size 2.5 c.m.x 0.5 c.m.on head, skin deep on back side of head, 6 c.m.He sealed and handed over bullet to the Constable along with document received by him and clothes of the deceased.He has opined that the deceased died on 1.7.2000 at 3:30 a.m. at District Hospital Sitapur.No material contradiction was elicited during cross-examination of PW-3 and PW-5 on behalf of the appellant and co-accused persons.Therefore, we have also found that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 eyewitnesses were corroborated by the medical evidence adduced by PW-3 Dr. S.S. Negi, who conducted autopsy of the deceased Lalmani and PW-5 Dr. Sharad Chandra, who medically examined the deceased Lalmani in injured state.The trial court has also considered argument of learned defence counsel that FIR of this case was lodged with delay after due consultation and deliberations.The trial court has in this regard observed that the incident was occurred at 12:00 p.m. on the date of incident and FIR was lodged at 4:00 p.m. The place of occurrence was situated at a distance of 10 kilometers from the police station, therefore, sometime might have been consumed for arrangement of vehicle.The trial court has mentioned that PW-2 Patte has stated that statement of deceased was recorded at 3:00 p.m. whereas during cross-examination, he has stated that the deceased was straightway sent to District Hospital.These statements of PW-2 were not found material contradiction by the trial court and held that on the basis of statements of PW-2 Patte, FIR of this case could not be termed as a result of deliberations and consultations.There was no undue delay for lodging the FIR at police station and the trial court has rightly discarded argument of learned defence counsel that there was no any undue delay in lodging the FIR of this case and it was lodged after due consultation and deliberations.We have also appreciated and analyzed the evidence of PW-1 Smt. Moorha alias Nisha and PW-2 Patte and we found that their presence at the place of occurrence is established, when the appellant Bindey fired shot at the deceased Lalmani.The prosecution has proved that the appellant had shot fire on the deceased Lalmani in presence of PW-1 and PW-2 snatched country-made pistol from the appellant and saw the deceased in the injured state.The deceased succumbed to firearm injury sustained by him.PW-1 and PW-2 are the natural witnesses, because they are residents of the same house, in which, the deceased was residing being member of their family.Therefore, offence under Section 302 IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant Bindey by the prosecution.There is no material contradiction in evidence adduced by the prosecution.Learned A.G.A. has pointed out that the Senior Superintendent Central Jail Bareilly vide letter dated 21.4.2019 has informed the Court that on the basis of Government Order 564/2018/1106/22.02.2018-07G/2018 dated 01.08.2018 state policy for release of convicted detenue was framed on the eve of republic day.The appellant Bindey son of Laltu had completed his imprisonment for eighteen years, six months and fourteen days without remission and twenty two years, eleven months and twenty one days with remission, therefore he has been released on 26.1.2019 on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- by remitting his remaining period of imprisonment.The Deputy Secretary of Government of U.P. Jail Administration & Reforms Section-2, Lucknow has issued Government Order 2388/22.2.2018-17(555)/2018 on 25.01.2019 in this regard.The copy of G.O. dated 25.01.2019 and personal bond furnished by the appellant Bindey son of Laltu.On the basis of above discussions and findings recorded by the trial court, the appellant Bindey has been convicted vide impugned judgment and order dated 5.10.2005 in correct perspective and it cannot be termed as perverse or against the evidence available on record.The impugned judgment and order is liable to be upheld and it is affirmed.This appeal lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.Appeal accordingly dismissed.Copy of judgment be sent to the trial court and the Senior Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bareilly Superintendent for compliance.The record of trial court be sent back.Order Date :- 22.4.2019 Virendra

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

With consent the appeals are finally heard at the admission stage.2] These appeals emanate from two separate orders dated 05.04.2019 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kelapur whereby the applications preferred by the appellants under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Code') are rejected.::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2019 02:44:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2019 02:44:22 :::d/o Vidnyan @ Dhynandeo Udar and Criminal Appeal 318 of 2019 is preferred by Sau.Shashikala Waman Khadse and Shri Vidnyan @ Dhynandeo Udar the father of Ms. Maya, respectively.4] The first informant Shri Gulab Tekam is the father of deceased Ajay Tekam, who unfortunately committed suicide on 15.03.2019 by consuming poison.5] Shri Gulab Tekam lodged report dated 16.03.2019 at Police Station Mukutban, Tq.Zhari Jamni, Dist.6] The appellants preferred separate applications for grant of anticipatory bail, which are rejected on the premise that the bar envisaged by Section 18-A of the Atrocities is attracted and the Court is, therefore, precluded from granting anticipatory bail.Perusal of the orders impugned reveal that the learned Sessions Judge has not applied mind to the entitlement of the appellants::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2019 02:44:22 ::: 4 apeal317.19+.J.odt for anticipatory bail qua the offences under the Indian Penal Code, presumably, since the learned Sessions Judge assumed that the bar applies.::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2019 02:44:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2019 02:44:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2019 02:44:22 :::statements of Shri Moreshwar and Shri Babarao which are recorded on 26.03.2019 and 23.03.2019 respectively.Having done so, I am satisfied that prima facie no case is made out as would attract the provisions of the Atrocities Act. 9] Even if the first information report is taken at face value, the allegation is that Shashikala invited or induced the deceased Ajay Tekam to come to her house, and when the deceased Ajay Tekam obliged, he was berated for having an affair with Maya.The utterances which are attributed to Shashikala is, "ukyk;dk xksaMkG;k rq ekÖ;k Hkkph lkscr yXu dj.kkj dk " (the broad translation would be Gondayna so you are wanting to marry my niece).In order to attract the provisions of the Atrocities Act, which are invoked, it is necessary to at least prima facie show that the words uttered were uttered with the intention to humiliate or insult a member of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes within public view.The words which are referred to, and which even according to the prosecution, were uttered during the course of a confrontation the preclude of which was the alleged relationship between deceased Ajay Tekam and Maya, cannot be said to have been uttered with the requisite intent.Notably, in the::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2019 02:44:22 ::: 6 apeal317.19+.J.odt suicide note, which is a part of the case papers which are available for my perusal, the deceased makes no reference whatsoever to any utterances having castiest colour.Pertinently, in so far as Maya and Vidnyan are concerned, there is absolutely no averment in the first information report and it is inexplicable why they are roped in, along with Shashikala, as regards the offences punishable under the Atrocities Act.::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2019 02:44:22 :::10] The learned Sessions Judge has not considered the applications for anticipatory bail on the touchstone of the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code.It would be appropriate if the matters are remitted to the learned Sessions Judge.appellants - accused are charged, i.e. the offences under the Indian Penal Code, the applications for anticipatory bail shall be considered afresh and decided within ten days of the appellants::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2019 02:44:22 ::: 7 apeal317.19+.J.odt appearing before the learned Sessions Judge.::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2019 02:44:22 :::15] The interim protection granted to the appellants vide order dated 23.04.2019 shall continue to operate for a period of four weeks, within which period the applications for anticipatory bail shall be decided.16] The appeals are allowed in the aforestated terms.::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2019 02:44:22 :::

['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(a) The deceased in this case was one Mr.He was residing in a rented house at Anjugam Nagar in Chinnavedampatty in Coimbatore District.He was running a shop.The deceased was staying alone at his house.The accused also hails from the same village.His wife is one Mrs.Sabitha.Sabitha used to visit the house of the deceased to cook for him.In that process, she used to stay at the house of the deceased for hours together.This gave rise to a talk in the village that the deceased and the wife of the accused had illicit intimacy.This came to the knowledge of the accused.He was enraged over the same.Few days prior to 24.10.2010, near the bus stop in the said village, around 05.00 to 05.30 p.m., there was a wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased on account of the illicit intimacy between the deceased and the wife of the accused.P.W.1 the then Local Municipal Councilor of 15th Ward, Coimbatore and a leading Politician and others intervened and separated them.This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence.(b) On 24.10.2010 around 03.00 p.m., it is alleged that the accused, entered into the house of the deceased.The wife of the accused was present in the house of the deceased along with her child.On seeing the same, the accused got wild.He pushed the deceased down inside the house of the deceased and dashed the head of the deceased against the floor.The deceased raised alarm.The wife of the accused rushed out of the house crying.On seeing the alarm raised, P.W.1 and others rushed to the house of the deceased and they witnessed the occurrence.On seeing them, the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.(c) P.W.1 and others immediately took the deceased to the hospital and admitted him as inpatient.P.1 is the complaint and Ex.P.12 is the First Information Report.P.W.15, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.1100 of 2010 under Section 307 of IPC against the accused.(d) P.W.16, the then Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation.He rushed to the hospital immediately.But he could not examine the deceased as he was unconscious.Then, he went to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch at the place of occurrence in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness.He recovered the blood stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence.He examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and few more witnesses.On 25.10.2010, he arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness.On such arrest, he made a voluntary confession in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden a blood stained Lungi.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to his house and produced M.O.9 Lungi.P.W.16 recovered the same under a Mahazar in the presence of the same witnesses.Hyoid bone intact.Fracture noted over lower end of superior cornu of thyroid and usage with surrounding tissue contusion.-Stomach contains about 200grams of partially digested food particles, no specific smell mucosa congested.-Small intestine:contains about 10ml of bile stained third, no specific smell, mucosa congested.-Urinary bladder empty.P.9 is the Postmortem Certificate and Ex.P.10 is his final opinion regarding cause of death.He gave opinion that the injuries found on the body of the deceased would have been caused by dashing him against the floor.He further opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the said injuries.(f) P.W.16 collected the medical records, examined the Doctors and recorded their statements.[Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.] The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.61/2011 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (Sessions Judge for Bomb Blast Cases), Coimbatore.He stood charged for offences under Sections 449 and 302 of IPC.By judgment dated 21.01.2013, the trial court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 449 of IPC.The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.Then, he forwarded the accused for judicial remand.On 27.10.2010 at 08.15 a.m., the deceased succumbed to the injuries in the hospital.On receiving intimation from the hospital, he altered the case into one under Section 302 of IPC and submitted an Alteration Report.Then, he conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and forwarded the same for postmortem.(e) P.W.12, an Associate Professor at Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 27.10.2010 at 12.30 p.m. He found the following injuries:''Moderately nourished body of a male aged about 36 years.Finger and toenails bluish in colour.The following ante mortem injuries noted over the body:1)Transversely oblique laceration 2x0.5 cm x skin deep noted over medial aspect left eyebrow, the lower end is starting from the left eye brow.2) Bluish colour contusion 5x2cm x entire thickness noted over inner aspect of lower lip with laceration 2x0.5x1 cm noter over left lower lip.3) Bluish colour contusion noter over inner aspect of entire upper lip.4) Multiple linear abrasions with reddish brown scab noted over left side upper cheek and right side upper cheek (nail mark)5) Transversely oblique abrasion with reddish brown scab 5x0.75 cm noted over left side lower neck, 2 cm above to left side clavicle.6) Abrasion with reddish brown scab and surrounding contusion over the area of 6x6cm noter over mid occipital region.7) Abrasion with reddish brown scab 2x0.5cm noted in lateral aspect of left eyebrow.On dissection of Thorax and Abdomen: Bluish contusion 6x3cm acted over 6th inter coastal muscles of right side chest.Right side 5th and 6th ribs found fractured in its mid clavicular line with surrounding tissue contusion.On dissection of Scalp, Skull and Lura: Sub scalpel contusion 10x6cm noted over mid and right occipital region.Diffuse sub dural and sub arachnoid hemorrhages noted over both cerebral hemisphere.Sub dural clot weighing about 50 grams noter over right side hemisphere and 5 grams noted over left frontal region.Cerebral spinal fluid increased in volume with blood stain.Peticheal hemorrhages noted on intra cerebral region of both frontal lobes of brain.On dissection of Neck: Contusion 4x3x1 cm noted on lower aspect of right side neck muscle below to thyroid cartilage level.Contusion 6x3x1 cm noted over lateral aspect of left side lower neck muscles.On dissection of Larynx and Trachea: Both pyriform fossa and aryepiglottis found contused.-Peritoneal and pleural cavities - empty-Heart: Right side chambers contain about few cc of fluid blood, left side chamber empty.Coronaries patent.At his request, the material objects were sent for chemical examination.The report revealed that there were human blood stains found on all the material objects.On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of the Judgment.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 16 witnesses were examined and 18 documents and 9 material objects were also marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 has stated that on hearing the alarm raised by the wife of the accused and the deceased, she rushed to the house of the deceased.She found the deceased lying and the accused sitting on him and dashing his head against the floor.P.W.2 yet another neighbour has stated that the accused came to his shop for purchasing cigarette and then, he went into the house of the deceased.Within 5 minutes, he heard the alarm raised from the house of the deceased.When he rushed to the house of the deceased, he found blood stains on the house and on seeing the same, he fainted.He has been treated as hospital as he has not stated anything about the occurrence though he was expected to speak about the entire occurrence.P.W.3 yet another neighbour has spoken about the entire occurrence.P.W.4 has spoken about the preparation of the Observation Mahazar and the Rough Sketch at the place of occurrence.P.W.5 Photographer has spoken about the photographs taken by him at the place of occurrence as directed by P.W.16. P.W.6 has spoken about the earlier occurrence in which the accused reprimanded the deceased not to have any connection with his wife.He has also spoken about the arrest of the accused and the consequential recovery of the material objects including the Lungi on the disclosure statement made by the accused.P.W.7 has stated that he took the deceased to the hospital in a Call Taxi.P.W.9 is the wife of the deceased.She has stated that she went to the hospital to see her husband after hearing about the occurrence.P.W.11 Doctor Karuppusamy has stated that on 24.10.2010 at 04.15 p.m., when he was in the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, the deceased was brought for treatment by one Thiyagarajan.He was unconscious.He admitted him as inpatient.Thiyagarajan told the Doctor that the deceased was attacked by an unknown person.P.W.10 Doctor Angeline Vincent has stated that the deceased was unconscious throughout at the time of admission in the hospital and died on 27.10.2010 at 08.15 a.m. P.W.12 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion regarding cause of death.P.W.13 has spoken about the chemical analysis conducted and the recovery of the blood stained earth and sample earth and the Lungi from the accused.He found that there were human blood stains found on the same.P.W.15 has spoken about the registration of the case and P.W.16 has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed by him.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.His defence was a total denial.However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor to mark any document on his side.Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court.We have also heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 3, who have spoken about the occurrence, cannot be believed because at the earliest point of time, when the deceased was taken to the Doctor by one Thiyagarajan, it was informed to the Doctor that the deceased was attacked by an unknown person.This argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant does not persuade us at all.It is not as if the houses of P.Ws.1 and 3 are situated at a far off place.After all, they are neighbours of the deceased.They have got no axe to grind against the accused.They have vividly spoken about the motive and the occurrence that took place before the present occurrence.They have stated that on hearing the alarm raised, when they reached the house of the deceased, they found the wife of the accused rushing out from the house of the deceased.When they went inside the house, they found the deceased lying and the accused sitting on him and dashing his head against the floor.Though these two witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1 and 3, have been cross-examined at length, we do not find any material at all on record to even have any slightest doubt about their credibility.Their evidences are duly corroborated by the medical evidence also.From, these evidences, the prosecution has clearly established that it was this accused who caused the death of the deceased.Now the question is as to what was the offence that was committed by this accused by the above said act.It is in evidence that there was a talk in the village that there was an illicit intimacy between the wife of the accused and the deceased for quite some time.It is also in evidence that few days before the occurrence, near the bus stop, the accused quarreled with the deceased and warned him not to have any illicit intimacy with his wife.On the day of occurrence, according to the evidence of P.W.2, the accused came to his shop to purchase cigarette.At that time, he was not armed with any weapon.Then, he had gone to the house of the deceased.P.Ws.1 and 3 had stated that when they rushed to the house of the deceased, they found the wife of the accused rushing out of the house of the deceased with her child.This would give a reasonable inference that the accused who entered into the house of the deceased would have noticed the deceased and his wife in a compromising position or in a foul circumstance.On seeing them together, the accused would have got provoked.It was only, because of this provocation, which in our considered view, was grave and sudden, the accused had hit the head of the deceased against the floor.In our considered view, this act of the deceased would fall within the fourth limb of Section 300 of IPC.At the same time, it would squarely fall within the first exception to Section 300 of IPC.Therefore, the accused is liable to be punished for the offence under Section 304-II of IPC.Now turning to the quantum of punishment, the accused is hardly aged about 33 years.He has got a wife and a child and a big family to take care of.He had got no bad antecedents.The occurrence was not a premeditated one.The accused was also not armed with any weapon.Having regard to all the mitigating as well as aggravating circumstances, we are of the view that sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 weeks would meet the ends of justice.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the following terms:i. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial court for the offence under Section 302 of IPC are set aside and instead, he is convicted under Section 304-II of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 weeks;The conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 449 of IPC is confirmed, however, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 weeks;It is directed that the above sentences shall run concurrently and the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant shall be given set off as required under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.; and iv.Since the accused is on bail, the trial court is directed to secure the accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 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 M. Hidayatullah, J.He was convicted under Section 165A I. P. C., and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.He was acquitted of the second charge.It may be remembered that there is no proof of the payment of money or why it was paid, aliunde in the case.The question that falls for consideration is whether the appellant admitted having paid the money as a bribe to Roshan Lal Gupta or whether his intention to do so can be gathered not as an inference but as a proved fact from these documents.Ex. P-3 is as follows :"I beg to submit that I stood in need of some bricks for constructing a house.I came to know that bricks, cement etc., could be had from the office of the Mechanical Inspector of Bulandshahar.Babu Roshan Lal, Clerk had told me this thing.Thereupon I made a Request to him that, if possible, he should get the permit for bricks issued to me from his office.I could not get the bricks.I searched for Babu Roshan Lal.He met me on 30th December, 1948, and made pretensions.He assured me that those permits had been finished by his department, that he was on leave at that time, that his leave would come to an end on the 15th January, 1949, and that thereafter he would give me fresh permits.On 17th January, 1949, I again met him in his office.There I learnt that he had been suspended.When I made a demand, he behaved badly with me.Both parties interpret this document differently.According to the appellant, he was cheated of this money by Roshan Lal Gupta who, on his own, issued permits in the names of persons who had not applied for any permit, and gave them to him.Learned counsel for the appellant contends that unless the appellant was out of his mind, he would not have made a complaint, which would have involved him in a criminal prosecution.He says that the last sentence in the complaint shows that the appellant believed that the amount of Rs. 300 had to be paid towards the permits or the price of bricks, and that he acted bona fide, and was cheated by Roshan Lal Gupta.Counsel for the State, on the other hand, argues that the complaint shows that Roshan Lal.Gupta brought the permits to the house of the appellant, and took the money there.There is nothing to show that the appellant had made any application for permit, and the fact that these permits were not in his name but in the names of others should have at least put him on enquiry as to why they were so and for what purpose the claim for Rs. 300 was made.The effect of the document may thus at most be described as suggesting the inference that he committed the crime, but it cannot be extended to show that the appellant admitted in terms the offence, or at any rate, substantially all the facts which constitute the offence of abetment.We have now to go to the next document (Ex. P-4) to see whether it adds to the so-called confession in the first document, or whether the two documents read together make the admission a confession.That document is also a short one, and may be quoted here:"As per enquiry made by you from me, I want to submit in addition to my previous application that, even before this, Roshan Lal Gupta had brought and given a permit for 5000 bricks to Lala Munshi Lalji in connection with the construction of his well and had promised that he would get the cement, which had moistened due to heavy rains, exchanged from his office.For this Rs. 150 were received (by him) in this period.He also said that a report for exchange of the cement was to be made to the Inspector, Mr. Bhatnagar, who must, therefore, also get a share.He took a sum of Rs. 150 also for getting the subsidy for engine granted saying that his (Munshi Lal's) work could not be done without giving this money inasmuch as the matter related to the refund of a huge amount and Mr. Bhatnagar had also to get a share in it.After this Mr. Bhatnagar also came for verification of this amount.When I did not get the goods, I demanded the money back from Roshan Lal.He told me that he would give me the money when he would have got back the same from Mr. Bhatnagar.Thereafter Mr. Bhatnagar also came to me.I made a demand for refunding the money.Mr. Bhatnagar promised to refund the money after returning to Bareilly.I have not received that amount as yet.In this connection a talk had taken place between Mr. Bhatnagar and Roshan Lal that Mr. Bhatnagar had not received his share in the sum of Rs. 300 received on the basis of the four permits and that he had knowledge of these permits also."It must be remembered that this document is after four months, and the question is whether the information admitted to be in the possession of the appellant can be said to have been in his possession when he gave the money.The second document discloses that on a previous occasion also Roshan Lal Gupta and/or Mr. Bhatnagar had taken Rs. 300 from one Lala Munshi Lalji in connection with a permit for 5000 bricks and the subsidy for an engine.

['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

srm/ARDR (Item No. 26) (Allowed) CRM 4799 of 2017 Re : An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 16/05/2017 in connection with Andal P.S. Case no. 94/2017 dated 17/04/2017 under Sections 323/379/420/506/120B of the IPC.In the matter of : Santu Roy ... Petitioner.Mr. Syed Nurul Arefin, ...for the petitioner.Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Mr. S. Kundu, ...for the State.Heard the learned advocates for the petitioner and the State.Perused the Case Diary.On the basis of materials disclosed in the Case Diary, we find that the core dispute, out of which the criminal case arises, relates to business affairs.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties.(Aniruddha Bose, J.) (Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.) 2

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.sh Prayer is allowed.e Office is directed to call the status report of Criminal Case No. ad 863/2012 registered on the complaint of respondent No.2 for the Pr offences punishable under Section 294, 323/34, 506-B of IPC pending before Addl.Sessions Judge, Amarpaten, District Satna (M.P.).It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.ad M (RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE of rt ou VS C Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH h Date: 2018.02.22 11:25:44 +05'30' ig H

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

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

J U D G M E N TARIJIT PASAYAT,JThe appeal presents a strange scenario where the accusation is that appellant No.2, a doctor doctored documents so that his son appellant No.1 would get admission to a medical college and become a doctor.Allegations were to the effect that they manipulated mark sheets and on the basis of forged mark sheets he got admission which otherwise would not have been available to him.The mark sheets related to the two pre-degree examinations of the Kerala University conducted in 1978-79 and 1979-80, for two years i.e. Ist and IInd year respectively.They faced trial with two others.Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is essentially as follows:A-1 is the son A-2, who was running a nursing home at Ernakulam during the relevant period and A-4 was an Assistant Registrar, Examination Wing, Kerala University.English : 204/300 Hindi : 109/150 Physics : 142/150 Chemistry : 140/150 Biology : 138/150 Grand total : 733/900In addition total of 420 marks out of 450 marks was shown for the optional subjects, viz. Physics, Chemistry and Biology. A-4 forged the initials of the concerned section assistants, who actually prepared the true mark list issued through Mar Ivanios College and received by A-1 and A-2. A-4 also attested a true copy of the mark list (Ext.P27).He forged with his designation and seal and entrusted both the forged mark list and its true copy attested by him (Ext.D-4 is the forged mark list. A-1 and A-2 thereafter prepared an application form for admission to a medical college during the year 1980-81 with their signatures by incorporating the marks found in Ext.D-4, the forged mark list fully knowing the forged nature of Ext.D-4 and forwarded such application together with the attested true copy Ext.P-27 of Ext. D-4 to the medical college, Thiruvanthapuram with the fraudulent intention to make the concerned authorities to believe that the marks shown in the application are the real marks obtained by A-1 and thereby cheated the selection committee and obtained admission for the first year M.B.B.S. course on merit basis.Appellants with the intention of causing disappearance of the evidence of commission of the crime destroyed the true genuine mark list/the true copy of which is marked as Ext.The case was tried by the Special Court for trial of Mark list Cases, Trivandrum.Sixty three witnesses were examined and 65 documents were marked.The accused persons pleaded innocence, examined one person as DW-1 and exhibited documents.The trial Court found that the accusations were established so far as A-3 and A-4 were concerned.It held the appellants A-1 and A-2 guilty of offences punishable under Sections 471, 420, 120B and 201 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one year and two years for the offence under Sections 471 and 420 respectively and six months each for the charge under Section 120B and 201 read with Section 34 IPC.The accused appellants were acquitted of the charges of the offence under Sections 467 and 468 IPC.The father (appellant No.2) took a document from A-4 and handed it over to A-1 who used it.The son (A-1) could not have entertained doubt that the document handed over to him by the father was a forged one.The procedure to be adopted for seeking re-valuation is admittedly known to the appellant, because A-1 had applied for the previous year.The result on revaluation was communicated so far as first year is concerned.The High Court has analysed the evidence to show that as required in the declaration form A-2 had signed the application.Certain factual aspects need to be noted in the present case.Though criticism was levelled against the analysis made by the High Court to find out how on the basis thereof it was held that the document was forged one, we find no substance therein.The High Court has noticed that the appellants had asked for revaluation of the first year pre degree answer sheets as they were not satisfied with the marks shown in the mark list and claiming that A-1 should have obtained more marks.Evidence was let in by the prosecution to indicate that in Part II Examination, optional subjects are there and the subjects are Physics, Chemistry and Biology and the maximum one can get in one of the above optional subjects is 150 marks and 45 marks were required to be obtained to pass.Part I consists of English and language other than English.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

but people are afraid of talking about him in public lest they be punished for that."It is this statement which has given rise to the presentcriminal proceedings.After this statement was published, Mr. Ajaib Singh,Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, issued astatement on the 25th July, 1957, which was published in the"Tribune" on the 26th July.By this statement, Mr. AjaibSingh assured the people that persons concerned in smugglingcases had been interrogated and he was satisfied that theallegation that some Minister's son was involved insmuggling was false and inaccurate.ment was made, newspapers had been publishing reportsagainst a Minister's son without naming him.Some Members ofthe Punjab Legislative Assembly had also made similarstatements on the floor of the House.The appellant examined some witnesses.Jagat Narain, whois an M.L.A. was one of them.He stated that in the year1956,gold smuggling had increased on the Amritsar border andthat he derived his knowledge from the newspapers.He saidhe had received complaints orally and in writing about thegold smuggling on the border and these suggested thecomplicity of a Minister's son in smuggling.When he wasasked whether he could name the informants, he stated thathe would not like to name them lest they get into trouble.Sajjan Singh is another witness whom the appellant examinedHe was the Parliamentary Secretary of the Praja SocialistParty.He stated that the appellant had visited Amritsararea in 1957 and he had told the appellant about the largescale smuggling in the border area.T.R. Bhasin, S.C. Malik, Sushma Malik and Rant Behja LalMalik, for the appellant.The, Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar,C. J.,By this appeal, which has been broughtto this Court by special leave, the appellantHarbhajan Singh challenges the correctness of his convictionfor an offence under S. 500 07 the Indian Penal Code, andthe sentence imposed on him for the said offence.Thecriminal proceedings against the appellant were started on acomplaint filed by Surinder Singh Kairon, son of S. PartapSingh Kairon, who was at the relevant time the ChiefMinister of the State of Punjab.In his complaint, thecomplainant Surinder Singh alleged that the appellant hadpublished in the Press a statement against him which washighly defamatory of him.The said statement was publishedin the "Blitz", 237which is a weekly magazine of Bombay, on July 23, 1957, andextracts from it were given publicity in the "Times ofIndia" and certain other papers.According to the,complaint, the defamatory statement was, absolutely untrueand by publishing it, the appellant had rendered himselfliable to be punished under s. 500, I.P.C.It appears that on July 2,2/23, 1957, the punjabGovernment issued a Press note in which it was averred thatcertain Urdu Dailies from Jullundur were indulging inmischief and false propaganda, alleging complicity of aMinister's son in smuggling on the border.The Press notealleged that this was done with a view to malign theGovernment and to cause suspicion in the mind of public.ThePunjab Government categorically denied the said allegation."My attention has been drawn to a Punjab Government Press Note categorically denying the complicity of a Minister's son in smuggling.That Press Note also throws a challenge to some Urdu Dailies "to come out openly with the name of the son of the Minister" and then base the consequences.I don't know whether the newspapersconcerned will take up this is challenge of the Punjab Government or not, but as one of those who have been naming that son of the Minister as one of the leaders of the smugglers from Public platform, I hereby name that so, as Surinder Singh Kairon son of S. Partap singh Kairon, Chief Minister.But because the culprit happens to be Chief Minister's son the cases are always shelved up.If the Punjab Government accepts this challenge, it should do so by appointing an independent committee of impartial Judges from outside the Punjab and then let us see who has to face the consequences.That is how the case was transferred to the court of theAdditional Sessions Judge, Delhi, and was tried by him.In support of his complaint, the complainant examinedhimself and led evidence of three other witnesses.Thepurport of the oral evidence led by the complainant was toshow that the complainant was a person of status and goodreputation, was carrying on business and had suffered inreputation and character by the defamatory statementpublished by the appellant.When the appellant was examined under s. 342, Cr.P.C.,he told the learned Judge that he would prefer to file adetailed written statement.Later, he did file his writtenstatement and made several pleas against the charge levelledagainst him by the complainant.In substance, he allegedthat the allegations made by him in his impugned statementwere true and he had published the said allegations in theinterest of public good.In other words, he claimed theprotection of the First Exception to s. 499, IPC.The trialcourt allowed 239him to summon 35 witnesses in all, but eventually heexamined only 20 defence witnesses.He also produced severaldocuments.The learnedsingle Judge, who heard his appeal, considered the argumentsurged before him on behalf of the appellant and came to theconclusion that the appellant had failed to prove his claimthat the impugned statement fell within the scope of theNinth Exception to s. 499, IPC.He took the view that theappellant had "completely failed to substantiate the plea ofgood faith.Then, as regards the grievance made bythe appellant that he had not been given a reasonableopportunity to lead his evidence, the High Court held thatthe said grievance was not well-founded.In that connection,the High Court referred to the fact that though the trialJudge had allowed the appellant to examine 35 witnesses, theappellant examined only 20 witnesses, and it observed thatthe large mass of documentary evidence which had beenproduced by the appellant did not serve any useful ormaterial purpose even for the defence of the appellant; andso the contention that prejudice had been caused to him bythe failure of the learned trial Judge to give him areasonable opportunity to lead evidence was rejected by theHigh Court.In default of payment of fine, he was directed to240undergo three months' simple imprisonment.It is againstthis order that the appellant has come to this Court byspecial leave.It is notearly to understand why the Punjab Government thought itnecessary to issue a Press statement in regard toallegations which were made by the Urdu papers against aMinister's son.But the Punjab Government appears to haveentered the arena and issued a challenge to the newspapersin question, and it was in response to this challenge thatthe appellant published the impugned statement.In thisstatement, the appellant requested the Punjab Government toappoint an independent Committee of impartial Judges toinvestigate the matter, and he undertook to prove the truthof his charge if an independent committee was appointed.Inthat connections.he stated that he wished to bring it tothe notice of the Punjab Government that the ChiefMinister's son is being discussed in almost every Punjabihouse, but people were afraid of talking about him in publiclest they be punished for that.That takes us to the evidence of Kulwant Rai of villageSirhali, District Amritsar.Against this witness, cases werepending under s. 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange RegulationAct, s. 5(3) of the Land Customs Act and s. 19 of the SeaCustoms Act. It has also been alleged against him that 140to las of smuggled gold had been found in his possession.Hewas also prosecuted by Mr. Dhir, Magistrate, Tarn Taran,under the Indian Arms Act. ,red prosecution under the IndianOpium Act was also pending against him.It appears that twocases against him were withdrawn because a communicationdated May 18, 1957, was addressed by the Home Secretary tothe Punjab Government to the District Magistrate Amritsar,directing him to withdraw the two cases pending against him.The letter required the District Magist:ate to take actionin that behalf immediately.It is remarkable that anaffidavit was filed by Kulwant Rai dated May 21, 1957,wherein he stated that the Chief Minister had passed anorder on May 7, 1957, for the withdrawal of the casesagainst him and that the Government order in that behalfwould be received by the court very soon.trate and then to the trial Magistrate.It is alsosignificant that on June 9, 1957, when the proceedings unders.514 Cr.P.C., were fixed for hearing against Kulwant Rai,he was absent from court and a telegram was received by theMagistrate that Kulwant Rai was ill and his absence shouldbe excused.This telegram was sent not by Kulwant Rai but bythe complainant.The complainant no doubt denied that he hadsent such a telegram, but the High Court has found that inall probability, the telegram had been sent by thecomplainant.The complainant also did not admit that he wasa friend of Kulwant Rai.There again, the High Court was notprepared to accept the complainant's version.On this evidence, it seems plain that the complainantknew Kulwant Rai very well and did not stop short ofhelping him actively by sending a telegram to the Magistrateto excuse Kulwant Rai's absence on the date of hearing ofthe case against him.From the evidence of Kulwant Rai whomthe appellant had to examine to support his plea of goodfaith.it is not difficult to infer that Kulwant Rai wascharge-sheeted in respect of several offences, and anallegation had been made against him that he was connectedwith gold smuggling.If the appellant knew that thecomplainant was friendly with such a character, would he bejustified in claiming that in giving expression to hisbelief that the complainant was hand in glove with KulwantRai, a gold smuggler, he was acting in good faith'? That isthe question which has to be answered in the present case.In dealing with this aspect of the matter, the learnedJudge no doubt found that the material on the record wasenough to justify the conclusion that there was friendshipbetween Kulwant Rai and the complainant and' that thecomplainant had sent a telegram to the Magistrate on KulwantRai's behalf, but he thought it had not been proved that infact, Kulwant Rai had been engaged in gold smuggling.Nodoubt, a case was pending against him for gold smuggling;but the learned Judge held that the pendency of acriminal case does not necessarily prove that the chargelevelled against Kulwant Rai was in fact true.What is pertinent to enquire is, if theappellant knew about this evidence at the relevant timeand he believed that the complainant was assisting KulwantRai in respect of his gold smuggling activities, could he besaid to have acted in good faith or not when he publishedthe statement in that behalf?Take for instance,the case of Hardin Singh of village Patti.It appears thatthis witness was arrested by the police on June 19, 1959 asa suspect smuggler and he was kept in the lock-up fromJune 19 to June 25, 1959 and was thereafter let off.According to him, he was arrested because he had beensummoned as a defence witness in the present case.Hazara Singh comesfrom the same village to which the family of the complainantbelongs, and yet, he was not prepared even to admit that heknew the complainant or his family.The learned Judgerealised that Hazara Singh was not prepared to speak thetruth at least on some points, and so, he observed that hewas willing to accept the appellant's case that thecomplainant, Sadhu Singh and Major Naurang Singh, SeniorSuperintendent of Police were on friendly terms.. He,however, thought that it was not clearly shown on the recordwhether Hazara Singh was entered as a badminton in thepolice registers and that there was also no convincingevidence on record to show that Hazara Singh was a goldsmuggler.The learned Judge referred to the evidence whichshowed that the complainant and Hazara Singh were movingtogether during the election days and were friendly witheach other; but that.In connection with Hazara Singh, and Kulwant Rai, thereare two documents to which our attention has been invited byMr. Bhasin.These documents show that Kulwant Rai wastreated on the Police record as a notorious smuggler andhabitual offender, and Hazara Singh was treated as a badcharacter and his name was borne on register No. 10, andhis history sheet was opened at No. 110 A Basra Alif.Even without them.there is enoughevidence to show that the complainant was friendly withKulwant Rat and Hazara Singh, and on the whole.we areinclined to take the view that if the appellant knew aboutthe complainant's friendship and active association withthese two persons and had other information about theactivities of these two persons.it cannot be said that hedid not act in good faith when, in response to the challengeissued by the Punjab Government.he came up with theimpugned statement and sent it for publication in the Press.Then, in regard to the other allegation that thecomplainant was concerned with the commission of offences inPunjab, we may refer to the evidence led by the appellant toshow that in making this charge, he acted in good faith.At this time.the complainant had left the college atHoshiarpur.On January 19, he went to that college to gethis certificate Principal Dewett in his evidence did notsupport the appellant in his suggestion that the complainanthad behaved in a criminal way and had threatened to assaultthe students in the college on that occasion.But theconfidential report made by him on January 22 shows that inthe witness-box Principal Dewett hesitated to disclose thewhole truth.This report unambiguously indicates that thecomplainant threatened several students with a stick.and itspeaks of two or three incidents that took place whichcreated a considerable excitement and commotion among thestudent community in the college.In this report, thePrincipal, in fact, describes the situation as very ugly.and he refers to the fact that the students went on strikeand passed resolutions, demanding the rustication of thecomplainant from the University and also protesting againstinaction and partiality of the Principal himself.Thisconfidential report was further inquired into, and thedocuments in respect of this enquiry are also on the record.The students seem to have demanded that the complainantshould be arrested.because they were afraid' that hewould collect his friends and cause mischief to them.'Ultimately, the Vice-Chancellor made a report to theChancellor252that having examined the matter, he came to the conclusionthat the complainant was "a bit bumptious and throws hisweight about in a way which fellow-students findirritating".He added "How one wishes that the sons of menholding exalted offices in the State would behave in a wayconsistent with the dignity of their parents".The learnedJudge does not appear to have taken into account thesereports, but has substantially relied on the oral evidenceof the Principal himself.Even so, he has recorded hisconclusion that the evidence shows juvenile indiscretion onthe part of the complainant but no juvenile delinquency andcertainly no "crime in the sense of the libelous imputationmade".In fact, the appellanthad requested the Punjab Government in his impugnedstatement to appoint a commission of inquiry and had statedthat if a commission of inquiry was appointed, he wouldprove his charges against the complainant.It is in thelight of these circumstances, that we have to decide whetherthe appellant has proved that he acted in good faith or not.In dealing with this question.thecomplainant wrote a letter to 'Major Sahib' (SSP).In thatletter, he told the Major Sahib to grant leave to S.Gurdial Singh No. 1725 posted at Chowki Khosa Burj, and headded that it was very urgent, and asked him to do itimmediately.Similarly, on June 3, 1956, the complainantwrote a letter to the Executive Officer, Taran Taran, inwhich he stated "our 10/12 trucks loaded with wood will bereaching Taran Taran one or two daily.Therefore, you pleaseinstruct your Moharrir on the Jandiala-Amritsar road thatheBefore we part with this appeal, we ought to add thatthis matter came before this Court for hearing on the 1stSeptember, 1964, and an interlocutory judgment wasdelivered by which certain documents were called for.Onthat occasion, Mr. Bhasin had pressed before this Court hiscontention that the trial Judge was in error in not callingfor certain documents which the appellant wanted to rely on,and in upholding the plea of privilege made by State Govt.in respect of certain other documents.Appeal allowed.

['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

There weretotally 10 accused arrayed in the charge sheet pending trial, A10 Lingam aliasMuthulingam died and the charge against him abated and A5 to A9 were acquittedby the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil andthe remaining A1 to A4 are the appellants herein.The short facts of the case relevant for the purpose of deciding thisappeal are as follows:Due to previous enmity, on 7.1.1992 at about 7.15p.m.P.W.16 is the then Judicial Magistrate,Padmanabhapuram.He has recorded a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. forwitnesses Iyyappan, Selvam and Kaba under Exs P.17 to P.19 respectively.P.W.17is the Inspector of Police, who had conducted an investigation in this case.P.W.17 would depose that on 7.1.1992 at about 21.15 hours, he visited the placeof occurrence and prepared Ex P2 Observation Mahazar.A.C.ARUMUGA PERUMAL ADITYAN,J This appeal has been preferred by A1 to A4 in S.C.No.102/1995 on the fileof the Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil., with a common intentionof committing murder of Albert Walter, A1 to A4 had assaulted the said AlbertWalter on the neck, chest, right hand, back,head and stomach causing instantaneous death.Against the remaining accusedcharge under Section 120(B) read with 302 IPC was framed and against A1 to A4charge under Section 302 IPC was framed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,after the case was committed by the Judicial Magistrate, Eranial under Section209 Cr.P.C.On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 18 were examined.Exs P1 toP30 and M.O.1 to M.O.9 were marked.Except P.W1,P.W.6, P.W.10, P.W.12,P.W.13,P.W.14, P.W.16 to P.W.18 all the remaining witnesses were turnedhostile.P.Ws 1to 3 are the occurrence witnesses.P.W.1 is the brother of thedeceased Albert Walter.He is an occurrence witness.He would depose in hisevidence that on 24.12.1991 while he and his brother deceased Albert Walter wereproceeding near Neyoor Hospital, A1 to A4 had threatened his brother AlbertWalter.The motive for the occurrence was also spoken to by P.W1 to the effectthat there was an enmity prevailing over the first accused and one Sasi and thatthere is a criminal case pending against the first accused Ravi on the groundthat he had assaulted Sasi with an Aruval on his leg and that his brotherAlbert Walter was an accused in a murder case in which one Kumar was murdered.According to P.W.1, the occurrence had taken place on 7.1.1992 at about7.15p.m., near Primary School, while he and his brother Albert Walter and oneRanjith Singh were returning from Neyoor Mission Hospital from north to south.P.W.1 has categorically stated that A1 to A4 chased his brother Albert Walterpossessing long knifes( Vettu Kathi) each and near Sahul Hameed's house, theyhold Albert Walter and that A1 Ravi had assaulted Albert Walter on the neck,chin and right, side of the face with Vettu Kathi and that A2 had assaultedAlbert Walter on the right hand, on the back with Vettu Kathi and A3 hadassaulted Albert Walter with Vettu Kathi on the head thrice and A4 hadassaulted Albert Walter with Vettu Kathi on the lower abdomen causing seriousinjuries, resutling his instantaneous death.He has further deposed that theoccurrence was witnessed by him, Ranjith Guna Singh and Jayachandran and that inthe place of occurrence, the light in the nearby church and street lights wereburning and that he immediately rushed to Eranial Police Station at about8.30p.m.,and prepared ExP1 complaint.He has also identified that M.O.1 is theshirt and M.O.2 Lungi were worn by his brother at the time of occurrence.The other occurrence witness namely, Ranjith Guna Singh and JagadishChandran(the name is wrongly typed as Jayachandran in P.W.13's deposition) haveturned hostile.P.W.6 is the Observation Mahazar Witness.He would depose thatthe Inspector of Police had visited the place of occurrence on 7.1.1992 at about9.15 p.m., and prepared Ex P2 Observation Mahazar and also recovered M.O.3 bloodstained sand and M.O.4 sample sand under Ex P3 Mahazar. P.W.7, P.W.8, and P.W.9have turned hostile.P.W.10 is the Doctor who had conducted autopsy on thecorpse of Albert Walter on the basis of ExP14 requisition on 8.1.1992 at about12 noon.P.W.10 has opinedthat due to the injury, the deceased had sustained on the neck and head, hewould have died.The Doctor has further opined that 13 cut injuries mentionedin Ex P15 would have been caused by Vettu Kathi and that injury Nos. 1 to 4 aregrievous in nature.P.W.11 is a hostile witness.P.W12 is the then HeadConstable of Eranial Police Station, who had handed over the corpse of AlbertWalter to P.W.10 Doctor for postmortem, who had handed over the shirt and lungiof the deceased to the Inspector of Police after autopsy.P.W.13 is the SubInspector of Police, who had registered the First Information Report on thebasis of the complaint preferred by P.W.1 as Crime No.10/92 under Section 302IPC and Ex P.16 is the First Information Report.P.W.14 is the Photographerwho had taken M.O.6 photos of the corpse and M.O.7 are nagatives for M.O.6positives.P.W.15 is a hostile witness.ExP20 rough sketch andconducted inquest in the presence of Panchayatadars and Ex P21 is the inquestreport and examined the witnesses and recorded their statement and on 14.1.1992at about 15.00 hours, he had arrested A1 to A4 and Ex P22 is an admissibleportion of the confession statement of A1, on the basis of it, he had recoveredone Aruval from south bund of Pandarakulam and the remaining three aruvals fromthe said Pandarakulam Tank and that they were M.,O8 series under Ex.P.23 Mahazarin the presence of witnesses and he has also seized M.O.9 Car and an Auto and hehas given ExP27 letter of request to the Judicial Magistrate for sending thematerial objects for chemical examination and Ex P28 is the copy of letter sentby the Judicial Magistrate and Ex P29 is the chemical analyst's report andExP30 is the serologist's report.The further investigation was taken up byP.W.18 since P.W.17 was transferred.Theincriminating circumstances under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were put to the accusedto which the accused had stated that the witnesses have deposed falsehood.The accused have neither examined any witnesses on their side norproduced any documents.The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division atNagercoil, after going through the documentary and oral evidence, has come tothe conclusion that charge under Section 302 IPC has been proved against A1 toA4 and convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment each and acquittedthe remaining accused.Now the point for determination in this appeal is whether the Judgmentof the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil inS.C.No.102/1995 dated 19.4.1996 is liable to be set aside for the reasons statedin the memorandum of appeal.8. Point:The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that P.W.1is the brother of the deceased Albert Walter and that there were enmityprevailing over the accused and P.W.1 and would contend that the evidence ofP.W1 is an interested testimony and the evidence are not corroborated by theother witnesses by name Ranjith Guna Singh, Jagadish Chandran.The learned counsel for theappellants would contend that P.W.1 in his evidence has stated in the firstparagraph itself that there was an enmity between the accused and his brotherAlbert Walter and that A1 to A4 had criminally intimidated and threatened hisbrother on 24.12.1991 while he and his brother were returning from NeyoorHospital and that even in ExP1 the previous enmity which was prevailing betweenthe accused and his brother Albert Walter has been mentioned.A careful readingof Ex P1 and the deposition of P.W1 would go to show that there was enmityprevailing over between A1 to A4 and Albert Walter and that it is nowhere statedin Ex P1 nor in the deposition of P.W1 that A1 to A4 were inimical towards P.W1or vice versa.The other contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for theappellants is that the occurrence had taken place , according to theprosecution, in front of one Sahul Hameed's house.But Sahul Hameed was notexamined in this case.P.W1 in his cross examination has admitted that A1 to A4had chased Albert Walter and assaulted him with Vettu Kathi and that he felldown in front of Sahul Hameed's house and that the inmates of Sahul Hameed haveseen the occurrence through door way but no one has come out of the house.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that evenaccording to the evidence of P.W1, the said Sahul Hameed has not specificallyseen the occurrence but only the family members of Sahul Hameed had seen theoccurrence through door way and immediately, they closed the doors.As rightlyobserved by the learned Principal Sessions Judge at paragraph 17 of hisJudgment , there is no valid ground projected by the learned counsel appearingfor the accused to eschew the evidence of P.W1 who is an ocular witness.Theevidence of P.W.1 has been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.10 the Doctor,who had conducted the autopsy on the corpse of Albert Walter.The Doctor hadissued Ex P15 Postmortem Certificate wherein he has stated that he would find 13cut injuries on the body of Albert Walter.The injuries spoken to by P.W1 tothe deceased Albert Walter at the time of occurrence inflicted by A1 to A14tally with the injuries mentioned in Ex P.15 Postmortem Certificate and asspoken to by P.W10, the Doctor who had conducted autopsy.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that asper the evidence of P.W.10, the Doctor, there was partially digested foodparticles found in the stomach of the deceased Albert Walter.But as per P.W1'sevidence, the deceased was with him from 4.00 p.m., on 7.1.1992 and accordingto the prosecution, the occurrence had took place at 7.15p.m., on the same day.But there is no evidence on record to show that in between 4.00 p.m., and7.15p.m., the deceased taken any food.So the learned counsel would contendthat the occurrence would not have taken place at 7.15 p.m., as alleged by theprosecution,but it would have been taken place between 1.00 p.m., and 2.00 p.m.,This contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants will nothold any water because P.W.1 in his cross examination has stated that hisbrother Albert Walter was with him from 4.00p.m., but he has not stated thatbetween 4.00p.m., to 7.15 p.m., they have not taken any food .There was nosuggestion put to P.W1 to the effect that the deceased had not taken any foodbetween 4.00p.m., and 7.15.p.m.,.Further the evidence of P.W10 the doctor inthe cross examination would go to show that there was only 10 ml undigested foodwas found in the stomach and it will take six to eight hours for digestion ofentire food and that the doctor has opined that the death would have occurredfour or five hours after the deceased had taken his food.Under suchcircumstances, it cannot be said that the occurrence should have occurredbetween 1.00p.m.,and 2.00 p.m., as alleged by the learned counsel appearing forthe appellants.The other point raised by the learned counsel appearing for theappellants is that there was heap of sand collected in front of the house ofSahul Hameed and so P.W1 would not have seen the occurrence because theoccurrence had occurred in front of the house of Sahul Hameed. P.W.6 in hiscross examination has stated that there was heap of sand to the height of 4feet present near his shop and that there was open space between the house ofSahul Hameed and the said heap of sand and that the front door of Sahul Hameed'shouse was facing the vacant site.There is absolutely no contra evidence letin on the side of the accused to show that there was heap of sand between P.W1and the place of occurrence and P.W1 would not have witnessed the occurrence.Not even a suggestion was put to P.W1 at the time of cross examination that hewould not have witnessed the occurrence due to the presence of heap of sandbetween the place where P.W1 was standing and the place where the occurrence hadtaken place.Under such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel forthe appellants that P.W1 would not have witnessed the occurrence false to theground.The other point canvassed before us by the learned counsel appearingfor the appellants is that there was no sufficient light at the place ofoccurrence, since the occurrence had taken place at 7.15p.m., and that P.W.1would not have identified the accused at the time of occurrence.But P.W1 inhis chief examination itself in clear terms has stated that there was light inthe nearby church and the street lights near the primary school and lights wereburning at the time of occurrence and that he could see the occurrence in thelight.There is no contra evidence let in on the side of the accused to showthat the occurrence had taken place in pitch dark.The presence of streetlights near the place of occurrence was shown in Ex P.20 rough sketch also.Sothis contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants will nothold good.The decisions relied on by the learned counsel appearing forappellants in 1997 Supreme Court Cases(crl)640 (BIR SINGH AND OTHERS -VS- STATEOF UTTAR PRADESH), 1995 Supreme Court cases (Cri) 151(STATE OF HARYANA-vs-INDERAJ AND ANOTHER) ,and 2001(2) Crimes 49(SC) (SOHAN AND ANOTHER-vs- STATE OFHARYANA AND ANOTHER ) are not applicable to the present facts of the casebecause in the above said decisions, it has been held that the case of theprosecution rests on sole evidence of an interested witness who is inimical tothe accused.If P.W1was inimical towards A1 to A4, A1 to A4 would have assaulted P.W1 also atthe time of occurrence.Even though, P.W2 and P.W.3 the other two occurrencewitnesses have turned hostile, P.W1, the other occurrence witness has spoken toabout the occcurrence which was corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.10the Doctor.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on the decisionsreported in 2004 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 437 (CHAVDA JIVANJI CHELAJI ANDOTHERS-vs-STATE OF GUJARAT) and contended that the fact that an eye witness wasclosely related to the deceased cannot be a ground for disbelieving histestimony in a murder case, when the incident had taken place in the property ofthe deceased himself.The point is answered accordingly.In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the Judgment inS.C.No.102/95 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Divisionat Nagercoil dated 19.4.1996 is hereby confirmed.4923 of 1999 dated 19.7.1999, A2 and A4were released on bail as per the order of this Court in Crl.A3 was released on bail as per the order of this Court inCrl.The above orders of bail are herebycancelled and A1 to A4 are to be secured by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil by issuing non bailable warrant and send toprison to undergo the unexpended portion of the sentence.The Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil.2.The Inspector of Police Eranial Police Station Kanyakumari District.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench at Madras High Court Madurai.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard learned Counsel.This is yet another case where the conviction of the sole appellant is based on the retracted extra judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant to PWs 7 and 11, nearly 20 days after the occurrence.The deceased was an old woman aged about 70 years at the time of the occurrence.On 11-4-75, she was alleged to have gone to a neighbouring village and since then she was missing.Her nephew lodged a report on 24-4-75 that she was missing.The SHO Chandmal got some information that the deceased had been murdered and a case was registered under Section 302, I.P.C. The accused is alleged to have confessed before PWs 7 and 11 - a day prior to the registration of the case.The body was recovered after digging the earth.The post-mortem was conducted nearly 20 days after the occurrence.The doctor who conducted the post-mortem found that the dead body was in a highly decomposed state and he could notice only a fracture of the third Cervical Vertibra of the spine.He, however, found that the skull was intact.The doctor also opined that if anybody falls into Nallah from a 6 ft. - 7 ft., such a fracture could be possible, especially in the case of an old woman.This suggestion was made because the body was found near a Nallah.Certain recoveries were also effected and investigation was completed.The accused denied the offence.The Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 302, I.P.C. and the appeal preferred by the accused was dismissed by the High Court.No doubt, in his further deposition he has answered to a question that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.The answer given does not in any manner improve the prosecution case, in view of the fact that the doctor could not categorically say whether the fracture was ante-mortem or post-mortem.That apart, according to PW 11, the accused is alleged to have confessed that he hit the deceased on the head and other parts of the body.But the doctor did not find, as noted above, any fracture of the skull or any other internal injuries.The extra judicial confession should be taken as a, whole and should not suffer from any infirmity even if it is to be acted upon.But in this case we find that the belated confession itself becomes doubtful in the light of the medical evidence apart from being the same retracted.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A NAIK, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of theMaharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur, dated 08.09.2011,dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner.Few facts giving rise to the petition, are stated thus:-The petitioner was appointed as a police constable on09.09.1991 and was posted at Nagpur.On 06.02.1998, the petitionerwas suspended after a criminal complaint was filed against him byKu.Bebinanda Ganar at Police Station Ajni for the offences punishableunder Sections 294, 506-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.During the ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2017 00:59:52 ::: WP 6470/11 2 Judgmentperiod of suspension, the petitioner was charge-sheeted and two chargeswere levelled against the petitioner.According to the respondents, thepetitioner had developed intimacy with Bebinanda by taking advantage ofher helplessness and had developed physical relationship with her.It wasalleged that though it was the responsibility of the petitioner as a policeconstable to assist the helpless, he had taken advantage of thehelplessness of Bebinanda and committed an act that was unbecoming ofa policeman.The petitioner denied the charges and stated that he haddesired to marry Bebinanda but, on securing the knowledge that a divorcepetition was pending between Bebinanda and her husband, he haddropped the idea of marrying her.According to the petitioner, a falsepolice complaint was lodged by Bebinanda against him.The enquiryofficer conducted an enquiry and after examination of the witnesses andon a consideration of their evidence, the enquiry officer found that thecharges levelled against the petitioner were proved.The petitioner filed twodepartmental appeals against the said order but, without success.Theorder of the disciplinary authority was challenged by the petitioner before ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2017 00:59:52 ::: WP 6470/11 3 Judgmentthe Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.The MaharashtraAdministrative Tribunal, on an appreciation of the material on record,dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2017 00:59:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2017 00:59:52 :::It is submitted that though therewas some cordial relationship between the petitioner and Bebinanda ashe had decided to marry her, the marriage could not be solemnized withBebinanda as the proceedings between Bebinanda and her husband werepending.It is stated that the petitioner was made a scapegoat and on a ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2017 00:59:52 ::: WP 6470/11 4 Judgmentcomplaint filed by Bebinanda, the petitioner is compulsorily retired fromservice.It is stated that in the circumstances of thecase, when it is apparent that Bebinanda had made the petitioner ascapegoat, a direction to the respondents to impose a lesser punishmenton the petitioner should be issued.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2017 00:59:52 :::Shri Fulzele, the learned Additional Government Pleaderappearing for the respondents, supported the order of the respondents.It is, however, admitted by the learned Additional GovernmentPleader on a reading of the documents annexed to the petition that it ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2017 00:59:52 ::: WP 6470/11 5 Judgmentappears from some of the orders of the civil Court that Bebinanda hadfiled a false affidavit and had falsely pleaded against the petitioner in thecivil proceedings that were filed against him for an order restraining himfrom marrying any lady, other than Bebinanda.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2017 00:59:52 :::On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on aperusal of the documents annexed to the petition, it is apparent that thepunishment imposed upon the petitioner appears to be extremely harshand disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the petitioner.In the instant case, the petitionerhad come up with a clear case that he had desired to marry Bebinandabut, when he became aware, after going to the parental house ofBebinanda to have a talk in respect of the marriage, about the pendencyof the divorce proceedings between Bebinanda and her husband and had,therefore, refused to marry Bebinanda.Hence, in view of thesettled position of law, we are inclined to remand the matter to therespondents so as to impose a lesser punishment on the petitioner.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2017 00:59:52 :::Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partlyallowed.The original application filed by the petitioner is partly allowed.Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order asto costs.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2017 00:59:52 :::

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

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

Heard Sri Anurag Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.(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 fails 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.(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If, in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.The order reads thus:"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."Order Date :- 12.6.2020 Shubham

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

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

The appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment each and levied with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, vide Judgment dated 27.02.2013 in S.C.No.167 of 2011 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur at Pattukottai.Challenging the same, this Criminal appeal has been filed.The case of the prosecution is that on 17.10.2009 at about 10.30 p.m., the appellants herein attacked P.W.1 and caused him grievous injuries.P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.1 complaint before Orathanadu police station leading to registration of Ex.Thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 charges were framed under Sections 307 and 326 of I.P.C. The appellants pleaded not guilty of the charges and claimed to be tried.The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.M.O.1 to M.O.4 were also marked.On the side of the accused, no oral evidence was let in.D.1 alone was marked.The learned trial Judge while acquitting the appellants for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C., found them guilty of the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C., and sentenced them as mentioned above.Challenging the same, this Criminal Appeal has been filed.The appellants are now willing to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- each as compensation to P.W.1 Natarajan.Having regard to the mitigating aspects that are obtaining in this case, this Court even while sustaining thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 conviction imposed on the appellants, sets aside the sentence of imprisonment imposed on them.The first appellant had spent 25 days in prison, while the other appellants were granted anticipatory bail.Be that as it may, the appellants are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- each(totally Rs.30,000/-) to the credit of S.C.No.167 of 2011 on the file of the learned III Additional District Sessions Judge, Thanjavur at Pattukottai, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.On such deposit, the same shall be handed over to P.W.1 Natarajan as compensation.If the said deposit is not made, the appellants would suffer default sentence of two months Simple Imprisonment.The Criminal Appeal stands partly allowed, accordingly.The bail bond, if any, executed by them shall stand cancelled.No costs.The III Additional District Sessions Judge, Thanjavur at Pattukottai.The Inspector of Police, Orathanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.A.(MD)No.91 of 2013

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

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

The case of the prosecution is that A1 and A2, who are brothers, were causing loss to the complainant by sending correspondences through e-mail.On 17.07.2004, the second accused with intention of spoiling the business of the complainant logged into the VSNL Internet account [email protected] by using a dial-up connection, hacked the inbox of the complainant's e-mail ID [email protected] and sent an e-mail stating that complainant has stopped doing business.Again on 13.09.2004, the second accused, impersonating the complainant Sivakumar, hacked the inbox of the complainant's e-mail Id and sent another e-mail informing a change of password.Petitioners are acquitted of all charges.Bail bonds, if any, executed by them shall stand cancelled.Fine, if any, paid by them shall be refunded.16.06.2016kkd C.T.SELVAM,J.R.C.No.255 of 201416.06.2016Thereby both the accused committed offences punishable under Section 419 Cr.P.C and Section 66 of the IT Act, 2000 r/w.34 IPC.The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked 31 exhibits and 14 Material Objects.No witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence and one exhibit was marked.The trial Court in rendering a finding of conviction, sentenced the petitioners to undergo 2 years S.I. and fine of Rs.5000/-, i/d.The trial Court directed that sentences to run separately.The appeal of the petitioner in C.A.No.71 of 2009 was dismissed and sentence imposed by the judgment of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet was confirmed.Thereagainst, this revision.Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) and also perused the reply statement filed by the respondent.5.Though several contentions are raised before us, there is no dispute that the material computer records in support of the prosecution case have not been certified in keeping with Section 165B of the Evidence Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. Vs.P.K.Basheer and Others [(2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 473] has informed that provisions of Section 165 B are mandatory.The entire prosecution case rests on computer records.Where a mandatory requirement of law stands not complied with, the prosecution must fail.This Criminal Revision shall stand allowed.The judgment of learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, passed in C.A.No.164 of 2013 on 27.02.2014 shall stand set aside.22.12.2015Index:yes/noInternet:yesgpaToIII Additional Sessions Judge ChennaiXI Metropolitan Magistrate SaidapetC.T.SELVAM.R.C.No.255 of 201422.12.2015Crl.R.C.No.255 of 2014C.T.SELVAM,J.Today, the case is listed under the caption for being mentioned at the instance of learned counsel for petitioner.2. Learned counsel for petitioner brings to the notice of this Court the following errors in the order passed in Crl.R.C.No.255 of 2014, dated 22.12.2015:Considering the submission of learned counsel for petitioner, this Court directs the Registry to carry out the following corrections and issue fresh order copy:(i)set right the errors mentioned in Sl.(a) to (c)ii)The last paragraph shall be read as follows:This Criminal Revision shall stand allowed.The judgment of learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, passed in C.A.No.164 of 2013 on 27.02.2014 confirming the judgment of learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, passed in C.C.No.9220 of 2010 on 13.08.2013, shall stand set aside.

['Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Item No. 54The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Amal Krishna Samanta Mr. Navanil De For the Petitioners Mr. Madhusudan Sur For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Tamluk Police Station Case No. 36 of 2013 dated 22.01.2013 under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Ranjit Kumar Bag, J)

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Case called out in the revised list.Sri Yogesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State are present.The instant application has been preferred by the applicant to challenge the legal validity of the charge-sheet No. 31 of 1999 dated 01.09.1999 relating to Case Crime No. 98 of 1988 F.I.R. No. 16 of 1988 dated 12.08.1988 C.B. No. 96 of 1999 under Sections 201/109/34/304 I.P.C., Police Station- Soraon, District- Allahabad.The charge-sheet is annexed as Annexure-1 to the application.However, no judicial order could be passed on the aforesaid final report.On such submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that the proceedings of criminal case No. 8741 of 1991 (State vs. Arun Pradeep Shukla) under Sections 304/201/109/34 I.P.C., Police Station- Soraon, District Allahabad pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad may be stayed and the charge-sheet of this case may be quashed.Learned counsel for the applicant has cited the following rulings:-(i).K. Chandrasekhar etc. vs. The State of Kerala and others, 1998 (4) Supreme 374 Supreme Court of India.(ii).Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.It is also admitted that the accused person died while on the way to the Naini jail.Since this was a death of an accused person in the police custody, a magisterial enquiry was held by Sri Harendra Veer Singh the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Soraon in which the then Station Officer Sri Arun Pradeep Shukla was held solely responsible for causing the death of the accused person Ram Dulare.Thereafter, on the letter dated 6.4.1988 of the then District Magistrate, Allahabad, an F.I.R. was registered against the accused applicant Arun Pradeep Shukla.A brief mention of the Chik F.I.R. is required here.On date 16.3.1988 at 7:30 P.M. a police party headed by the then Station Officer, Police Station- Soraon, Arun Pradeep Shukla, arrested the accused person Ram Dulare and one another accused person, namely, Hari.One illicit SBBL gun and nine cartridges were recovered from the possession of the accused person Ram Dulare.Accused Ram Dulare was produced before the Remand Duty Magistrate at about 6:15 P.M. at the residence of Remand Duty Magistrate, who granted the judicial custody remand of the accused Ram Dulare along with three other accused persons.On the way near Katra crossing; a-bout of hicupps started to accused Ram Dulare who was taken to a private Doctor, Dr. B.K. Hitaisi who declared him 'brought dead'.After lodging rest of the two persons inside the Naini Jail police personnels who escorted the accused persons took the corpse of the accused Ram Dulare to mortuary of Swaroop Rani Hospital, Allahabad.This was entered into G.D. No. 42 on date 17.03.1988 at 10:30 P.M. at Police Station- Soraon and on date 18.3.1988 at about 10:30 A.M. inquest report was prepared at the mortuary of Swaroop Rani Hospital, Allahabad.It was mentioned in the magisterial enquiry that this proves the fact that after the arrest of the accused Ram Dulare on date 16.3.1988, he was beaten by the police personnel of police station Soraon by Lathi-Danda or some blunt object causing grievous injuries upon the body of Ram Dulare.It has been opined by the team of aforementioned three doctors who conducted the post-portem of the accused Ram Dulare that it could have been possible that accused Ram Dulare would have been in his senses and thereafter he succumbed to his injuries.It was also mentioned in the magisterial enquiry that since accused Ram Dulare was arrested by the then Station Officer and he was also the Investigating Officer of the case which was registered against the accused person Ram Dulare, hence Sri Arun Pradeep Shukla, the then Station Officer was solely responsible for causing death of accused person Ram Dulare.The then District Magistrate further ordered that departmental action may also be taken as a fall out of this legal action and action taken report may also be brought to the notice of the then District Magistrate, Allahabad.Upon such endorsement dated 6.4.1988 of the then District Magistrate, Allahabad, F.I.R. was registered against the accused-applicant Arun Pradeep Shukla.Later on, the investigation was performed by the Crime Branch (Criminal Investigation Department) of Uttar Pradesh Police, which submitted the aforementioned charge-sheet against the accused-applicant Sub-Inspector Arun Pradeep Shukla the then Station Officer, Police Station- Soraon along with three constables of Uttar Pradesh Police also, which is pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

2. Manikandan ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure tocall for the entire records in relating to the FIR in Crime No.161/2016 onthe file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure tocall for the entire records in relating to the FIR in Crime No.161/2016 onthe file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.These petitions have been filed seeking to quash the case in CrimeNos.161 & 163/2016 on the file of the first respondent.As far as Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13389/2016 is concerned, it is the case ofthe prosecution that the de-facto complainant/2nd respondent preferred acomplaint to the 1st respondent alleging that he is an employee of the ArunSmart Saloon and that the petitioner used to go to his saloon for hair cut.While so, it is alleged that the petitioner did not give the money to the 2ndrespondent for the services rendered.When the 2nd respondent demanded money, a dispute arose and on 21.06.2016, when the 2nd respondent was in his relative's house, the petitioner trespassed into the house, abused the 2ndrespondent with filthy language and attacked him using knife and causedserious threat to the life and limb.Pursuant to the complaint preferred bythe 2nd respondent, a case has been registered in Crime No.161 of 2016 forthe alleged offences under Sections 448, 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC on thefile of the 1st respondent police against the petitioner/accused.It is also submitted that both the accused and the defactocomplainants have settled all their issues between them.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and theentire proceedings in Crime Nos.161 and 163/2016 on the file of the 1strespondent in respect of the petitioners/accused in both the cases are herebyquashed.The Inspector of Police, Kulasekarapattinam Police Station, Thoothukudi District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..

['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

J U D G M E N T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 782 OF 2001Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court reducing the custodial sentence of respondent to 3= years instead of seven years as was imposed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, in SC No.61/1993, after convicting the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC').The victim (PW1) was aged less than 12 years when she was sexually ravished by the respondent on 31.1.1993 at about 12.30 p.m.On the basis of First Information Report (in short the 'FIR') lodged at the police station law was set into motion.On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and accused faced trial and he pleaded innocence.Prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of victim and the medical evidence.The trial court convicted the accused under Section 376 IPC.An appeal was preferred before the High Court.The same was disposed of by the High Court maintaining the conviction but sentence was reduced to 3= years, since the High Court felt that in view of certain special reasons the custodial sentence was to be reduced to 3= years.Since the accused was not represented in this appeal in spite of service of notice, Mr. Ashok Bhan, appeared as Amicus Curiae at our request.Unfortunately this aspect appears to have been lost sight of by both the trial court and the High Court and the State has also not questioned the inadequacy of sentence on that ground.The High Court has noted as follows to reduce the sentence:The High Court's order reducing the sentence is set aside.The appeal is allowed.

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

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

In view of the above, the hearing of this application stands adjourned for the day to give them one more chance to press this application.Let this matter appear in the Daily Supplementary Cause List on October 30, 2017 under the same heading at the bottom.(Debasish Kar Gupta, J.) (Arindam Sinha, J.)

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.92/2011 dated 05.04.2011 under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at police station Janak Puri, and the proceedings emanating therefrom.It is alleged that the first petitioner, Rajesh Dahima married to Sonal Dahima, who is arrayed as respondent No.2 to this petition, at whose instance, the aforesaid FIR was registered.The charge sheet is stated to have been filed in the matter.The complainant also acknowledges the receipt of this amount.Another amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs has been handed over to the Crl.M.C. No.3153/2014 Page 2 of 8 complainant / second respondent in Court today by way of two demand drafts, particulars whereof are as follows;M.C. No.3153/2014 Page 2 of 8In this manner, total amount of Rs.7 lakhs has been received by the complainant.It was further agreed that another sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs shall be paid by the petitioner to the complainant / respondent No.2 on the withdrawal of her aforesaid complaint filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act; and the remaining amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs shall be paid to the complainant at the time of the orders on the Second Motion petition granting divorce before the Family Court.M.C. No.3153/2014 Page 8 of 8Issue notice.Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State accepts notice, and the complainant Sonal Dahima is also present in person, and is identified by her counsel as well as the Investigating Officer.M.C. No.3153/2014 Page 1 of 8A copy of the said compromise deed arrived at between the parties is annexed to this petition.The said compromise takes note of the institution of the aforesaid FIR No.92/2011 as also the proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act; as well as her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance; both of which are pending before the appropriate courts.In addition, the petitioner, Rajesh Dahima, is also stated to have moved a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the complainant at Bhopal, which was subsequently transferred by the Supreme Court to the Family Court Delhi.That application under Section 9 Hindu Marriage, Act, 1955, is stated to have been withdrawn by the petitioner 16.07.2014 in terms of the aforesaid compromise, which fact has also been affirmed by counsel for the second respondent and the respondent herself.In terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the complainant is stated to have settled all her claims against the petitioner for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs, which amount includes a sum of Rs.2 lakhs that has been given by the petitioner to the complainant at the time of his application for anticipatory bail.It is also averred that a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13 (B) (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been jointly moved by the parties.Counsel for the petitioner, as well as the respondent No.2, on instructions, state that at the stage of orders on the First Motion, which were passed on 16.07.2014, a further sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs was handed over to the complainant / second respondent herein.The complainant also personally approbates the aforesaid terms, as also the compromise deed dated 08.07.2014 executed between her and the first petitioner.Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.92/2011 dated Crl.M.C. No.3153/2014 Page 7 of 8 05.04.2011 under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at police station Janak Puri, and the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.M.C. No.3153/2014 Page 7 of 8The petition, along with Crl.M.A. Nos.10929/2014 and 10930/2014, stands disposed off.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J JULY 21, 2014 dr Crl.M.C. No.3153/2014 Page 8 of 8

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

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

So far as accused No, 2Keshub Mahindra is concerned four charges were framed against him as under:"Firstly : That on or about the night intervening 2nd and 3rd December,1984 at Bhopal, the Capital of M.P. co-accused persons S/Shri KishoreKamdar/J, Mukund/R.B. Roy Choudhary/S.B. Choudhary/K.V. Setty and S.I.Qureshi committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder by causingdeath of 3828 or more human beings by allowing the highly toxic gas knownby the name of MIC to escape from tank No. 6l0 of A.P. Division plant ofUCIL knowing that it was likely to cause deaths and you sharing this commonknowlege with them did not do anything to avoid the said escape of gas thusyou thereby committed on each courts an offence punishable under Sec. 304(II) R/W Sec. 35 of the IPC and within the cognizance of the Court ofSession.Secondly : That on the above date and at the above place, above co-accusedpersons by allowing to escape from the above tank the corrosive substanceknown by the name of MIC gas, knowing that it was likely to cause grevioushurts, thus voluntarily (as defined U/S 39 IPC) caused grevious hurts to21694 or more human beings and you sharing this common knowledge with themdid not do anything to avoid the said escape of gas thus you thereby com-mitted on each count an offence punishable under section 326 R/W Sec. 35IPC and within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions.Thirdly: That on the above date and at the above "place, co-accused personsby allowing to escape from the above tank the corrosive :substance known bythe name of MIC gas knowing that it was likely to cause hurts, thusvoluntarily (at defined Under Sec. 39 IPC) caused hurts to 8485 or morehuman beings and you sharing this common knowledge with them did not doanything to avoid the said escape of gas, thus you thereby committed oneach count an offence punishable U/S 324 R/W See."Firstly : That on or about the night intervening 2nd and 3rd December,1984 at Bhopal, the Capital of M.P, co-accused persons S/Shri KishoreKamdar/J. Mukund/R.B. Roy Choudhary/S.P. Choudhary/K.V, Shetty and S.I.Qureshi committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder by causingdeath of 3828 or more human beings by allowing the highly toxic gas knownby the name of MIC to escape from tank No, 610 of A.P. Division Plant ofUCIL knowing that this common knowledge with them did not do any thing toavoid escape of gas thus you thereby committed on each count an offencepunishable U/S 304(II) R/W Sec. 35 of the I.P.C. and within the cognizanceof the court of Sessions.Secondly : That on the above date and at the above place, above co-accusedpersons by allowing to escape from the above tank the corrosive substanceknown by the name of MIC gas, knowing that it was likely to cause grevioushurts, thus voluntarily (as defined U/S 39 IPC) caused grevious hurts to21694 or more human beings and you sharing this common knowledge with themdid not do anything to avoid the said escape of gas, thus you therebycommitted on each count an offence punishable U/S 326 R/W Sec, 35 IPC andwithin the cognizance of the Court of Sessions,Thirdly : That on the above date and at the above place, above co-accusedpersons by allowing to escape from the above tank the corrosive substanceknown by the name of MIC gas, knowing that it was likely to cause hurts,thus voluntarily (as defined U/S. 39 IPC) caused hurts to 8485 or morehuman beings and you sharing this common knowledge with them did not doanything to avoid the said escape of gas, thus you thereby committed oneach count an offence punishable U/S. 324 R/W Sec. 35 IPC and within thecognizance of the Court of Sessions.Fourthly ::That on the above date and at the above place, the above co-accused persons by allowing MIC gas to escape from the above tank knowingthat it was likely to cause death of animals, com-mitted mischief bykilling thereby 2544 or more animals of various descriptions each valuingmore than Rs. 50 and you sharing this common knowledge with them did not doany thing to avoid the said escape of gas, thus you thereby committed oneach count art offence punishable U/S. 429 R/W Sec. 35 IPC and within thecognizance of the Court of Sessions."Charges framed against accused No 5 J, Mukund were as under ;"Union Carbide India Ltd., the majority share holding in which is held byU.C.C. USA, was running a factory at Bhopal for the manufacture ofpesticides.The main chemical from which the pesticide Sevin wasmanufactured was Methyl Isocynate (CII3N = C-O) which was also beingmanufactured in the same factory and was being stored in underground tanks.The factory is presently not functioning.Union Carbide Eastern Inc. with its office in Hongkong is theregional office of UCC, USA which controlled UCIL, India besides others,UCC, USA get incorporated in India on 20th June, 1934, a Company known asthe Eveready Company (India) Ltd, under the Indian Companies Act (Act VII)of 1913 with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Bengal, The Name ofthe Company Was further changed w. e. f, 24th December.The UCC was a majorityshareholder (50:9%) in UCIL, UCC was nominating its own Direc-tors to theBoard of Directors of the UCIL and was exercising strict financial,administrative and technical control on the Union Carbide India Limited.These reports furnish,inter alia, the causes that led to the incident.They were marketing this Sevin after addingdilutants etc. Subsequently, they decided to manufacture Sevin in theirplant at Bhopal itself and accordingly created necessary facilities forproduction of Sevin MIC as the basic raw material.To start with, they wereimporting MIC in 200 litres capacity stainless steel drums from the UCCPlant in West Virginia, USA, Subsequently UCC and UCIL decided to manufac-ture MIC in their factory at Bhopal itselfAt that stage on 13th November, 1973, UCC and UCIL entered into anagreement entitled Foreign Collaboration Agreement according to which thebest manufacturing information then available from or to Union Carbide hadto be provided for the factory in India.This necessitated UCC supplyingthe design, know how and safety measures for the production, storage anduse of MIC which ought to have been an improvement on the factory of UCG atWest Virginia based on the experience gained there.Investigation hashowever disclosed that: the factory at Bhopal was deficient in many safetyaspects.The design, know-how and safety measures were provided by theUnion Carbide Corporation, USA and the erec-tion and commissioning of theplant was done under the strict control of the experts of UCC.The Indiansin this plant Were only working under their directions.The storage system and the transfer lines have to be free of anycontaminants as even trace quantities of contaminants are sufficient toinitiate reaction which could become runaway reaction.On reaction set-tingin, there could be dangerous and rapid trimerization.The induction periodcould vary from several hours to several days.The heat generated couldcause reaction of explosive violence.In the normal running of the factory, MIC from E 610 and E 611 was beingtransferred (o the Sevin plant through stainless steel pipe lines.MIC iskept under pressure by nitrogen which is supplied by a carbon steel headercommon to all the storage tanks.There is a strainer in the nitrogen line.Subsequent to the strainer the pipe is of carbon steel and leads to make upcontrol valve (DMV) which also has a body of carbon steel These carbonsteel parts could get exposed to ( MIC vapours and get corroded, providinga source of contaminant which could enter the MIC storage tank and causedangerous reactions in the MIC, During the normal working of the factory,MIC fumes and other gases that escape pass first through a pipe line calledProcess Vent Header (PVH) of 2" diameter.The escaping gases were carriedby the PVH line to a Vent Gas Scrubber (VGS) containing alkali solutionwhich would neutralize the escaping gases and release them into theatmosphere- Another escape line of such gases that was provided from thetanks was the Relief Valve Vent Header (RVVH) of 4"diameter.Investigation has shown that the PVH and RWH pipe lines as well as thevalves therein were of carbon steel.Besides, on account of design defectthese lines also allowed back flow of the alkali solution from the VGS totravel upto the MIC tanks.A very essential requirement was that the MIC tanks in the factory hadto be kept under pressure of the order of 1 Kg./cm2g by using nitrogen, agas that does not react with MIC.However, MIC in tank No. 610 was storedunder nearly atmospheric pressure from 22nd October, 1984 and attempts topressurize it on 30th November and 1st December, 1984 failed.The design ofthe plant ought not have allowed such a contingency to happen at all.Thetank being under nearly atmospheric pressure, free passage was availablefor the entry of back flow of the solution from the.VGS into the tank.According to the report of Dr, Varadarajan Com-mittee, about 500 Kgs.waterwith contaminants could enter tank 610 through RVVH/PVH lines.The waterthat entered RVVH at the time of water flushing along with backed up alkalisolution from the VGS already present could find its way into the tank 610through the RVVH/PVH lines via the blow down DMV or through the SRV and RD.The first indication of any reaction in the tanks comes through thepressure and temperature indicators.The thermowell and temperaturetransmitting lines were out of order throughout and ho temperature wasbeing recorded for quite sometime.Pressure was also being recorded at theend of each shift of 8 hours duration instead every 2 hours as was beingdone earlier.Soon thereafter, in the night shift, someoperators noticed leakage of water and gases and gases from the MICstructure and they informed the Control Room.Some staff in thelllrd shift including S/Shri R.K. Kamparia, C.N. Sen and Saumen Dey check-ed the pressure indicator on the tank E 610 and found that the pressure hadgone out of range.The factory staff tried to control the situation butthey failed.Even tank E 619 which had to be kept empty for emergencytransfers was found to contain MIC and therefore when the reaction started,transfer thereto from tank 610 was not possible.The staff on dutyimmediately informed senior officials of UCIL at Bhopal about the escape ofMIC.Similarly, nitrogen from aneigh-bouring factory is fed directly into the storage tanks, without fullinter-mediate storage and quality determination.Carbon steel sections areused in the connectors to the storage tanks.Copper tubes are used inconnectors to the level instruments of the tank, The system of instrumentsfor alarm to indicate sudden increase in temperature are not suited to theconditions of operation."The ingress of about 500 kg. of water alone, without metalliccontaminants, would have led to a reaction with three to four tonnes: ofMIC and gradual rise in temperature to 70 degree celsius, below the boilingpoint of MIC at the safety valve pressure.The very rapid explosive rise intemperature and pressure in the tank 610, implies conditions for a run-awaytrimerisation reaction al-ready existed.Ingress of water and reaction withMIC would generate carbondioxide evolution and cause mixing.Solicitor General Shri Altaf Ahmed has also invited ourattention to document D-159 a brochure of UCC, USA which stated that if MICis contaminated with water it may become violent.He also invited ourattention to D-195 which is a circular giving company information aboutdefinitions of 'subsidiary and associate companies'.This was relied uponto show that UCIL was a subsidiary company of UCC, USA.Additional D-9 wasrelied upon which was a copy of the application for grant of industriallicence for manufacture of MIC based pesticides with foreign collaborationof UCC, USA, to show that UCL authorities were well aware regarding thehazardous nature of MIC which they were handling in collaboration with UCC,USA and the safety measures which were required to be undertaken.LetterD-191 dated 26.10.1984 written by R. Nagarajan of UCEI to Shri K.S. Kamdarwas relied upon to show that Shri Kamdar was requested to give feasibilityreport for dismantling of the MIC Plant, Bhopal and the shipment thereofabroad and the cost estimate involved in such an undertaking.Reply of ShriKamdar at '.D-19 dated 29,11.1984 was also relied upon to show the costestimate prepared for dismantling and shipping of the Sevin/MIC Unit fromBhopal.These documents were relied upon to indicate that by the closingmonths of 1984 this plant had become useless and had to be scrapped andshifted and that showed lack of interest of the management and thoseoperating the plant in the safe working of the plant which was no longerprofit making and was almost a dead burden to them and this had resulted,according to the prosecution, in illegal omission on their part in takingnecessary safety measures for containing the hazardous MIC within theconfines of factory premises.D-216 was a statement showing loss to MlCUnit from 1981 to 1984 which showed huge financial loss suffered by thecompany in running the said plant.Thereafter the learned AdditionalSolicitor General placed strong reliance on document D-205 which wasOperational Safety Survey Report conducted by team of experts of UCC.Thisdocument showed that a number of deficiencies in the maintenance of MICUnit were pointed out by experts as early as in 1982; The said report isstyled as Operational Safety Survey Co, MIC and SEVIN Units Union CarbideIndia Limited, Bhopal Plant, It is dated 28th July 1982, The coveringletter addressed to Shri J. Mukund accused No. 5, the then Works Manager ofthe Bhopal Plant recites that the team was very impressed with the qualityof operating and work procedures developed over the past few years.Howeverit sought to bring to the attention of the addressee in connection with theequipment and mechanical deficiencies described in the report and suggestedthat continued efforts in the area of procedures, training and enforcementwere necessary for contributing substantially to the on-going safetyefforts at the Bhopal Plant.It was indicated that there were potentialsfor release of toxic materials in the phosgene/MIC unit and storage areas,either due to equipment failure, operating problems or maintenanceproblems.There were potentials for contaminations, overpressure, oroverfilling of the SEVIN MIC feed tank.At M.2.L were noted severalconditions for opera-tion of the unit that presented serious potential forsizeable releases of toxic materials.They were listed us under ;"(a) Leakage of phosgene and choloroform from the PSS feed and quench feedFilter head assemblies.(b) Breakage of small lines or connections, either because of inadequateline Strength, installation of long unsupported nipples, or corrosion.Examples cited included quench pump drain and vent connections, HCIScrubber pump drains, and MRS and pyrolyzer tails pump drains and vents.(It should be noted that several of these lines were originally schedule 10nickel piping, and have been replaced, for the most part.)(c) Possible failure of the pyrolyzer calandria vapor line due toerosion/corrosion.(d) Mechanical pump seal failures, caused by improper seal design (onthe Glit pumps, for instance) or inadequate control of replacementmaterials.(e) Release of material at unexpected places due to improper evacuationjet operation or open evacuation drops."of theReport as under :"In retrospect, it appears the factors that led to the toxic gas leakageand its heavy toll existed in the unique properties of very highreactivity, volatility and inhalation toxicity of MIC.The need-lessstorage of large quantities of the material in very large size containersfor inordinately long periods as welt as insufficient caution in design, inchoice of materials of construction and in provision of measuring and alarminstruments, together with the inadequate controls on systems of storageand on quality of stored materials as well as lack of necessary facilitiesfor quick effective disposal of material exhibiting instability, led to theaccident.These factors contributed to guidelines and practices inoperations and maintenance.Thus the combination of conditions for theaccident were inherent and extant.A small input of integrated scientificanalysis of the chemistry, design and controls relevant to the manufacturewould have had an enormously beneficial influence in altering thiscombination of conditions, arid in avoiding or lessening considerably theextent of damage of December, 1984 at Bhopal."In addition to the aforesaid documentary evidenc the learned AdditionalSolicitor General also relied upon D-157 being Memorandum of Associa-tionand Articles of Association of M/s Ever Ready Company (India) PrivateLimited subsequently changed to M/s Union Carbide India Limited showingaccused No. 2 Keshub Mahindra as the Chairman.Various annual reports werepressed in service to show how accused No. 2 Keshub Mahindra presided overthe meetings and how accused No. 3, V.P. Gok-hale worked as whole-timeDirector.It was submitted relying on aforesaid material and also thestatements of Arjun Singh, Mohan Singh and Ram Lal and other statements ofpersons working in the plant which were recorded during investigation thatall the accused had Criminal knowledge regarding the defective working ofthe plant at Bhopal and as the Plant was to be dismantled and shifted outof India the powers that monitored the plant were no longer interested inits safe keeping and by their illegal omissions to take appropriate stepsfor safe working of the plant and for the safe keeping of such dangerousmaterial like MIC which they were handling at Bhopal, they were rightlycharged for the concerned offences by the learned Trial Judge and that theHigh Court was right in refusing to interfere with the framing of thesecharges.Therefore,according to him, this resulted in back flow of alkalin solution from theVGS to the storage tanks leading to a chain of reactions.It was next submitted that despite the recommendations in the report of theoperational Safety Survey conducted at Bhopal Plant by experts from UnitedStates during May 1982 and despite various deficiencies of serious andminor nature being pointed out no remedial steps were taken.Even duringthe Safety Survey leakages from MIC plant area had been noticed.Deficiencyin safety valve and absence of fixed water sprayers in the MIC Plant areahad been particularly pointed out.Thus the gas had leaked from the storagetank due to a chain chemical reaction.JUDGMENT1996 Supp.(6) SCR 287The Judgment of the Court was delivered byS.B. MAJMUDAR, J. Leave granted in all these Special Leave Petitions.They had also challenged the orders of the HighCourt of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Revision Application Nos.237/93,238/93, 312/93 and 311/93 whereby these charges were sustained.Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3900 of 1995 is moved by ShriKeshub Mahindra who is accused No. 2 before the Sessions Court.Appealarising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3901 of 1995 is moved by Shri V.P. Gokhalewho is accused No. 3 in the same case.Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.)No.3953 of 1995 is moved by Kishore Kamdar who is accused No. 4 in thesaid case while the last appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3932 of1995 is moved by six accused being Shri J. Mukund accused No. 5, Dr. R.B.Roy Choudhary accused No. 6, Shri S.P. Chaud-hary accused No, 7, Shri K.V.Setty accused No. 8, Shri S.I. Qureshi accused No. 9 and Union CarbideIndia Limited ('UCTL' for short) accused No. 12 in the same case pendingbefore the Sessions Court at Bhopal.The concerned appellants had moved theHigh Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur under Sections 397 and 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure .(Cr.P.C.) for quashing the aforesaid charges.With a view to highlighting the grievances of the appellants a few relevantfacts deserve to be noted at the outset.Introdactory Facts A grim tragedy of unprecedented nature occurred atBhopal on the night intervening 2nd December 1984 and 3rd December 1984wherein between 0030 hours and 0045 hours a highly dangerous and toxic gascalled MIC escaped from tank No. E610 from the Bhopal factory belonging toaccused No. 12 UCIL.This ghastly tragedy has come to be known as'Bhopal Gas Tragedy'.After the gas leakage Criminal Case No. 1104 of 1984was registered at the Police Station Hanumanganj, Bhopal on 3rd December1984 by the Station House Officer sou motu.This case was registered underSection 304-A, IPC.In the said case 12 accused were indicted.Accused NO.1 was Shri Warren Anderson who was the Chairman of Union Carbide-Corporation.The said concern was also indicted as accused No. 10, AccusedNo.Accused No. 3 V.P. Gokhale was shown as an accused inhis capacity as Managing Director of UCIL.Kishore Kamdar who was the VicePresident and Incharge of A.P. Division of UCIL was shown as accused No. 4.Shri J. Mukund the Works Manager of the Bhopal Plant was joined as accusedNo.wasShri S.P. Choud-hary, Production Manager of the Bhopal Plant.Shri K.V.Shetty, Plant Superintendent of the said Bhopal plant was accused No. 8,Shri S.I. Qureshi was shown as accused No. 9: He was Production Assistantat the said Bhopal plant.Out of the above accused persons accused Nos..5,6, 7, 8 and 9 were stationed at Bhopal and were incharge of the BhopalPlant itself.On the registration of the aforesaid Crime Case the Station House Officer,Bhopal, arrested five employees of the factory, namely, accused Nos. 5 to 9and they were kept in police custody.Out of them accused No. 1 Shri Warren Anderson wasreleased on bail the same day.On the case being committed to theCourt of Sessions it was registered as Sessions Trial Case No. 237 of 1992as aforesaid.After hearing the prosecution as well as the learnedcounsel for the concerned accused the learned 9th Additional SessionsJudge, Bhopal passed order dated 8th April 1993 framing charges against theconcerned accused.As these charges have been seriously brought intochallenge it would be apposite to reproduce the charges as framed by thelearned Trial Judge against the concerned accused.Charges framed against accused No, 4Kishore Kamdar ran as under:"Firstly : That you on or about the night intervening 2nd and 3rd December,1984 at Bhopal, the capital of M.P. committed culpable homicide notamounting to murder by causing death of 3828 or more human beings byallowing the highly toxic gas known by the name of MIC to escape from tankNo.610 of A:P. Division Plant of UCIL, knowing that it was likely to causedeaths and you thereby committed on each count an offence punishable U/S304(II) I.P.C. and within the cognizance of the court of Sessions.Secondly : That you on the above date and at the above place by allowing toescape from tank No. 610 of the A.P. Division Plant of UCIL, a corrosivesubstance known by the name of MIC gas, knowing that it was likely to causegrevious hurts, thus voluntarily (as defined U/S, 39 IPC) caused grevioushurts to 21694 or more human beings and, thereby committed on each count anoffence punishable U/S. 326 IPC and within the cognizance of the Court ofSessions.Thirdly: That on the above date and at the above place by allowing toescape from tank No. 610 of .A.P. Division Plant of UCIL, a corrosivesubstance known by the name of MIC gas, knowing that it was likely to causehurts, thus voluntarily (as defined U/S. 39 IPC) caused hurts to 8485 ormore human beings and thereby committed on each count an offence punishableU/S. 324 I.P.C. and within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions,Fourthly; That on the above date and at the place by allowing to escapefrom tank No. 610 of the A.P. Division Plant of UCIL, knowing that it waslikely to cause death of animals, committed mischief by killing thereby2544 or more animals of various descrip-tions each valuing more than Rs. 50and thereby committed on each count an offence punishable U/S. 429 IPC andwithin the cognizance of the Court of Sessions.Qureshi whileUCIL, Calcutta accused No, 12 had to face the following charges :"Firstly : That on or about the night intervening 2nd and 3rd December,1984 at Bhopal, the Capital of M.P. co-accused persons S/Shri KishoreKamdar/J. Mukund/R.B. Roy Choudhary/S.P. Choudhary/K.V, Shetty and S.1Qureshi committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder by causingdeath of 3828 or more human beings by allowing the highly toxic gas knownby the name of MIC to escape from tank No. 610 of A.P, Division Plant ofUCIL knowing that it was likely to cause deaths and you sharing this commonknowledge with them did not do any thing to avoid the said escape of gasthus you thereby committed on each count an offence punishable U/S 304(II)R/W Sec. 35 of the I.P.C. and within the cognizance of the court ofSessions.Secondly : That on the above date and at the above place, above co-accusedpersons by allowing to escape from the above tank the corrosive substanceknown by the name or MIC gas, knowing that it was likely to cause grevioushurts, thus voluntarily (as defined U/S 39 IPC) caused grevious hurts to21694 or more human beings and you sharing this common knowledge with themdid not do anything to avoid the said escape of gas, thus you thereby com-mitted on each count an offence punishable U/S. 326 R/W See, 35 IPC andwithin the cognizance of Court of Sessions.P.C. as noted earlier: The High Court of Madhya Pradesh bycommon judgment in three Criminal Revising Applications Nos. 237/93, 238/93and 312/93 moved by accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively, was pleased todismiss the same by upholding the charges framed against these accused.Similarly Criminal Revision Application No. 311/93 moved by accused No. 5J. Mukund, accused No. 6 R.B, Roy Choudhary, accused No. 7 S.P. Choudhary,accused No. 8 K.V. Shetty, accused No. 9 S.I. Qureshi and accused No. 12UCIL was also dismissed by a separate order of even date.As noted earlier the chargesheet indicts 12 accused out of whichthe present: 9 appellants in these four appeals are accused Nos. 2 to 9 and12 respectively.2, On the night of 2nd/3rd December, 1984 from about 0034 to 0045 hrs, (on3rd December, 1984) onwards, MIC started to escape from tank No. 610 in thefactory in large quantities causing the death of thousands of human beingsand animals .... and injuringalso the health of many thousands of human beings and animals.Crime No. 1104/84 was registered at Police Station, Hanuman-ganj,Bhopal, on 3rd December, 1984, by the S.H.O., Shri Surinder Singh Thakur.Inspector who observed people dying around the factory of Union CarbideIndia Ltd. Bhopal (UCIL) due to escape of some gas from the factory.There Was noinformation available at that stage from anyone in the factory.The evidence collected during the investigationproves that UCC was in total control of all the activities of UCIL.The investigation of this case was dependent on highly scientific andtechnical evaluation of the events which led to the escape of MIC gas fromthe UCIL plant at Bhopal.The Government of India therefore constituted,immediately after the incident, a team headed by Dr. S. Varadarjan, thenD.G./C.S.I.R. to study all the scientific and technical aspects and submittheir report.Dr. M. Sriram, Chief Research and Development Manager,Hindustan Organic Chemicals, Rasayani, District Ralgad (Maharashtra), wasmember as well as the co-ordinator of the Scientific Team.In particular, iron or steel, aluminium, zinc or galvanizediron, copper or tin or their alloys could not be used for purposes ofstorage, transfer/transmission of MIC, This would mean that even the pipesand valves carrying MIC had also got to be of the prescribed stainlesssteel In other words, at no stage should MIC be allowed to come intocontact with any of the metals mentioned above.The tanks storing MIC have to be, for reasons of safety, twice thevolume of the MIC to be stored.It was also advised by UCC itself that anempty tank should also be kept available at all times for transferring MICfrom its storage tank to the stand by tank on occasions of emergency.MIChas to be stored in the tanks under pressure by using nitrogen which doesnot react with MIC- The temperature of the tank with MIC has to bemaintained below 15 degree Celsius and preferably at about 0 degreeCelsius.In particular, water reactsexothermically to produce heat and carbon dioxide.Consequently, thepressure in the tank will rise rapidly if MIC is contaminated with water.The reaction may begin slowly, especially if there is no agitation, but itwill become violent.UCC itself states that with bulk systems contaminationis more likely than with tightly sealed drums.All these properties of MICshow that despite all the safety precautions that could be taken, storageof large quantities of MIC in big tanks was fraught with consider-ablerisk.Investigation has disclosed that at the time when the incident tookplace there were thee partially buried tanks in the factory at Bhopal.E 619 was supposed to be the stand by tank.When thepressure in the tank exceeded 40 psig, a rupture disc (RD) leading to asafety relief Valve (SRV) had to break and the said SRV in the RWH lineopen automatically to allow the escaping gas to travel through the RWH lineto the VGS for neutralization;During all these developments and even thereafter the Union Carbideoffi-cials at Bhopal did not give any information to the residents or anylocal authority about the serious dangers to which the people were exposedand regarding Which the said officials had full knowledge, On the otherhand, what was initially mentioned was ammonia gas had escaped."Thereafter are listed the findings of the Scientific Team made byDr.Vardarajan indicating the causes that had resulted in the toxic gasleakage causing its heavy toll.In para 20 of the chargesheet the followingfindings of the investigation conducted by the C.B.I, have been noted :"20 The investigation conducted by the C.B.I has proved the followingaspects :(i) MIC is a highly dangerous and toxic poison.(ii) Storing huge quantity Of 'MIC in large tanks was undesirable anddangerous as the capacity and actual production in the Sevin plant did notrequire such a huge quantity to be stored.Only adequate quantity of MICshould have been stored, that too in small separate stainless steel drums.(iii) The VGS that had been provided in the design was capable ofneutralising Only 13 tonnes of MIC per hour and proved to be totallyinadequate to neutralise the large quantities of MIC that escaped fromtank.When the two tanks (610 and 611) themselves had beendesigned for storing a total of about 90 tonnes of MIC, proportionatelylarge capacity VGS should have been furnished in the design and erectedrather than VGS that was actually provided.(iv) Due to the design defect, there was back flow of alkali solution fromthe VGS to the tanks which had been drained in the past by the staff ofUCIL.Infact, even after the incident, such draining was done from the PVHand RVVH lines.(v) Whereas the MIC tanks had to be constantly kept under pressure usingnitrogen, the design permitted the MIC tanks not being under pressure incertain contingencies.(vi) The refrigeration system that had been provided was inadequate andinefficient.No alternate stand by system was provided,(vii) Neither the UCC nor the UCIL took any steps to apprise the localadministration authorities or the local public about the consequences ofexposure of MIC or the gases produced by its reaction and the medical stepsto be taken immediately.Apart from these design defects, the further lapses that were committedwere :.(a) Invariable storing MIC in the tanks which was much more than the 50%capacity of the tanks which had been prescribed,(b) Not taking any adequate remedial action to prevent back flow ofsolution from VGS into the RVVH and PVH lines.This alkali solution/water,therefore used to be drained.(c) Not maintaining the temperature of the MIC tanks at the preferredtemperature of 0 degree celsius but at ambient tempera-tures which weremuch higher,(d) Putting a slip blind in the PVH line and connecting the PVH line witha jumper line to the RVVH line.(e) Not taking any immediate remedial action when tank No. E 610 did notmaintain pressure from 22nd October, 1984 onwards,:(f) When the gas escaped in such large quantities, not setting out animmediate alarm to warn the public and publicise the medical treatment thathad to be given immediately;"It was also recited that if these lapses had not occurred, still theincident Would have taken place due to the basic defects in the designsupplied by the UCC whose experts supervised the erection and commissioningof the plant itself.The lapses only helped to aggravate the consequencesof the incident.Thereafter referring to the indications obtainable fromthe evidence collected during the investigation regarding the knowledge ofthe accused about the defective functioning of the plant the following'pertinent recitals are found in paragraph 23 and 24 of the Chargesheet :The evidence Collected during the investigation proves that theaccused persons had the knowledge that by the various acts of commissionand omission in the design and running of the MIC based plant, death andinjury of various degrees could be caused to a large number of human beingsand animals.All the accused persons joined in such acts of omission andcommission with such common knowledge.This resulted in the incident on thenight of 2nd/3rd December, 1984 which caused the death immediately and tilldate of about 2850 human beings and about 3000 animals.The ailments damaged respiratortract function, gastro intestinal functions, mas-cular weakness,forgetfulness etc.The investigation has established that S/Shri Warren Anderson, thenChairman, Union Carbide Corporation, USA: Keshub Mahindra, then Chairman,UCIL Bombay; Vijay Gokhle, then Managing Director and presently Chairman-cum-Managing Direc-tor, UCIL, Bombay, Kishore Kamdar, then Vice PresidentIn-charge, A.P. Division, UCIL, Bombay; J. Mukund, then Works Manager, A.P.Division, UCIL, Bhopal, Dr. R.B. Roy Choudhary, then Asstt.Works Manager,A.P. Division, UCIL, Bhopal, S.P, Choudhary, then Production Manager, A.P,Division, UCIL, Bhopal; K.V. Setty, Plant Superintendent, A.P. Division,Bhopal; S.I, Qureshi, Production Assistant, A.P. Division, UCIL, Bhopal;the Union Carbide Corporation.U.S.A.; Union Carbide Eastern Inc. Hongkongand Union Carbide India Limited, Calcutta have committed offencespunishable Under Sections 304, 326, 324, 429 IPC r/w Section 35 IPC"Only a single refrigeration system for cooling ofMIC in two tanks was installed and it had not been operated for someconsiderable time.MIC has the combination of properties of very highreactivity with minimum contaminants, ready volatility to become gas andvery high in-halation toxicity.The installed facilities provided fordisposal of unstable liquid MIC in alkali or for the neutralisation ofgaseous emissions from violent reaction, on examination are found to be notcapable of meeting the objectives of such disposal in a very short time oftwo hours.The abstract also recited that the ingress of about 500 kg, ofwater alone, was not the sole cause of the escape of a huge quantity oftoxic gas.hi this connection the following averments found in the abstractwere relied upon by the prosecution.:The storagetank conditions would then equal those in a well mixed reactor, Suppliedwith heat.Once initiated, the trimerisation reaction had features of auto-catalytic and auto- thermal reactions and temperatures increased rapidly to250 degree celsius.The relief valve design could not permit free flow oflarge quantities of gases at the level at which they were generated andtherefore further reactions continued.The presence of sodium at levels of 50 to 90 ppm in the samples fromresidues of tank 610 indicates ingress of some alkali, possibly derivedfrom the Vent Gas Scrubber Accumulator.Thecontents of tank 6l0 were virtually at atmospheric pressure from that dateproviding opportunities for entry of metal contaminants.From a perusal ofthe reports of the events of the night of 2/3 December, 1984, it appearsduring the cleaning of choked fillers with water in the Relief Valve VentHeader, such water perhaps mixed with alkali from Vent Gas ScrubberAccumulator, could have entered the non pressurised tank and may havecarried some metallic contaminants from the carbon steel portions of headerpipelines.The rapid rise in temperature necessitates onset of metalcatalysed polymerisation and could not result from water alone.Reliance was also placed on the brochure for showing that for manufactureof Sevin, a very volatile and dangerous raw material, MIC had to be storedin large quantities and that raw material was not properly kept undercooling conditions and if coming in contact with water or any otherpollutant had a tendency to create extremely toxic gas which once itescapes would necessarily create disaster to the human beings and evencattle which come in its contact.It has to be stated in fairness tolearned senior counsel for the appellants that they also did hot challengethe fact that MIC was a very highly volatile and dangerous material whichhad to be properly kept so that it may not spell disaster once it getsconverted into poisonous gas and if such gas escapes from the factory.However their only contention was whether there was any prima facieevidence to show that the appellants or any one of them was in any wayresponsible for this unfortunate accident, which in their view was an actof God for which no human being was responsible.The learned Addl.Even that apart after the Bhopal Gas tragedy as stated earlier a scientificteam of experts headed by Dr. Vardarajan inspected the plant on spot andtried to find out the reasons for this tragedy.At page 81 of the Reportafter listing various defects in the working of the plant especially withreference to storage tank and the instrumentation and control system thecommittee in paragraph 4.3 of the Report which is D-164 on the record ofthe Trial Court observed as under :"MIC is kept under a pressure of nitrogen which is supplied by a carbonsteel header common to all the storage tanks: There is a strainer in thenitrogen line.Subsequent to the strainer the pipe is of carbon steel andleads to make-up DMV which also has as body of carbon steel.Similarly, theblowdown DMV is also of carbon steel body.These carbon steel parts may beexposed to MIG vapours and get corroded, providing a source of contaminantwhich can enter the MIC storage tank."*At paragraph 4.4 dealing with 'Instrumentation and Control System' it wasobserved in the Report of the Vardarajan Committee as under :Instrumentation and Control System :The pressure in the MIC tank increases rapidly if MIC is con-taminated withwater.There is no high pressure alarm to alert the operator about thebuild-up of pressure.There is a graphite rupture disc between the tank and the safety valve.This graphite rupture disc may break because of pressure surges even undernormal conditions.There is no provision for an alarm to bring such abreakage of rupture disc to the attention of the operator.For the storage of a lethal chemical such as MIC, two instru-ments inparallel (one for control/indication and another for alarm) are normallyprovided.For example, quite often the levelreadings have not been recorded.reportedly because the level system usedto be out of order very often due to choking problems.In fact; after theevent, since the only level monitoring system provided for tank 611 was notfunctioning, it was not possible to ascertain the exact quantity of MIC inthat tank.An additional level measuring system would have helped in such asituation.Ingress of contaminants or water can start a reaction with MIC which beginslowly and produce a rise in temperature of the tank contents.However, therange of the temperature transmitter provided was only-25 degree celsius toPLUS 25 degree celsius, with a high alarm setting at PLUS 11 degree celsius.Thecontents of the tank were being stored at ambient temperature, which variesapproximately from PLUS 15 degree celsius to PLUS 40 degree Celsius at BhopaL Thetemperature of MIC in the storage tanks for most part of the year washigher than the high temperature alaram setting.i.e. PLUS 11 degree celsius.No such provision was made:"In connection with refrigeration the Committee observed in paragraph 4.5 ofthe Report as under :4.5 Refrigeration ;There is only one common compressor and chiller system for all the threeMIC storage tanks.For such a hazardous material as MIC, where maintainingit at a low temperature is considered very important, a spare compressorand chiller system would have ensured proper chilling even when the maincompressor and chiller system is under repairs- or maintenance.Thisprovision of spare compressor and chiller has not been made."It reads asunder :That accused R.Choudhary, J. Mukund, S.P. Choudhary, K.V, Shelly and S.I. Qureshi who wereactively associated with the working of the plant at Bhopal were directlyconcerned with the incident as they were in full knowledge of thedeficiencies in the plant.Similarly accused Keshub, Mahindra, V.P. Gokhaleand Kishore Kamdar too had full knowledge of the defects in the plant atBhopal and therefore, they also shared the criminal liability based oncriminal knowledge about the acts of commission and omission in connectionwith the operation of the said plant at Bhopal.That alt the accused hadfull knowledge of the hazardous nature of the MIC manufactured as anintermediate product in Bhopal plant, defects in the design of the plantlack of safety Measures, but -still they had taken to precautionary stepsto avoid this unfortunate accident.Learned senior counsel for the appellant-accused on the other handsubmitted that even if taking the material available on record at thisstage on its face value the short question is whether any charge could havebeen framed against the accused under Section 304 Part II, IPC with orwithout the aid of Section 35, IPC and even for that matter any chargescould have been framed under Sections 326, 324 or 429 with or without theaid of Section 35 of IPC.We may at once state that both the learnedSessions Judge as well as the High Court have taken the view on theaforesaid material that a prima facie case has been made out by theprosecution requiring accused to face the aforesaid charges and (he trialof the accused on these charges cannot be cut short or nipped in the bud inthe light of the aforesaid material which has to be accepted as prima facietrue and reliable at this preliminary stage of framing of charges.It, therefore, become necessary for us now to address ourselves on thismoot question.As noted earlier the main charge framed against all theseaccused is under Section 304 Part II, IPC.There still remains the questionas to whether any other charge can be framed against the con-cerned accusedfor any of the offences under the Indian Penal Code on the basis of thevery same material relied upon by the prosecution for framing appropriatecharges against the accused.

['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.By the order dated 31.07.2019, learned AGA was granted last opportunity to file counter affidavit.From the Annexure S.A-1 brought on record, it appears that the applicant is aged about 61 years.It has been submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case after manipulating the CCTV camera and its recording in his house only in order to blackmail him.He is residing alone in his house and his only daughter is living out side the country.He has been victimised for ulterior motives.On the other hand learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted herein above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs.The bail application is allowed.Let the applicant Vimal Chand involved in Case Crime No.282 of 2019, under Sections 363, 354-A, 354-B IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Medical College, District- Meerut 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.Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Rashid was done to death by shooting and injury of firearm was also caused to Bhure.Besides, Bhure and his wife Smt. Jafri had sustained lathi injuries too.JUDGMENT M.C. Jain, J.Four persons, namely, Mushtaq, Israil, Ayyub and Qayyum were tried in S.T. No. 409 of 1979 before the Sessions Judge, Moradabad.The incident had taken place on 25.3.1979 at about 6.30 P.M. in village Bagrauwa, Police Station Bilari, District Moradabad and the F.I.R. was lodged by an injured eye-witness Bhure PW 1 on 26.3.1979 at 4.00 A.M. The distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence was about 4 miles.One Rashid was murdered in the incident and injuries were caused to Bhure PW 1 and his wife Smt. Jafri.Firearms were wielded by Ayyub and Qayyum whereas Israil and Mushtaq made use of lathis.The lower Court convicted Mushtaq and Israil under Section 323 I.P.C. as well as under Section 323 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. but they were acquitted for the offences under Section 302 I.P.C. and 307 I.P.C. both read with Section 34 I.P.C.Qayyum was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. for murdering Rashid and also under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. He was, however, acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. and under Section 323 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C.Ayyub was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 323 I.P.C. and under Section 307 I.P.C. but was acquitted under Section 323 I.P.C read with Section 34 I.P.C.The Court is, therefore, concerned only with appellant Israii whose conviction, as stated above, is under Section 323 I.P.C. and under Section 323 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. He has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 I.P.C. and one year's rigorous imprisonment has been awarded for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.It is not necessary to relate the sentences passed against the other accused-appellants since they have died and the appeal had abated respecting them.The defence of Israii before the lower Court was of false implication owing to enmity.At the trial, besides leading medical evidence and that related to investigation of the case, the prosecution examined two eye-witnesses, namely, Bhure injured PW 1 and Mehboob Alam PW 2 whose name found place as eye-witness in the F.I.R.We have heard Sri Ghanshyam Josrii, holding brief of Pt.Mohan Chand, Counsel for the appellant and Sri A.K. Kushwaha, learned A.G.A. from the side of the State.The Counsel for the accused-appellant Israii confined his argument only on the aspect of sentence that offence proved against him being only of having voluntarily caused hurt, he should be treated with leniency in the matter of sentence.It is true that the charge under Section 323 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and under Section 323 I.P.C. simpliciter had been proved against him at the trial on the trustworthy evidence of two eye-witnesses out of whom one was himself the injured.The accused-appellant Israii allegedly wielded lathi.He was not found to share common intention of the firearm wielding Co-accused.The blunt weapon injury of Bhure was a contusion on the dorsum of left hand Which was a simple one.Smt. Jafri sustained a contusion and an abrasion.Her injuries were also simple.He had given a lathi blow to Bhure causing a contusion to him as mentioned above.Then, he and Mushtaq also caused injuries to Smt. Jafri.Mention has been made above regarding her simple injuries too.His conviction under Section 323 I.P.C. simpliciter is for having caused simple hurt to Bhure and under Section 323 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. for having caused simple hurt to Smt. Jafri.We feel inclined to accept the submission from the side of the accused appellant Israil that no useful purpose would be served to unsettle his settled life by awarding him substantive sentence of imprisonment for an offence committed more than 25 years back of causing simple injuries to two persons (total injuries 3).Thus he suffered incarceration also for about 18 days.The ends of justice would be met to modify his sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone plus the fine of Rs. 1,000/- on each count i.e. a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. simpliciter and another fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months on each count.In this way, he shall either pay total amount of Rs. 2,0007- as fine or shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months in default of payment of fine.We accordingly,partly allow this appeal, upholding the Conviction of the accused appellant Israil under Section 323 I.P.C. and under Section 323 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. on another count and modifying his sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone plus payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/- on each count or to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months on each count (total rigorous imprisonment of six months).In default of payment of fine, he shall be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentence of imprisonment awarded to be undergone in default of payment of fine indicated above.The Office is directed to send the copy of the judgement along with record of the lower Court within one week.

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected and application dismissed.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

appellants/accused can be summarized thus :(a) PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, at the relevant time was attached to Police Station Nigdi.On that day, he was entrusted with the duty of Commando and he was supposed to undertake night patrolling on motorcycle bearing No.Similar duty was also entrusted to PW3 Arvind Pawar, Police Constable.He, therefore, took another motorcycle bearing no.At about 9.45 p.m. of 20th December 2005, they both proceeded for night patrolling duty.They undertook patrolling of area known as Ota Scheme, Nigdi and proceeded towards Anandnagar Thermax Square and thereafter to Dalvinagar.PW3 Arvind Pawar, Police Constable, was ahead of PW2 Vishnu Nangare.Police Constable PW3 Arvind Pawar thereafter turned towards Lokmanya Hospital, Nigdi.PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, followed him.When PW2 Vishnu avk 3/16::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 ::: APPEALS-312-2013-349-2013.doc Nangare, Police Constable, reached the railing of Nigdi bridge, he found a motorcycle parked near the railing.Two persons were standing on one side of the bridge whereas the another one was standing on the other side.When PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, reached near the parked motorcycle, the person standing on one side of the bridge threw some object like rope to other persons who were standing on the opposite side.PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, suspected some foul play and therefore, he slowed his motorcycle.His revolver was snatched by one of them.He was given five or six blows on head by the butt of his revolver by the assailants, causing bleeding injury to him.Thereafter, all three robbers fled from the spot by a motorcycle of Bajaj Boxer make bearing Registration No.PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, noticed throwing of an object like rope by person standing on one side of the bridge towards two others who were standing opposite.This, naturally, caused avk 8/16::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 ::: APPEALS-312-2013-349-2013.doc suspicion in the mind of PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable.He deposed that, he, therefore, stopped his motorcycle and immediately thereafter, all three persons pounced upon him.On checking his pant pocket, one of those persons noticed that he is having revolver.His revolver was then snatched.Two persons had beaten him by means of fist and kick blows whereas the third one gave blows of butt of the revolver on his head.Apart from this, as per version of PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, the person holding the revolver attempted to fire but could not, as the revolver was locked.By taking his revolver with them, they all fled from the spot and he suffered giddiness.From his cell phone he informed the incident to Nigdi Police Station as well as to PW3 Arvind Pawar, Police Constable.1 Criminal Appeal No.312 of 2013 is filed by appellant/ accused no.2 Pankaj @ Rahul Ramgopal Jagaria whereas Criminal Appeal No.349 of 2013 is filed by appellant/accused no.1 Pavan Vasudeo Sharma.They both were tried for offences punishable under Sections 307, 394 and 332 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No.539 of 2006 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, and by the impugned judgment and order dated 10th January 2011, they are convicted of offences punishable under Section 394 read with 34 and Section 332 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.For the offence punishable under Section 394 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, they both are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years apart from payment of fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.For the offence punishable under Section 332 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.The substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently by the learned trial court.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 :::(b) PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, informed the incident to Nigdi Police Station as well as his associate PW3 avk 4/16::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 ::: APPEALS-312-2013-349-2013.doc Arvind Pawar, Police Constable.PW3 Arvind Pawar, Police Constable, then took PW2 Vishnu Nangare to Lokmanya Hospital, Nigdi, for medical treatment.There, First Information Report Exhibit 36 of PW2 Vishnu Nangare came to be recorded and accordingly, Crime No.506 of 2005 for offences punishable under Sections 332 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered.Routine investigation followed.Appellants/accused came to be arrested.Spot panchnama Exhibit 65 came to be recorded.Then the charge-sheet came to be filed.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 :::(c) Appellants/accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In order to bring home the guilt to appellants/accused, the prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses.Medical Officer of Lokmanya Hospital Dr.PW6 and PW7 namely Vinod Bhosale and Ashok Bardia are panch witnesses.Defence of appellants/accused is that of total denial.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 :::(d) After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial court was pleased to convict appellants/accused for offences punishable under Sections 394 and 332 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they are sentenced as indicated in the opening paragraph of the judgment.3 I have heard Ms.Ayubi, the learned advocate appointed to represent both appellants/accused at the cost of the State.The prosecution has not proved the offence.The avk 6/16::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 ::: APPEALS-312-2013-349-2013.doc revolver allegedly looted from the First Informant was never seized.The incident took place in the midnight and there is no evidence regarding proper identification of appellants/accused.Therefore, they are entitled for benefit of doubt.4 The learned APP supported the impugned judgment and order by contending that evidence of PW4 Vikas Gaikwad shows that there was street light as well as moonlight available on the spot.The identification is proper and evidence of prosecution is sufficient to establish guilt of appellants/accused.5 I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the Record and Proceedings including the oral as well as documentary evidence.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 :::6 PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, who is alleged victim of the crime in question is a star witness for the prosecution.His categorical evidence shows that on 20 th December 2005, on two different motorcycles, he along with his avk 7/16::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 ::: APPEALS-312-2013-349-2013.doc colleague Police Constable PW3 Arvind Pawar had left Nigdi Police Station at about 9.45 p.m. for doing night patrolling in their territorial jurisdiction.They conducted patrolling at Anandnagar area, Thermax square area as well as Dalvinagar.Thereafter, as seen from evidence of PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, they both proceeded towards Gawade Mala area and at that time, PW3 Arvind Pawar, Police Constable, was proceeding ahead of PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable.He turned towards Lokmanya Hospital, Nigdi, and therefore, PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, also followed him on his motorcycle.7 As seen from evidence of PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, the incident took place at the bridge of Nigdi.He stated that he saw a motorcycle parked at the railing of the said bridge.Two persons were standing on one side of the bridge whereas one was standing on the other side of the bridge.Then, he was taken to Lokmanya Hospital by PW3 Arvind Pawar, Police Constable, where his FIR Exhibit 37 came to be recorded.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 :::8 PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, has deposed that thereafter on 16th January 2006, Senior Police Inspector of Nigdi Police Station showed four suspects to him from which he avk 9/16::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 ::: APPEALS-312-2013-349-2013.doc identified two persons to be the robbers.PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, deposed that the accused persons present before the court are the same persons who robbed him.9 Cross-examination of PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, shows that at the time of the incident, there was darkness on the road.The spot of the incident was a barren land from which a stream passes.He, further, admitted that, three robbers abruptly came near him and the incident took place.10 Version of PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, about the incident of robbery is gaining corroboration from evidence of PW3 Arvind Pawar, Police Constable.He stated that, he along with PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, were doing patrolling from 9.45 p.m. of 20th December 2005 and when he was proceeding from Gawade Mala area, he got a phone call from PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, and therefore, he came back and saw PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, in an injured condition.This witness also proved former statement of avk 10/16::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 ::: APPEALS-312-2013-349-2013.doc PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, regarding robbing of revolver.As per version of PW3 Arvind Pawar, Police Constable, he, thereafter, admitted PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, to Lokmanya Hospital, Nigdi.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 :::11 Cross-examination of PW3 Arvind Pawar, Police Constable, shows that the incident took place in an area surrounded by trees.PW4 Vikas Gaikwad is the security guard working at Lokmanya Hospital, Chinchwad.He claims himself to be an eye witness to the incident in question.He deposed that while proceeding from the road at Gawade Mala, at about 10.30 to 10.45 p.m., on 20th December 2005, he saw three persons assaulting one person in the moonlight as well as electric light on that spot.Subsequently, the police brought injured PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, to Lokmanya Hospital for treatment.12 Most glaring infirmity in evidence of this witness is to the effect that this witness has not identified any of the appellants/accused while in the dock.Rather, the Public avk 11/16::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 ::: APPEALS-312-2013-349-2013.doc Prosecutor had not pointed out appellants/accused to him during the course of recording of his evidence in order to ascertain whether he is in a position to identify the robbers, whom he alleged to have seen assaulting PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable.Moreover, evidence of this witness that there was moonlight as well as electric light on the scene of occurrence is coming on record by way of omission.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 :::13 The harmonious reading of evidence of all these seven witnesses goes to show that PW3 Arvind Pawar, Police Constable, who was in the vicinity at the time of the incident, had not seen any of the robbers.PW4 Vikas Gaikwad, who claims to have seen the incident as well as the robbers, was not shown appellants /accused for the purpose of identification.PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, the First Informant as well as the victim of the crime in question is stating that there was darkness on the spot of the incident and the incident took place abruptly.His cross- examination reveals that the spot was surrounded by barren land a stream.Exhibit 65 is the panchnama of the spot of the incident avk 12/16::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 ::: APPEALS-312-2013-349-2013.doc prepared by the Investigator.The spot panchnama does not show that there was any source of light on the spot of the incident.What is noted in the spot panchnama is existence of iron pole of light on the northern side of the road.The spot panchnama reveals that neither there was any house in the vicinity of the spot of the incident nor there were street lights on the spot, which was on the road proceeding from Gawade Mala to Udyog Nagar, Chinchwad.Cross-examination of PW8 Anant Nikam, the Investigating Officer, reveals that when he inspected the spot in the night, it was dark.Thus, the incident took place in the dark night on a spot where the visibility was poor.Evidence on record does not indicate that there was electric pole with electric light in a lit condition near the spot of the occurrence.Evidence of PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, and PW3 Arvind Pawar, Police Constable, is conspicuously silent regarding availability of light or street light at the spot or in the vicinity of the spot.The spot panchnama does not reveal availability of source of light at the avk 13/16::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 ::: APPEALS-312-2013-349-2013.doc spot.Investigating Officer PW8 Anant Nikam, Police Sub- Inspector, who immediately proceeded to the spot after the incident, did not find availability of moonlight thereat, nor he found any streetlight.Even the FIR Exhibit 37 lodged by injured PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, does not show that source of light was available on the spot of the incident.It is a matter of common knowledge that in the darkness, unknown persons cannot be identified unless and until there is sufficient opportunity to see such persons.In this view of the matter, holding that appellants/ accused persons are the same persons who robbed PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, of his firearm in the midnight, would be risky and evidence regarding identification of appellants/ accused coming on record from mouth of PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, is doubtful.He claims to have been shown four suspects on 16th January 2006 out of which he identified two persons.Even the Test Identification Parade was not conducted by the prosecution to lend assurance to the evidence of PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable.To crown this all, despite thorough investigation, the Investigator could not recover the avk 14/16::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 ::: APPEALS-312-2013-349-2013.doc firearm allegedly robbed from PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 :::The fact which the prosecution is alleged to have discovered on the basis of disclosure statement of the accused persons is the spot of the incident.This spot of the incident was already known to the police, in view of the fact that the same was shown by PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, and that, on 21 st December 2005 itself, by inspecting the spot, the Investigator had seized the walkie talkie therefrom.15 Except this, there is no evidence to connect appellants/accused to the crime in question.Though the prosecution has established that PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable, was robbed of his firearm in the night hours of 20 th December 2005 at Nigdi bridge after causing injuries to him, as avk 15/16::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 ::: APPEALS-312-2013-349-2013.doc seen from evidence of PW5 Dr.Vikas Patil, the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that those were appellants/accused persons along with the absconding accused, who committed robbery of the firearm after causing hurt to First Informant PW2 Vishnu Nangare, Police Constable.In the result, the appeals deserve to be allowed, and therefore, the order :::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 :::i) Both the appeals are allowed.ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 10 th January 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.539 of 2006 is quashed and set aside.iii) Both appellants/accused persons are acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 394 and 332 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.iv) They be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.v) Fine amount, if any paid by them, be refunded to them.vi) The appeals stand disposed of in above terms.::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 02:17:13 :::

['Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Shri Priyank Choubey, learned counsel for the applicant- accused.This is first bail application filed by the applicant-accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in connection with Crime No50/2015 registered at Police Station Rehli District Sagar for offence under Section 294, 323, 324, 325, 506(Part II) read with 34 of the IPC and later on added Section 307 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant- accused has been falsely implicated in this case.A cross case bearing Crime No.51/2015 for offences under Sections 323, 294, 324, 506 Part II read with Section 34 of the IPC has been registered against Halku, Nanhebhai, Ramesh Ahirwar who are injured persons of the instant case.As per FIR bearing Crime No.51/2015, the injured Halku inflicted an injury on the right hand of injured Laxmi Ahirwar, who is the wife of Ravi, who was also assaulted by Halku with an axe and Nanhebhai and Ramkesh also caused injuries to the injured Ravi.Counsel further pleads that as per the FIR bearing Crime No.50/2015, the applicant-accused Rajesh assaulted Nanhebhai with an axe on his back.The said injury has not been found to be grievous in nature.As per doctor's report, the M.Cr.C. No.6600/2015 injury of Nanhebhai has been found to be simple in nature.On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel has prayed for grant of bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant-accused has prayed for rejection of the bail application.On perusal of the case diary and the FIR bearing Crime No.51/2015, it is evident that cross cases have been registered against both the parties who are relatives of each other.The applicant-accused Rajesh inflicted the injury to Nanhebhai with an axe.Provisions of Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C. shall apply to the applicant.C. stands disposed of.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Judgment (Per : M. G. Giratkar, J.) Appellant Suwarna Onkar Vite challenged the judgmentof conviction passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,Khamgaon in Sessions Case No. 119/2010 by which she came to beconvicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the .....2/-::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 02:11:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 02:11:21 :::2 jg.cri.apeal 211.13.odtIndian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonmentfor life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo R.I. forone month.The case of the prosecution against the accused/appellant can be summarized as under.(i) Deceased Sushilabai w/o Wamanrao Vite, aged about 70years was residing in the premises of trust of Hanuman Temple atJamod.She was issue-less.She was having two nephews of herbrother-in-law.One of the nephew, namely, Onkar Vishnu Vite wasresiding on rent.Landlord was asking him to vacate the premises.He did not vacate the premises.His landlord Shivshankar removedthe tin sheets of the rented premises.Due to rain, wife of Onkarbrought all the household articles and kept in the room ofdeceased.Deceased told wife of Onkar i.e. accused that she wasnot in good terms and, therefore, should not reside in her room.Accused poured kerosene and set her on fire.She was admitted inthe hospital by Shankar Vishnu Vite.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 02:11:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 02:11:21 :::Tahsildar Shri Deshmukh.On the basis of the dying declaration,Exhibit 19, crime was registered against the accused.API ShriKshirsagar investigated the crime.Same was readover andexplained to the accused.Accused pleaded not guilty and claimedto be tried.Defence appears to be of total denial and falseimplication.Prosecution has examined in all total 7 witnesses.Atthe conclusion of trial, learned trial Court convicted the accused asstated above.Heard learned counsel Shri Badar for the appellant.Hehas pointed out evidence on record and submitted that except thedying declaration, Exhibit 19, there is no other evidence on record.Dying declaration, Exhibit 19 is doubtful.Therefore, without any .....4/-::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 02:11:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 02:11:21 :::counsel prayed to allow the appeal and acquit the appellant/accused.Heard learned Additional Public ProsecutorShri Ghodeswar for the State/respondent.He has submittedthat accused can be convicted solely on the basis of dyingdeclaration.The prosecution has examined P.W. 1 Shankar VishnuVite, P.W. 2 Onkar Vishnu Vite and P.W. 3 Durgabai ShankarShinde.All these witnesses not supported to the prosecution.Therefore, only evidence considered by the trial Court is dyingdeclaration, Exhibit 19 recorded by P.W. 4 Naib TahsildarShri Deshmukh.Evidence of Medical Officer Shri Shailesh Goyankashows that he examined deceased at about 1.40 p.m. on 22-6-2010.He issued certificate, Exhibit 18-A stating that patient was fit to .....5/-::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 02:11:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 02:11:21 :::His cross-examination shows that he issued certificate, Exhibit 18-Aand 19-A casually.His cross-examination shows that NaibTahsildar was asking questions and recording the replies.Butdying declaration, Exhibit 18-A does not show any questions andanswers.Medical officer not stated in his evidence that patientwas well oriented while giving dying declaration.Evidence ofP.W. 4 Naib Tahsildar Shri Deshmukh shows that he put generalquestions but those questions are not recorded.Naib Tahsildarstated that he could not tell which organs or body parts of womanwere burnt.It is a printed format.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 02:11:21 :::Thus, the necessity for corroboration arises not from any inherent weakness of a dying declaration as a piece of evidence, as held in some of the reported cases, but from the fact that the Court, in a given case, has come to the conclusion that that particular dying declaration was not free from the infirmities, referred to above or from such other infirmities as may be disclosed in evidence in that case."::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 02:11:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 02:11:21 :::7 jg.cri.apeal 211.13.odtThe perusal of the material on record would reveal thatthe dying declaration is recorded by PW 4 Baburao AjabraoDeshmukh.The words -^^ojhYk tckc okpwu o letkowu lkafxryk o rks cjkscj vkg¢** & :Xukph lgh/vaxBk &appear to have been written in a different handwriting.Not onlythis but insofar as the time of completion of dying declaration isconcerned, the same also appears to have been written in adifferent handwriting and different ink.Not only thisbut PW 6 - the Police Constable Shri Gajanan Gawande clearlyadmits in his cross- examination that when he received the dyingdeclaration it was neither sealed nor in a pocket.PW 7 -Investigating Officer Shri Subhash Haribhau Kshirsagar in his .....::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 02:11:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 02:11:21 :::8 jg.cri.apeal 211.13.odtevidence clearly admits that he did not investigate whether or notany dying declaration is recorded at Rural Hospital Jalgaon becauseat that time investigation was not with him.He also further admitsin the cross-examination that in the investigation it was found thatthe present appellant had extinguished deceased Sushilabai bypouring water.Medical Officer not stated in hisevidence that patient was well oriented during the time ofrecording dying declaration.Certificate only shows that patientwas fit to give dying declaration.At the bottom of dyingdeclaration, Medical officer not given any certificate stating thatpatient was well oriented during the time of recording dyingdeclaration.Except dying declaration which is doubtful, there is noother evidence to corroborate it.Therefore, only on the basis ofdoubtful dying declaration, accused cannot be convicted.Learned .....9/-::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 02:11:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 02:11:21 :::In the result, we pass the following order.(iii) Appellant Sau.Suwarna Onkar Vite is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Her Bail bond stands cancelled.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 02:11:21 :::

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT P.B. Mukharji, J.This is a reference to us from the District Magistrate of Midnapur under Section 185(1), Criminal P. C. That section provides that "Whenever a question arises as to which of two or more Courts subordinate to the same High Court ought to inquire into or try any offence, it shall be decided by that High Court."The question here before us on this Letter of Reference relates to two 'chars', Gurudaha 'char' and Gurgurahti 'char', in the bed of river Rupnarayan which runs between the two districts of Midnapur and Howrah.The question is in which district, Midnapur or Howrah are these two 'chars' situate.The question arises out of certain proceedings under Section 147/324, Penal Code in which the place of occurrence is said to be these two 'chars'.We have to determine which of the two Courts of Midnapur and Howrah has the jurisdiction to try these proceedings.In the letter of reference of the District Magistrate he makes no statement or comment.He has only forwarded the records of the two cases, but has not enumerated the different contentions on the point of jurisdiction nor supplied any proof in support of either contention.The records of these two cases are silent on the point of jurisdiction that we have to determine on this Reference.Having regard to the form of the letter of reference which we find to be very unhelpful for the purpose of this Court we directed an enquiry in the department to find out if there were any prescribed rules for making reference under Section 185(1), Criminal P. C. It appears that there are definite instructions in the 'Criminal Rules and Orders', Vol.I as to how references under Sections 307, 374 and 438, Criminal P. C. should be submitted to the High Court but the 'Criminal Rules and Orders' do not contain any instructions as to how cases should be submitted to the High Court under Section 185(1), Criminal P. C. That is a lacuna which we consider should be filled up as soon as possible.We direct the Registrar of the Appellate Side of this Court to move in the matter.Having regard to this situation it was thought desirable that notice should be issued to the Legal Remembrancer in this case.Mr. Sen for the Legal Remembrancer has appeared before us but he has stated that he received no instructions from the Government on the matter.In the two affidavits filed by Jitendra Nath Mitra and affirmed on 19th November 1951 reference is made to certain materials.The first document is a communication between the two Collectors of the districts of Midnapur and Howrah.On 31st March 1949, the Khas Mehal Department of the Howarh Collectorate was making a reference to the Collector of Midnapur enquiring if there was any objection to the settlement of these sandy 'chars' within the bed of the river Rupnarayan stating that according to the settlement demarcation they fell within the Howrah District.Thereafter on 5th May 1949 reminder was sent to the Collector of Midnapur as well as the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tamluk.In the reminder it was also stated that "it appears from the report that the entire river from Kolaghat upwards falls outside the district boundary line of Midnapur District".It was pointed out that there was no 'char' within the district of Midnapur from Kolaghat upwards but there were some sandy 'chars' in Some places within the district boundary line of Midnapur from Kolaghat to Goalkhali which appear and disappear during the rise and fall on lunar dates.In this report after making reference to certain memorandum and the correspondence on the subject it is said that "the said 'chars' near Kaijuri on the bed of the river Rupnarayan which according to the last district settlement records and maps fall entirely within the district of Howrah were surveyed on the annexed map.It is evidenced from the annexed map that the said 'chars' A and B locally known as Guru-daha have been formed on the bed of the said river Rupnarayan.Our decision should be communicated to both the District Magistrates of Howrah and Midnapur.P.N. Mookerji, J.

['Section 438 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 V.R. Kingaonkar, J.Appellants named hereinabove are in-laws and husband of deceased Sau.Sangita and were convicted for offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w.2. Marriage of appellant No. 3 Baban and deceased Sau.She was hardly 19/20 years old at the relevant time.Her father received information about her death.So, her father P.W.1-Mitharam (complainant) immediately visited house of the appellants on the same day.He noticed that dead body of Sau.Sangita was lying in the house, some whitish froth was oozing from her nostrils and blood also appeared to have oozed from her mouth.He immediately went to the concerned Police Station and gave his report alleging that the appellants had subjected deceased Sau.Sangita to cruelty on account of their un-lawful demands for three grams of gold and other articles which were not given to them at the time of marriage as agreed by him.In substance, the prosecution case is that the appellants used to trouble and harass deceased Sau.Sangita on account of nonfulfillment of their demand of three grams of gold.They used to express dis-satisfaction about quality of fan and cupboard given in the marriage, saying that they were secondhand and scrap articles.Appellant No. 1 Supadu-her father-in-law- some times had assaulted Sau.Sangita under drunken condition.On one occasion her mother noticed an injury caused near her right eye.The inquiry with her revealed that at instigation of appellant No. 2-Sau.Sarubai her husband i.e.appellant No. 1 had beaten her.She narrated that she was beaten up since the three grams of gold was given less in the marriage and the fan and the cupboard given as presentation articles were of inferior quality.The continuous harassment and ill-treatment amounted to coercive cruelty which Sau.Sangita could not bear any more and hence committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance while she was in the matrimonial home in the relevant morning.The police carried certain investigation in pursuance to the complaint (FIR) lodged b y P.W. Mitharam.Inquest was carried out on the dead body of Sau.A spot panchanama was drawn at house of the appellants.The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination.Statements of some witnesses were recorded, and, the charegesheet was filed after completion of the investigation.At the trial, the appellants denied truth into the accusation.They denied that deceased Sau.Sangita was subjected to matrimonial cruelty.They denied further that there were un-lawful demands made to deceased Sau.Sangita regarding three grams of gold and that she was harassed due to inferior quality of presented articles such as cupboard and a fan.According to them, they were falsely implicated in the criminal case at behest of their neighbours who were on enmical terms with them.Sangita was weeping and narrated that at the instance of the mother-in-law, her husband had beaten her.The cause of beating according to Sau.Sangita used to visit her house at the time of some festivals.The police statement of P.W.Chandrakala contains omission about her visit to house of Sau.Sangita in the company of P.W. Vimalbai.The question of cruelty can not be examined without looking at the attending circumstances.As mentioned earlier, deceased Sau.Sangita had no substantial reason to end her life.The deceased Sau.Sangita was not suffering from any mental deformity and it is not the defence that she laboured under any mental depression due to some extraneous reason which was unconnected with her matrimonial life.The immediate conduct of her father-P.W.Mitharam rules out possibility of fabrication in the F.I.R. (Exh.40).The witness-P.W.Vimalbai and P.w.Sections 34 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1993 tried before learned 5th Addl.Sessions Judge, Jalgaon.They were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs.1,000/-) (Rs.One Thousand only), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months for offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five (5) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs.One Thousand only ) in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months for offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.They impugn this order of conviction and sentence.The prosecution adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of its case.In all 9 (nine) witnesses were examined during course of the trial.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge accepted the version of the parents of deceased Sau.Sangita and other witnesses on the question of coercive cruelty.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge held that deceased Sau.Sangita had committed suicide as a result of such coercive cruelty meted out to her and thereby the appellants had abetted the commission of her suicide.Consequently, they were convicted and sentenced as stated at the outset.On behalf of the appellants, learned Counsel Shri D.G.Chewale, invited my attention to the evidence of P.W.Dr.Shaha and submitted that the cause of death could not be ascertained after the post-mortem.He submitted that the death of Sau.Sangita is not proved to be of suicidal nature.He argued that interested versions of parents of deceased Sau.Sangita could not have been relied upon by the trial court.He contended that the vague statements about inferior quality of presented articles could not be regarded as a ground to infer that deceased Sau.Sangita was subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.The learned Counsel submits that the impugned order of conviction and sentence is improper and un-sustainable.Hence, he urged to allow the appeal and acquit the appellants from the charges.She was aged about 19 years at the time of her marriage and 20 years at the time of her death.The marriage was short lived.The appellants are inhabitants of village Moyegaon and complainant P. W.Mitharam is inhabitant of village Ranjani.Both these villages fall under Jamner Tahasil of District-Jalgaon.Though a feeble attempt was made to show that cause of death of Sau.Santiga could not be ascertained and that she might not have committed suicide, yet it is rather difficult to countenance such a contention.The evidence of P.W.6 Dr.Shaha would show that he performed autopsy on the dead body of Sau.No external injuries were found on her person.Shaha testified that Sau.Sangita died as a result of cardiac respiratory failure caused by organio phosphorous substance like poison.The viscera was preserved and sent for chemical analysis.The testimony of P.W.Dr.Shaha lend assurance to the recitals of the post-mortem report (Exh.38) which is an admitted document.Therefore, it will have to be said that the recitals of the post-mortem notes are indicative of correct medical findings.The opinion expressed by P.W. Dr.Shaha is the same which he mentioned against column No. 22 of the post-mortem report which was not challenged in the trial court.It is admitted by P.W. Dr.Shaha that organio phosphorus substance is an ingredient of insecticides which are generally used for agricultural purposes.The Chemical Analyser did not express any opinion regarding the contents of the viscera since the quantity was found to be inadequate.The police seized a small quantity of grains of Urea which is a branded fertilizer, while preparing the spot panchanama (Exh.36).No insecticide was found in the house of the appellants at that time.It is the version of P.W.Dr.Shaha that organic phosphorous substance is not present in the fertilizer called "Urea".The fact that no insecticide was collected from the house of the appellants is hardly of any significance.The death of Sau.Sangita occurred on 08.07.1992 and the appellants had adequate opportunity to remove the canister of insecticide.Moreover, it is not the case of prosecution that she consumed the insecticide only inside the house.The deceased was well built and young woman as is manifested from recitals of the post-mortem (Exh.38).She was not suffering from any disease.The appellants did not dispute in the trial court that she died a natural death.The inquest panchanama (Exh.38) is an admitted document and would show that whitish froth was oozing from nostrils of deceased Sau.Her neck was swollen and her nails were bluish.The medical evidence and the recitals of the inquest panchanama, considered together with the fact that deceased Sau.Sangita was a healthy young woman, would show that her death could not be natural.There is absolutely no material on record to show that deceased Sau.Sangita was suffering from any kind of illness before she had died.Under the circumstances, the only deducible inference is that she met with suicidal death.P.W.1 Mitharam narrated the plight of deceased Sau.Sangita in the matrimonial home.He is a poor agriculturist.He deposed that he had agreed to give 18 gram of gold at the time of marriage to the accused but could give only to 15 grams of gold at that time.His version purports to show that during her visits to his house Sau.Sangita used to complain that all the appellants were harassing her.She informed him that her husband used to beat her and that on one occasion her father-in-law also had beaten her.She used to tell him that her mother-in-law was instigating them and they used to tell her that three grams of gold was given less than agreed, the table fan was secondhand and the clothes given in the marriage by way of presentation were of inferior quality.His version purports to show that he went to house of the appellants on 08.07.1992 when he had received information regarding death of Sau.He saw the dead body and immediately went to the police station.His version corraborates the F.I.R. (Exh.40).Cross-examination of P.W. Mitharam reveals that his son Vijay and daughter by name Chhaya had written letters (Exhs.43 to 47) to the appellants.According to him, Sau.Sangita had complained for the first time, about the harassment, when she had visited his house to attend Diwali Festival.His version purports to show that he was unable to provide the three grams of gold due to his critical financial condition.He deposed that Sau.Sangita used to tell him that the appellants were asking her to demand the remaining three grams of gold as her "Stridhan".He also admitted that he had used the table fan which was lateron given to the appellants as a present.He admitted the handwriting of Sau.Sangita on the letter (Exh.48) shown to him.Nothing of much significance could be elicited from cross-examination of P.W. Mitharam to dislodge his version regarding the complaints made by deceased Sau.Sangita about the matrimonial cruelty.Much ado was made regarding the letters (Exh.Nos.43 to 48).The brief letters (Exhs.43 to 47 ) were written by the younger brother and sister of deceased Sau.They are very formal and casual letters which would only show that they were keeping rapport with the appellant No. 3-Baban.Sangita could have been informed about her harassment at hands of the appellants.They were innocent teen agers and were not naturally confided by the elder sister.The letter of deceased Sau.Sangita (Exh.48) was sent before the Deepawali festival and she had urged to depute some one for accompanying her to reach the maternal home for attending the Diwali festival.As mentioned before, it was for the first time during Diwali festival that she had ventilated the complaints about the harassment and ill-treatment.Obviously, the recitals of the afore mentioned letters are not helpful to the defence.The last letter (Exh.48) was not received by the complainant-P.W. Mitharam although it was addressed to him and was written by deceased Sau.The appellants had produced it during cross-examnation of P.W. Mitharam.It is suggested that although it was written by Sau.Sangita yet it remained to be posted and the appellant No. 3 possessed it because it was handed over to him for putting it in the post box.Thus, it is explicit that the letter was handed over to appellant No. 3 Baban and he had the opportunity to read it before putting it in the post box.So, it was very unlikely that Sau.Sangita would have made any complaint in that letter against appellant No. 3-Baban or the in-laws.Then, she had noticed an injury near eye of Sau.Sangita and hence, asked her how she had sustained such injury.According to P.W.Vimalbai, Sau.Sangita then narrated to them that appellant No. 3 Baban had beaten her and hence she was injured.15. P.W.3 Chandrakala is mother of deceased Sau.Her evidence would show that deceased Sau.Sangita started making complaints that the appellants were dis-satisfied regarding the quality of the fan and cupboard given as presents in the marriage and also had demanded three grams of gold which was not given at the time of marriage.The evidence of P.W.Chandrakala further purports to show that Sau.Sangita informed her that appellant No. 2 -Sarubai used to instigate her husband-Baban and thereafter he used to beat Sou.Her evidence purports to show that the ill-treatment remained un-abated till death of Sau.The evidence of P.W. Chandrakala would show that somewhere before festival of "Akshaya Tritiya" in 1992, she and P.W.Vimalbai had visited house of the appellants.Then they noticed an injury near the eye of Sau.So, she inquired about cause of such injury.The version of P.W.Chandrakala reveals that deceased Sau.Sangita was the three grams of gold which was less than agreed at the time of marriage and the inferior quality of the fan and the cupboard.The evidence of P.W.Chandrakala reveals that she had returned to her house after such revelation by Sau.There are certain minor omissions in her police statement regarding the exact nature of the complaints made by deceased Sau.She admitted that she was accompanying P.W.Vimalbai since both of them had decided to go to Pimpalgaon via Moyegaon but she did not go with P.W.Vimalbai to Pimpalgaon.She explained that she was upset on seeing the condition of Sau.Sangita and hence had returned to house without going further to Pimpalgaon.Her testimony reveals that deceased Sau.She admits that appellant No. 1 Supadu used to come to take back Sau.Sangita and used to stay with them for a couple of days during such visits.The cousin of appellant No. 2-Supadu resides at village Ranjani.She also admitted that she used to meet relatives of the appellants at their village i.e. Moyegaon.17. P.W.4 Madhav; is related to appellant No. 1 Supadu and is inhabitant of village Moyegaon.His version purports to show that the appellants used to grumble that three grams of gold was given less than agreed to be given at the time of marriage by father of the deceased Sau.They also used to say that the cupboard and the fan were old.He narrated that Sau.Sangita had visited his house at the time of Dashera to pay respects.He states that appellant No. 1 Supadu had beaten Sau.Sangita for the reasons that she had been to his house to pay the respects.He further deposed that he and his brother-in-law by name Dhanraj Tukaram Wagh had tried to convince the appellants but they did not pay any heed.His version purports to show that some days prior to "Akshaya Tritiya", Sau.Sangita had received an injury near her eye due to assault of appellant No. 3 -Baban by means of a nail (Khila).According to him, she had intimated him about such harassment and cruelty meted out to her.He further deposed that in the relevant morning Sau.Sangita was washing cloths while he was going from near her house and then she told him that nothing was certain on that day and he may not see her face again.In the same evening, he learnt about her death.This part of his version appears to improvised.Sangita in the relevant morning.True, P.W. Madhav had some litigation with appellant No. 1 Supadu regarding an agricultural land.He clearly admitted that there existed certain dispute over the land in or about 1972 and the appellants were acquitted in a criminal case, whereas the civil suit was decided in his favour.He admitted that there was a settlement of the dispute as a result of compromise arrived at between him and appellant No. 1 Supadu.He is inhabitant of the same village i.e. Moyegaon.His version purports to show that Sau.Sangita had come to his house on festival of Dashera and then was followed by appellant No. 1 Supadu.According to him, appellant no.1 Supadu gave a stick blow on person of Sau.Sangita and took her away from his house.He stated that deceased Sau.Sangita had narrated to him, on inquiry, that she had sustained injury near the eye due to assault by appellant No. 3-Baban by means of Nail (Khila ).There may be some reason for P.W. Prithaviraj to depose against the appellants.Still, however, it can not be said that he is a lier.Giving due concession to the version of P.W. Madhav and P.W. Prithaviraj, at least it can be inferred that Sau.Sangita used to complain about harassment at the hands of the appellants.Both these witnesses had no existing enmity with the appellants.Their cross-examination did not expose any falsehood except a little improvement made by P.W.Madhav regarding utterances of Sau.Sangita which he said to have heard from her in the relevant morning.There is further evidence of P.W. 7 Dhanraj to show that Sau.Sangita was being harassed by the appellants.He deposed that the appellants used to tell Sau.Sangita that her father had given three grams less gold than agreed and had given old fan and cupboard.His evidence reveals that on day of Dashera Sau.Sangita had visited his house to pay respects but returned soon .She was beaten by appellant No. 1-Supadu with a stick.This part of his version is unacceptable since he claims that lateron Sau.Sangita narrated to him about the incident of beating by appellant No. 1 Supadu.I mean to say that he has no personal knowledge about such beating to Sau.Sangita by appellant No. 1-Supadu in the context of the said incident of Dashera festival.His version would show that he was on cross-terms with the appellants on account of disputes over approach way leading to agricultural land of the appellants.The way passes through his land and the appellant No. 1 had given an application to Tahasildar for clearance of the approach way.The testimony of P.W. Dhanraj is of no much help to the prosecution.The remaining evidence of the prosecution need not be elaborately discussed.He carried out inquest panchanama (Exh.35).Further corroborated the spot panchanama (Exh.36).He recorded statements of witnesses during course of the investigation.The version of P.W.9 ASI Sonar reveals that the sample of Urea and the viscera were despatched to the Office of Chemical Analyser under letter (Exhs.63 and 64).It is formal evidence and has no bearing on the question of culpability.Deceased Sau.Sangita was brought up in a poor family and rural area.She was accustomed to hard life.No sooner he saw the dead body of Sau.Sangita, P.W. Mitharam left house of the appellants and approached the police station without loss of any time.The Police Officer carried out inquest panchanama on the dead body on same day at residential house of the appellants.The learned trial court has rightly believed the prosecution story in view of such clinching evidence.One can not be oblivious of the fact that P.W. Mitharam is a poor agriculturist, so much so that he was unable to give the demanded three(3) grams of gold and was constrained to give old fan and the cupboard as presentation articles in the marriage.Certain concession will have to be given while appreciating their evidence.Their evidence can not be assessed with mathematical presision.Some improvements and some of the omission in their police statements can not be capitalised so as to discard their version.Considering the evidence on record, and totality of the circumstances obtained in the present case, it can be said that deceased Sau.Sangita was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the appellants.The minor omissions found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses or embelishments made to some extent can not be capitalised to discredit the core of their evidence.It can not be overlooked that the witnesses gave evidence in the trial court after a gap of about more than three years.The main witnesses are rustic and poor.Therefore, some concession sh ould be given to their capacity of understanding and particularly the faulty of reproducing facts after such gap of more than three years.The trial court had an occasion to see the witnesses and the veracity of their versions could be well appreciated during the course of trial.The Apex court has observed:When the accused had created difficulty and hostile environment which compelled the married woman to commit suicide then they can be held liable for punishment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.Sangita was being harassed and ill-treated due to non-fulfilment of the un-lawful demand for the three (3) grams of gold as well as due to the inferior quality of the gift articles.It follows that she committed the suicide when it was unbearable for her to sustain the cruelty meted out to her in the matrimonial home.So far as the question of sentence is concerned, it may be seen that appellant no.1 Supadu was aged about 65 years and appellant No. 2 Sarubai was aged about 58 years at the relevant time.A period of about 13 years has elapsed after the impugned order of conviction and sentence.By now, the appellant No. 1-Supadu has become old aged person of about 78 years and appellant No. 2 too has become quite old of about 71 years.In view of their advance age, some leniency will have to be shown to them.The impugned order of sentence will have to be modified, in keeping with the circumstances and age of the appellants No. 1 and 2, though no modification is required in so far as the sentence awarded to appellant No. 3-Baban is concerned.In the result, the appeal against order of conviction is dismissed.The conviction of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 for offence under Section 498-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained but the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one (1) years is modified and they are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by them, raising the fine amount from Rs. 1,000/-(Rs.One Thousand only) each to Rs. 5,000/-(Rs.Five Thousand only) each.They shall undergo sentence of one (1) year each, in default of the payment of the fine.The conviction and sentence in respect of appellant No. 3-Baban for offence under Section 498-A, is however, maintained.The conviction of appellants No. 1 and 2 for offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained but the sentence of substantive imprisonment is modified and instead of rigorous imprisonment for five (5) years, the sentence for period already undergone by them is substituted and the fine amount is raised from Rs. 1,000/-(Rs.One Thousand only) each to Rs. 10,000/-(Rs.Ten Thousand only) each.

['Section 306 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.

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.This appeal, by special leave, has been directed against the judgment andorder dated 1st March, 2007 passed by the High Court of Karnataka atBangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 1047/2003, whereby the High Court allowedthe criminal appeal filed by the respondent herein and acquitted him.On 20.01.2001, PW1 D. Ramu,Dhobi by profession, saw a dead body floating in a well near the Dhobi Ghatwith hands tied at the back and the ankles were also tied.The policerecovered the dead body, shifted it to Bowring Hospital Mortuary andthereafter published the photograph of the dead body in the newspaper.Fromthis photograph, PW3 father of the deceased, reached the Bowring Hospitaland identified the body as that of his son Ganesh.The said wetparty took place at Sindhur Bar at Lingarajapuram.PW5 (the bar-boy) andPW6 (owner of the bar) testified that on 16.01.2001, the accused along withone other person visited their bar.Building further, the investigationcame across with PW8 (shopkeeper) who testified that the accused along withone other person bought 2 cigarettes from his shop on 16.01.2001 at 10p.m., and the accused thereafter was arrested on 23.01.2001, but thedeceased was never seen alive again.Police filed the charge sheet against accused Chand Basha, after whichcharges for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IndianPenal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) were framed by theTrial Court and the charges were read over and explained to the accused buthe pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 14.02.2003, convicted therespondent Chand Basha for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC andsentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.15,000/- ,and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for sixmonths was awarded.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order ofthe Trial Court, the respondent-accused filed an appeal before the HighCourt of Karnataka at Bangalore, being Criminal Appeal No.1047 of 2003.The High Court by the impugned judgment and order allowed the criminalappeal on the ground that the prosecution might have proved the motive buthad miserably failed to prove the incriminating last seen circumstance andhad also failed to successfully prove the discovery evidence.The HighCourt held that the death may be a homicidal, but there is no evidence toconnect the accused with the crime.In view of the aforesaid discrepancies,the High Court set aside the order of conviction passed by the Trial Courtand acquitted the respondent.The Appellant - State has challenged before us the judgment of acquittalpassed by the High Court.Learned counsel for the appellant has inter aliaraised the following grounds as incriminating circumstances in this appeal.Firstly, the motive behind the murder of the deceased was consistently andcogently proved by the testimony of PW3 father of the deceased, and PW4sister of the deceased.Agreeing to this submission, the High Court alsoheld that motive can be successfully attributed upon the accused that hewanted to marry PW4 (sister of the deceased) which was vehementlydisapproved by the deceased and PW3 (father).The High Court pointed out discrepancies in the statements of PW5 and PW6.Both the witnesses stated that they did not personally know the deceasedand neither of them were friends to him nor they ever took his personaldetails.It was only during the investigation on 24.01.2001, that the twocame to know that the deceased’s name was Ganesh.The High Courtconsidered the fact of recovery of material objects, but disbelieved therecovery of Saree and shoe lace as ‘artificial’ as they could not adduceconfidence of having occurred naturally in the chain of events.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as also thelearned senior counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused therecords.The prosecution story relies upon the 'last seen together’ theoryas its pivotal evidence which is hereunder examined.The prosecutionexamined PW5, PW 6 and PW8 to prove the ‘last seen theory’.PW 5 and PW6 also deposed that the two persons were also served2 fried chicken.According to these witnesses, the two customers wereserved at about 8:30 PM.PW8 (shopkeeper) is another prosecution witnesswho testified that at about 10.00 PM on 16.01.2001, the accused along withone other person came to his shop and bought two cigarettes of Rs.2/-each.This witness has also deposed that he does not personally know theaccused or the other accompanying person.PW5 and PW6 statedthat they were not personally acquainted to the accused.However, duringinvestigation when the Investigating Officer, accompanied by the accused,asked them, they were able to identify him as their customer who came on16.01.2001 along with one other person.At this point of time, theInvestigating Officer disclosed the name of that other person as Ganesh andstated that he was dead.Thereafter, PW6 did not depose about anyphotograph being shown to him.The role of the Investigating Officer istherefore doubted, as within a very short span of time, why PW6 was notshown the photograph and only PW5 was shown the photograph of the deceased.PW5 also did not disclose the details of the photograph, but it can bepresumed that he was shown the photograph of the dead body.From a perusalof medical evidence it appears that the dead body was stout, the complexionhad changed and bite marks of aquatic animals were present especially onthe face, since it was recovered from the well.From a perusal of post-mortem report, it transpires that the stomach contained partially digestedvegetables and rice.However, PW5 and PW6 deposed that the accused and thedeceased at last ordered 2 chicken fry.During investigation, PW8 was notshown the photograph of the deceased, moreover, in the examination noquestion was asked about the identity of the other person who was togetherwith the accused.This goes on to create a serious doubt on the ‘last seentogether’ theory.The prosecution pressed hard on the fact that the accused as well as thedeceased were together on 16.01.2001 and the deceased was never seen again.The dead body was recovered on 20.01.2001 i.e. after 3 days and 4 nights.Thus, the possibility of the deceased being thrown into thewell later than 16.01.2001 cannot be ruled out completely, particularlywhen the post-mortem revealed that the victim last ate vegetables and rice.Even if depositions of PW5 and PW6 are relied upon, there exists a missinglink between the visit to the bar and the deceased being thrown into thewell i.e. the deceased having another meal.The High Court rightly rejected the two recoveries made as it seemsartificial that the accused intending to kill the deceased will not preparewell.Having two shoe laces at his disposal, why will he cut a shoe laceinto two to tie the hands of the deceased.Similarly, the piece of Sareewhich was recovered near the well is doubted as an accused intentionallycommitting a crime will not bother to cut a piece of cloth into two beforetying.These evidences were sent to FSL on 25.2.2001 i.e. after 1 month ofthe alleged recovery.The recovery of these material objects seems more ofan unnatural occurrence.PW3 also came to know that his son (deceased) had gone withthe accused to a wet party.There arises doubt upon the conduct of PW3 whoknew that his son was missing since 16.01.2001 and he also heard of extra-judicial confession of the accused, yet he did not report to the police.As perprosecution story the deceased Manikandan was last seen on 4-4-2004 atVadakkumelur Village during Panguni Uthiram Festival at Mariyamman Temple.The body of the deceased was taken from the borewell by the fire servicepersonnel after more than seven days.There is no other positive materialon record to show that the deceased was last seen together with the accusedand in the intervening period of seven days there was nobody in contactwith the deceased.The prosecution story relies upon the ‘last seen together’ theory, whichresulted into the death of Ganesh.This Court has time and again laid downthe ingredients to be made out by the prosecution to prove the ‘last seentogether’ theory.The Court for the purpose of arriving at a finding as towhether the said offence has been committed or not, may take intoconsideration the circumstantial evidence.However, while doing so, it mustbe borne in mind that close proximity between the last seen evidence anddeath should be clearly established.Yet, the prosecution has failed toprove the evidence which establishes the ‘last seen together’ theory beyondreasonable doubt to prove the guilt of the accused.The prosecution merelyproved the motive which could have compelled the accused, and that theaccused went to the bar with one other person, but the identity of thatother person is not clearly established at all.Thus, in the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that thepresent appeal is devoid of merits, and we find no grounds to interferewith the judgment passed by the High Court.The appeal is, accordingly,dismissed.

['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.

(C.M.Application No. 61397 of 2017)The criminal appeal has been filed against conviction and sentence under Section 363 I.P.C, 366 I.P.C and 376 I.P.C and pending criminal appeal bail application had been moved.Hence, in the 8th line of first paragraph instead of 366, "363" be read.Order Date :- 7.6.2017 Pachhere/-

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

under Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application are that a criminal complaint was filed by the applicant against the respondents for offence under Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 406 of IPC.It was the case of the applicant that she was married to the respondent No.1 on 26.4.2006 as per Muslim Rites and Rituals.At the time of marriage, the mother of the applicant had given several articles in dowry which are mentioned in the list filed along with the complaint and the entire articles are with the respondents and they are using the same, whereas, all the articles are the Stridhan of the applicant.It was further stated that on 18.5.2009 at about 9 AM, the respondents demanded an amount of Rs.1.5 lacs and when the applicant could not give the same, she was turned out of her matrimonial house and injuries were caused to her by means of knife.The statement of witnesses were recorded and after considering the statements of the complainant and the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 & 202 of CrPC, the Magistrate took cognizance of offence under Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Summons were issued.Rizwana Khan (P.W.1) had stated that she was married to the respondent No.1 on 26.4.2006 and articles as mentioned in the list annexed with the complaint were given at the time of marriage.After some time of the marriage, the respondents and other family members of her in-laws started making demand of Rs.1.5 lacs.On 18.5.2009, she was beaten and assaulted by knife and thereafter she lodged a complaint in police station that she has been turned out of her matrimonial house and articles which were given at the time of marriage are still being utilized by the respondents and other family members of her in-laws.Exhibit P-1 is the list of articles, which were given at the time of marriage.A report was lodged in Police Station Rajgarh and accordingly the offence under Sections 498A, 506B, 324 of IPC was registered.Since, the respondents are using the articles which were given in dowry, therefore, they 2 M.Cr.Smt. Rashida Qureshi (P.W.2) has also stated that motorcycle, fridge, TV etc were given at the time of marriage and for about 2-8 days her daughter was kept properly by her in-laws and thereafter for demand of Rs.1.5 lacs, the respondents had turned her daughter out of matrimonial house.On 3 M.Cr.C.No.6099/2014 (Smt. Rijwana v. Nahsir Khan & Ano.) 18.5.2009 with an intention to kill her daughter kerosene oil was poured on her.The entire articles which were given at the time of marriage are being used by the respondents and in laws of the complainant.This witness and her husband had demanded the articles back but the respondents refused to return the same.In cross- examination this witness had admitted that except the three articles, they have not filed bills of any other articles.She further admitted that the respondents and other accused persons have already been acquitted in a criminal case which was registered under Section 498A of IPC.She further admitted that even her younger daughter has also filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC against her husband.She admitted that the list of articles Exhibit P-1 does not bear her signature.However, she explained that only after the case was filed, a duplicate bill was obtained.Rashid Khan (P.W.3) has also stated in the same line.Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant filed a criminal appeal before the Sessions Court, 4 M.Cr.C.No.6099/2014 (Smt. Rijwana v. Nahsir Khan & Ano.) Guna which has been dismissed by judgment dated 16.05.2014 on the ground that only application for grant of leave to appeal would lie and the criminal appeal is not maintainable.Hence, this application has been filed.Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.It bears the signatures of only two persons who have not been examined by the complainant.The documents titled as duplicate invoice dated 19.8.2009 is written on the letter pad of Viswas Electricals and General Stores.According to this document vide bill No. 95/27.4.2009 and 92/27.4.2009, a refrigerator, cooler and LG TV were purchased by Rizwana Khan.The explanation given by Smt. Rashida Qureshi (P.W.2) that the duplicate invoice was obtained only after the litigation started does not appear to be correct for the simple reason.Thus, it is clear from this document that refrigerator and LG TV were purchased in the year 2009 and not in the year 2006 when the marriage was performed.Accordingly, 6 M.Cr.C.No.6099/2014 (Smt. Rijwana v. Nahsir Khan & Ano.) the complainant has failed to prove that refrigerator and LG TV were given at the time of marriage.It is not the case of the complainant that these two articles were given subsequent to the marriage.It is written on a blank piece of paper.

['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The first respondent has filed a Status Report stating that a news has been published in the magazine "Crimes This Week" with an intention to insult the modesty of the second respondent and also caused harassment and hence an F.I.R has been registered against the petitioner herein and one John Kennady ( accused no.1) under Section 509 IPC read with Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of (Harassment of Women) Act, based on the complaint given by the second respondent.It is stated that the petitioner had obtained anticipatory bail before this Court in Crl.OP.No.15826 of 2012 dated 17.12.2012 but subsequently during Trial, he has not appeared before the Trial Court and hence a Non-Bailable Warrant has been issued on 26.04.2014 and the same is still pending.He further submitted that the petitioner as a printer has no right, authority to edit, alter or distort the material given to him for publishing and he has carried forward his duty as a printer and printed as per the direction of the Editor of the Magazine.He further submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge that the material printed would defame the second respondent.He further submitted that in the FIR itself, it is stated that the second respondent on seeing the said article which was affixed in the Sub Treasury building of Pollachi had torn the same.He further submitted that the first respondent also stated in the mahazar that no material is available in the scene of occurrence to seize and in such a case, it cannot be said that some derogative articles have been published against the second respondent.He further submitted that even as per the statement of the second respondent, in the said magazine, she was looting with her superiors and also doing “fliy NghLjy;'' and she is helping her superiors for getting bribe.This petition has been filed by the accused No.2 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.271 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pollachi.The second respondent had lodged a complaint before the first respondent on 15.06.2012 alleging that in the magazine, "Crimes This Week", a news item reported that the second respondent who is employed as Superintendent in the Office of the District Educational Officer at Pollachi had indulged in helping the Superior Officer to obtain bribe and she is closely associated with them and thereby caused harrasment to her and also insulted her modesty.Based on the said complaint, the first respondent had registered a case in Crime No.233 of 2012 under Section 509 IPC read with Section 4 of the Tamilnadu Prohibition of (Harassment of Women) Act, 1998, and took up the matter for investigation.The accused No.2 has filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C stating that he is only a Printer and he had no knowledge, contacthttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 or any intention about the incident which was published in the magazine and he could not be prosecuted for the alleged offences.It is further stated that after investigation, a charge sheet has been filed against the accused No.1 and the petitioner herein under Section 509 IPC read with Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of (Harassment of Women) Act, 1998 and the case was taken on file in C.C.No.271 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1 Pollachi and since Non-Bailable warrant is pending against the petitioner herein, no progress has been made in the said case.The second respondent has filed a counter stating that she was working as a Superintendent in the Office of the District Educational Officer athttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 Pollachi.On 24.02.2012 in the morning, when she went to her office, she was informed by her relative S.Anu Priyanka that "Crimes this Week" dated 16.03.2012, a Weekly Magazine had published a derogative article and copy of the same was affixed in and around the Pollachi Elementary Educational Office and also at Sub-Treasury Office and hence, she immediately went to the Sub-Treasury office and found that a derogative article against her has been published in the said Magazine and the same has been affixed in the Sub-Treasury Building, a public place and hence, she lodged a complaint before the first respondent and based on the said complaint, a case was registered and after investigation a charge sheet has been filed and based on the same, a case was taken on file in C.C.No.271 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pollachi and the same is still pending.She also stated that the petitioner being a Printer of the said magazine, he is liable along with the editor and publisher of the publication of any derogative contentions and hence she prayed to dismiss the petition.Heard Mr.V.K.Sathiamurthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.T.Shunmugarajeshwaran, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the first respondent and Mr.R.Sree Rangan, the learned counsel for the second respondent.Therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in the aforesaid Criminal case.Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant has submitted that the petitioner has not disputed the fact that the petitioner is a printer of the magazine "Crimes This Week" and also the fact that the said magazine dated 16.03.2012 has published an article with regard to the second respondent.He further submitted that in the said article, it is stated that the second respondent being a Junior Officer in the District Educational Office, Pollachi gave false informations to the Government and showing her as V.I.P. Further, she has collected money from the schools by threatening and gave the same to the District Educational Officer and thereby she is having control over him.Further, it is stated that the second respondent is always indulged in looting in the chamber of the District Educational Officer and also doing the act of “fliy nghLjy;''.He further submitted that the aforesaid article has been printed with an intention to insult the modesty of the second respondent and also to harass her and hence the provisions of Section 509 IPC and Section 4 of the said Act would attract and hence he prayed to dismiss this petition.The learned counsel for the second respondent, in support of his contentions, relied upon the following decisions:http://www.judis.nic.in 7i) Bhagat Singh Vs.Lachman Singh, AIR 1968 Calcutta 296;ii) Mrs.Shobhana Bhartia and Others Vs.NCt of Delhi and another of Delhi High Court dated 21.09.2007iii) M.M.Haries Vs.State of Kerala (Crl.MC.No.9717 of 2002 on the file of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 16.02.2005);iv) Raja @ Selvaraj Stanley Jones Vs.The State (Crl.RC.No.131 and 76 of 2007 on the file of this Court dated 13.07.2009);The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) who is appearing for the first respondent has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant and apart from that, he also submitted that though the petitioner herein had got anticipatory bail from this court during investigation stage, after filing of the charge sheet, he did not appear before the Trial Court and hence Non-bailable warrant has been issued against him on 26.04.2014 and till today, the said Non-bailable warrant is pending and hence no progress has been made in the case before the Trial Court.It is for the petitioner to prove before the Trial Court that he had acted with bonafide intention.Therefore, this Court of the view that there are materials to proceed against the petitioner and hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed.http://www.judis.nic.in 18In the result, this petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.12.03.2019 Index:yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No vv ToThe Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pollachi.The Inspector of Police, Pollachi East, Pollachi Police Station, Pollachi.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.These two appeals have their matrix in a commonjudgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Courtdisposing of three criminal appeals preferred under Section374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `Cr.PC'), against the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge,Thanjavur in Sessions case no.65 of 1994 dated 13.5.1997.Five persons had faced trial for alleged commission of murderof one Arunbharathi @ Jynarab (hereinafter referred to as the`deceased').They were convicted for offences punishableunder Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian PenalCode, 1860 (in short `IPC').So far as A1, A2 and A5 areconcerned, each was sentenced to undergo imprisonment forlife.A1, A2 and A5 were convicted for offence punishableunder Section 348 IPC and sentenced to one year RI each.A1was charged for commission of offence punishable underSection 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year RI and A2and A5 were convicted for offence punishable under Section201 read with Section 34 IPC and each was sentenced toundergo RI for life.2. A1 was Head Constable, while A2 was a Constable A3was a Writer, and A4 was a Pere Constable.A5 was a native of Udaiyur Kovil 2After the case was committed to the Court of Sessionscharges were framed since the accused persons pleadedinnocence they were put to trial.In order to substantiate thecharges 14 witnesses were examined.On consideration of thematerial on record the Trial Court recorded the conviction andimposed sentences as aforesaid.Stand of the appellant before the High Court was that thedeceased had put himself on fire and in fact, all the accusedpersons immediately quenched the fire and had taken him tothe Government Primary Health Hospital, Ammapet, wherePW3 doctor was available.The deceased made a voluntarystatement to PW3 wherein he categorically stated that he hadpoured petrol on himself and set himself on fire.Thereafterthe deceased with the burn injuries was taken to the MedicalCollege Hospital where also he made a similar statement toPW4 the doctor.Subsequently, another doctor PW6 examinedhim where also he made a similar statement.Therefore, it 3 was submitted that the Trial Court was not justified inconvicting them relying on the purported dying declarationalleged to have been given by the deceased to the RevenueDivisional Officer (PW14) on 16.12.1992 i.e. four days prior tohis death.The same was nothing but a tutored one.The HighCourt held that the so called statements made before thedoctors cannot be accepted in view of the dying declarationrecorded by PW14 the RDO.The HighCourt found that the allegations against A2, A3 were notproved beyond reasonable doubt and they were entitled toacquittal.Accordingly, the appeals filed by these accusedpersons were allowed and those filed by the appellants inthese two appeals were dismissed.In support of the appeal learned counsel for theappellants submitted that the High Court proceeded onpresumptions that because the statements of the deceased toPWs, 3, 4 and 6 were made in the presence of a Constable,therefore, they were not voluntary.On the contrary at thetime when the statements were made, the relatives of thedeceased were present is evident from the evidence of PW1who took the deceased to the hospital.He had categoricallyadmitted that he was accompanied by several persons whenthe deceased was taken to and was at the hospital.PW1 andothers were there with him.PW1 has categorically admittedthat this was the situation in the Ammapet hospital andThanjavur Medical College Hospital.He has categoricallystated that several persons were present at the hospital.Itwas, therefore, submitted that the voluntary statement maderight from the beginning should not have been lightly brushedaside.It is also pointed out that the High Court came to anerroneous conclusion by misreading dying declarationpurported to be made before RDO that it was either A1 or A5 5 (the present appellants) who had poured petrol and set him onfire.The deceasedhad an opportunity to observe and identify the assailants andwas in a fit state to make the declaration.3, 4 and 6 to the effect that thedeceased voluntarily told each one of them that he had sethimself on fire.3, 4 and 6, yet largenumber of relatives of the deceased, more particularly, PW1who had taken him to the hospital were present also.Additionally, the High Court has misconstrued the dyingdeclaration.The deceased had categorically stated therein thathe did not know who set him on fire.The High Courtobserved, as if, the deceased had said that either A1 or A5 didso.The conclusions have been arrived at by misreading theevidence.11 ...................................J.

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

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

Dipak Misra, J.The singular question that has emanated in this appeal, by specialleave, is whether the High Court has correctly accepted the submissionadvanced on behalf of the first respondent, who was convicted for offencespunishable under Section 409/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(for short, ‘IPC’) and had been awarded sentence for each of the offenceswith the stipulation that they would run concurrently, that he being anemployee of the appellant Corporation is a public servant and the trial hadcommenced without obtaining sanction under Section 197 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and hence, the trial in entirety wasinvalid and as a result the conviction and sentence deserved to be setaside.As far as the factual narration is concerned, suffice it to statethat the Managing Director of the Corporation had written a letter on28.6.1989 to the concerned police authority to register a case against thefirst respondent for offences punishable under Sections 409/467/468 and 471of the IPC or any other appropriate provision of law.Duringinvestigation, the investigating agency found that the accused who wasworking as a Godown Assistant in the Corporation had misappropriated 11gunny bales value of which was Rs.38,841/-; that he had tampered with therecord of the department; and accordingly the police authorities filed thecharge-sheet for the aforesaid offences before the court of competentJudicial Magistrate.The learned Magistrate on the basis of evidencebrought on record, found that the prosecution had been able to bring homethe guilt against the accused and accordingly sentenced him to sufferrigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 467 and 409 IPC and twoyears under Section 468/471 IPC with separate default clauses.The judgmentof conviction and order of sentence was assailed in appeal before thelearned Session Judge, Firozpur and the matter was finally heard by thelearned Additional Session Judge, who appreciating the evidence on record,concurred with the conviction but modified the sentence of three yearsimposed under Section 409 and 467 IPC to two years.Being dissatisfied, the first respondent preferred Criminal RevisionNo.359/2001 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.Dr. Budhikota Subbarao[1], Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar andothers[2], Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das and another[3], Om Kumar Dhankarv.State of Haryana[4], the requisite sanction having not been obtained,the trial was vitiated.Theofficials were arrayed as accused persons who were authorized to search twopremises in question.Similar order was passed byanother trial Magistrate.

['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Its object isto extend financial and other assistance to small scale industries.R. V. Raveendran J.Leave granted.Heard the counsel for the parties.Appeal No............./2008 (@ SLP(Crl.) No.2009/2007) 2I have also perused the original documents also.They contended that as the complainant 3was a government company and not a public servant, the exemption underclause (a) of the proviso to section 200 of the Code was not available; andthat the learned Magistrate could not have dispensed with the mandatoryrequirement of examining the complainant on oath, under section 200 of theCode.The High Court accepted the said contention on the followingreasoning :PC was to be followed by the learned MM, which provides compulsory examination of the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, on oath and on the basis of such pre-summoning evidence, the Magistrate is to decide as to whether cognizance of the offence is to be taken and summons are to be issued to the accused persons or not.Consequently, by order dated 12.1.2007, the High Court allowed thepetition and quashed the summoning order.It however made it clear that thelearned Magistrate would be at liberty to record the statement of thecomplainant and the witnesses and thereafter take appropriate decision inthe matter in accordance with section 200 of the Code.The said order ischallenged in this appeal.Mathur, the Municipal Prosecutor, filed a complaint against the respondent.The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent.The application wasgranted.When the appeal came up for hearing, the respondent raised apreliminary objection that as the complaint had been filed by S. S. Mathur,the Municipal Prosecutor, he alone was competent to file the appeal and notthe Municipal Corporation.It was contended that as the application seeking 16leave was not filed by the complainant but by the Municipal Corporation,the appeal itself was not maintainable.The said contention was negativedby this Court.

['Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months and on second count to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.According to the prosecution, the appellant along with wife - deceased Kalavati and children PW-1 Tukaram, PW-3 Smt. Dhannakka and Parshuram, were residing at Borial Vasti.Kalavati and other ladies were working as agricultural labours in the field of one Siddrayya Birajdar, at some distance away towards the north side of Borial Vasti.Birajdar was residing along with his family at the same place.2.1 According to the prosecution, the dispute has arisen in between the deceased and the appellant on the count of deceased continuing to work for said Birajdar in spite of the appellant insisting 2 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 ::: Apeal897.07 3 not to work for him.The appellant was threatening the deceased of punishing her in event of herself not refraining to keep illicit relations with Birajdar.2.2 According to the prosecution, on 19th March, 2005, at about 8.00 p.m. the appellant asked deceased not to keep illicit relations with Birajdar by visiting his field.However, the deceased refused and again there occurred a quarrel in between them.The deceased took mat and went outside the house for sleeping.The appellant and his sons had a meal and after the meal, the appellant carrying an Axe came out of house for sleeping in the courtyard.He closed the door and latched it from outside.PW-3 awaken in midnight after realizing that somebody was taking bath.She saw that panati/lamp was on and the appellant was taking bath.The appellant, after the bath, washed his clothes, worn the same and hide the Axe in the chhappar (roof) and went away.PW-3 came out of the house.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 :::Gourawwa then enquired with her about her parents.She disclosed that they were sleeping in courtyard.Gourawwa told that they were not in the courtyard.PW-3 and Gourawwa went to the place at which appellant and his wife had slept.They found that there was a pool of blood and scattered broken pieces of bangles of the deceased.However, the mat was not at said place.They noticed blood stains on the foot way.By the same foot way, they came near Sankh tank and found that corpse of deceased was lying near the tank.They noticed big injury on her neck with blood stains on the face and clothes.The people including Ningappa gathered at the said place after hearing their cries.2.4 According to the prosecution, on 20th March, 2005 at about 5.00 a.m., the appellant came to the house of his brother-in-law PW-2 Shrishail Mordi at Daribadachi.PW-2 enquired with the appellants for coming so early in the morning.The appellant told PW-2 that, in the night at about 20.30 hours, Kalavati left the place 4 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 ::: Apeal897.07 5 at which she was sleeping and whether she had come to his house or had gone elsewhere.PW-2 disclosed that deceased had not been to his house.At about 8.00 hrs., the appellant and PW-2 on bicycle came to Daribadachi and searched for deceased.They saw corpse of deceased near the tank.PW-2 became suspicious and went nearby the corpse.He found that there was an injury on the right side of neck with blood stains on person.PW-2 suspected that somebody had committed her murder.He enquired with the appellant as to who could be said person.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 :::2.5 According to the prosecution, the appellant then confessed that at about 8.00 p.m. on the previous day, he asked deceased as there was Bhavki dispute and she should not go to field of Birajdar but she refused.Hence there arose quarrel in between them and at about 10.00 p.m. after taking food, their children went to sleep inside and he along with Kalavati went outside to sleep and he had taken Axe along with him.At about 12.30 in the night, while deceased was in sleep, he had given the blow of an Axe to the right side of her neck and committed her murder and then carried her corpse and threw the same.5 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 ::: Apeal897.07 6 2.6 PW-2 went to Umadi Police Station at about 15.10 hrs.The prosecution in addition to the above referred four witnesses additionally examined seven witnesses i.e. PW-10 Gangadhar Mordi, neighbour of the parents of deceased; panch PW-The defence of the appellant was that of total denial.DATED : 12TH MARCH, 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SHRI P. D. KODE, J.] :-The appellant assails the judgment and order dated 11 th May, 2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Sangli, in Sessions Case No.123 of 2005, convicting him for 1 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 ::: Apeal897.07 2 committing the murder of his wife - Kalavati and causing disappearance of the evidence of said murder for screening himself from legal punishment and on the first count sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 :::As Kalavati was not paying any heed, the appellant requested grandmother Gourawwa and paternal uncle Ningappa and parents of Kalavati i.e. Bhimanna Mordi and his wife Chandrawwa to convince the deceased for not keeping such relations.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 :::and lodged complaint (Exh.11).The said crime was investigated by PW-11 A.P.I. Khade.At the conclusion of investigation, he charge-sheeted the appellant for commission of offence under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.').::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 :::4 Kashinath for seizure panchanama of Axe produced by PW-3, seizure panchanama regarding blood stained clothes of appellant and memorandum discovery and seizure panchanama of concealed blood stained mat produced by the appellant; PW-5 Rajendra and 6 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 ::: Apeal897.07 7 PW-8 Smt. Mahananda panchas for inquest panchanama; PW-6 Daryappa and PW-9 Vitthal panchas for spot panchanama.The prosecution also examined PW-7 Dr.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 :::Out of the said witnesses, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-9 having not supported the prosecution at the trial, the learned A.P.P. was required to cross-examine them.He claims of being falsely implicated by the police.The trial Court, after assessment of the prosecution evidence came to the conclusion that, the prosecution has proved that the deceased has met with homicidal death and the appellant has committed her murder and so also caused disappearance of evidence of said murder by throwing her corpse in the water tank at Sankh.Accordingly, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. as narrated herein above.7 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 ::: Apeal897.07 8::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 :::We have heard at length the learned advocate appearing for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. for the State.After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by the rival parties, the judgment delivered by trial Court and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution, by cogent evidence, has established the circumstances leading to the inescapable inference of the deceased having met with homicidal death, the appellant having committed her murder and thrown her body in the water tank at Sankh for destroying the evidence.The prosecution through the evidence of son of the appellant and the deceased, PW-1 Tukaram, PW-3 Smt.Dhannakka and PW-10 Gangadhar Ramgounda Mordi, had established the circumstance of the appellant possessing the motive for commission of the offence in question.The perusal of evidence of PW-1 duly establishes the appellant was possessing the motive as claimed by the prosecution.The core of the testimony of PW-1 in terms amongst others reveal 8 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 ::: Apeal897.07 9 that his mother Kalavati was doing the labour work in the field of Birajdar and the appellant was insisting her not to work with Birajdar and not to have illicit relations with him.It reveals that, in spite of that Kalavati had continued to visit the field of Birajdar.It also reveals that the appellant used to abuse and threaten her to kill.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 :::It also reveals that the appellant has instructed his family members and parents of Kalavati not to send her to the field of Birajdar.His evidence also reveals that the appellant used to keep an Axe along with him while sleeping in the courtyard.It in terms reveal that the appellant was suspicious about the illicit relations in between the deceased and Birajdar.Alike the evidence of her brother, it also reveals of there being quarrels in between the appellant and the deceased on the count of working with Birajdar and having illicit relations with him.The perusal of the evidence of PW-10 Gangadhar reveals that he was the neighbour of parents of deceased Kalavati.It also reveals that the marriage in between the appellant and Kalavati had taken place about 20 years prior to her death.It reveals that, one year prior to occurrence of an incident, the appellant had been to PW-10 Gangadhar and had disclosed him 9 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 ::: Apeal897.07 10 that deceased was having illicit relations with Birajdar with whom she was working and had asked PW-10 and accordingly he had warned her.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 :::After careful scrutiny of the evidence of the above referred three witnesses, we find that, though cross-examined at length and being given suggestion, such as Kalavati was having relations with some other persons, nowhere the above stated core of testimony of three witnesses has been shattered during the cross-Apart from the same, considering the deposition of PW-1 as a whole and in the light of the answers given by him in the cross-examination, we do not find any embellishment exhibited by the same.His evidence also do not reveal that he has deposed due to tutoring and/or his 10 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 ::: Apeal897.07 11 evidence denoting the same being outcome of tutoring.Thus, close scrutiny of the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses reveals that, by the same the prosecution has established the appellant possessing the motive for commission of the crime in-question.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 :::With regard to the second circumstance of deceased having met homicidal death, apart from the said fact being not challenged on behalf of the appellant, the same is found duly established from the relevant part of the evidence of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-10 regarding the place at which the corpse was found with injuries on neck and so also the marks of violence found at the place at which deceased was sleeping in the courtyard.Additionally, the evidence of Investigating Officer PW-11 who had drawn inquest panchanama (Exh.31) considered along with the evidence of PW-7 Dr.Satish Wable, who had performed autopsy upon the corpse of Kalavati at Primary Health Centre, Umadi, on the request of police and the external injuries noted by him on neck and back of corpse as recorded in Col.17 of postmortem Notes (Exh.28) and the cause of 11 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 ::: Apeal897.07 12 death given by him, duly establishes that death of Kalavati was homicidal.Needless to add, that the place at which the corpse was found and the nature of injury sustained by Kalavati, rules out even remote possibility of her death being due to any other reason other than homicidal death.Thus, we are unable to find any fault with such finding arrived by the Trial Court.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 :::Now considering the third circumstance established by the prosecution and in the said process once again reverting back to the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3, which we have found to be acceptable, we find that the evidence of PW-1 amongst others also discloses that relevant period being of a summer, they used to sleep outside the house and three days prior to the occurrence of the incident, the appellant was sharpening the blade of an Axe.It also discloses that the appellant used to sleep by taking the said Axe with him.It further discloses that, on the day of the incident, in the night, the appellant had sent them in the house for sleeping and latched the door from the outside.Significantly, it reveals that, on the said day at about 8.00 p.m., the appellant had again warned deceased not to visit field of Birajdar and thereafter the deceased had slept outside 12 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 ::: Apeal897.07 13 the house.It further reveals that, on the day of incident, his grandmother had opened the door and then his grandmother and sister were crying.It reveals that the deceased was lying at the distance of 30 feet away from their house and PW-2 and the appellant came at the said place.The scrutiny reveals that, except an insignificant omission of not stating police that the latch was opened by his grandmother, no other significant material affecting core of testimony of PW-1 was brought on record during the course of cross-examination.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 :::13 Now, considering the evidence of PW-3 Dhannakka, the same amongst others reveals that, on the said day, the appellant had insisted them to sleep inside the house and latched the door and he had slept by keeping an Axe with him.PW-3 has deposed that, after hearing the noise that somebody was beaten, they had tried to open the door but it could not be opened.Her evidence discloses that, after the appellant removed the latch of the door, she came out of the house and found that blood stains on the clothes of the appellant and on the Axe.It reveals that the appellant had thereafter taken the bath, kept the Axe inside the roof, washed the clothes and left 13 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 ::: Apeal897.07 14 the house.PW-1 and PW-3 identified "Article -A" being the concerned Axe.Without reciting in detail the further part of her evidence, it can be said that her evidence reveals that deceased was found dead near canal with marking of an Axe over her neck, her uncle PW-2 and appellant coming at the said place and PW-2 reporting matters to police.We also find that the trial Court after dealing in detail all answers given by her during the cross-examination had come to the conclusion that the said answers were not affecting the core of her testimony.The trial Court had also observed that the evidence of PW-1 is duly corroborated by the evidence of PW-3 and the evidence of both being cogent and inspiring confidence.After carefully considering the reasoning given by the trial Court, we do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in accepting the said part of the evidence of both the said witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 :::(i) a quarrel had occurred in between the appellant and his wife Kalavati on the count of her relationship with Birajdar;(ii) the appellant had insisted the children to sleep in the house;(iii) the appellant and his wife were sleeping outside and then the appellant had kept an Axe with him;15 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 ::: Apeal897.07 16::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 :::(iv) PW-3 has found stains of blood on the clothes of the appellant as well as the place at which the appellant and deceased were sleeping.(v) The appellant had taken a bath and washed his clothes and concealed the Axe in the room.Similarly, his evidence also reveals that, in his presence, the police had seized baniyan and red colour underwear on the person of the appellant at the time of his arrest.It further reveals that, on 21 st March, 2007, as a sequel to the statement leading to the discovery of a "chatai" made by appellant, the police has drawn memorandum statement and thereafter the police had seized the "chatai" produced by the appellant from the pit-hole of the cow dung in front of the Chappar of the appellant.The due corroboration to the said evidence of PW-4 is found from the evidence of PW-11 PI Kale who 16 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 ::: Apeal897.07 17 was a party to the said event.The evidence of PW-11 also reveals that he had sent deceased's mat - Article "D" to the C.A. and Exh.34 being the C.A. Report pertaining to the same.The matters from the said C.A. duly reveals that human blood of the "B" group as that of the deceased was found upon the clothes of the appellant as well as upon the Axe.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 :::The prosecution has also adduced the evidence of PW-6 and PW-9 regarding preparation of scene of offence panchanama Exh.37 by the I.O. PI Kale.However, both of them having not supported, the prosecution had placed reliance upon the evidence of PW-11 for proving the said scene of offence panchanama and for establishing the situation prevailing at the site and particularly the attachment of the clay and clay mixed with the soil.After considering the evidence of PW-11, we do not find any reason for not accepting his said evidence.Needless to add that, his said evidence also corroborates the same evidence of PW-1, PW 3 and PW-2 regarding the situation prevailing at the relevant place.18 After careful perusal of the reasoning given in paragraph 17 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 ::: Apeal897.07 18 35 of the judgment of the trial Court, we find that all the said reasoning is based upon the evidence on record.It also reveals that, due to such evidence, the trial Court had come to the conclusion that the appellant having committed the murder of his wife Kalavati.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 :::Needless to add that the matters from the extra judicial confession also reveal that the appellant being guilty for both the offences i.e. the offence of murder of his wife and taking her body from the place at which he has committed the murder and throwing it in Sankh tank.19 Thus, after re-appraisal of the entire evidence and so also considering the reasoning given by the Trial Court, we do not find any fault of the Trial Court for coming to the conclusion that the prosecution by the said evidence having established various circumstances enumerated by us in the earlier part of the judgment.18 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 ::: Apeal897.07 19 We also do not find any error committed by the Trial Court for coming to the conclusion that all the said circumstances within themselves form a formidable chain leading to the sole inference of the guilt of the appellant in commission of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. and we do not find any fault with the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 :::Hence, we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same.The said fees be paid to the learned appointed advocate within three months from today.( SHRI.P. D. KODE, J. ) (SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.) 19 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:12 :::

['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.

I have gone through the C.D. as well as F.I.R. and charge-sheet and also gone through the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Page 32 of the C.D.) with rapt attention.So, the application stands dismissed.

['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

PSI Kiran Suresh Pathare received a secret information that the applicant was proceeding on a motor vehicle from Loha to Nanded that too armed with a pistol.A car bearing No. MH 26-V-1461 was found coming along the road.The informant gave a signal to stop the said car to its driver.However, he did not stop and drove away the car fastly towards Loha.::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2018 00:42:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2018 00:42:12 :::2 3 ba 921-18It is alleged that the applicant, who was connected with Crime No. 24 of 2016 registered in Police Station Itwara for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) was absconding.The said car was chased by the police.It was found abandoned at some distance.Then search was taken for the inmates of the car.It was informed by the local persons that 3-4 persons had gone towards Malran.Accordingly, that area was searched.The applicant and his companions were found sitting in ambush behind the shrubs.PSI ::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2018 00:42:12 ::: 3 3 ba 921-18Pathare called upon the applicant to surrender before him.However, instead of surrendering before the police, the applicant pointed out a pistol towards him and started running away.Ultimately, the applicant and his companions were apprehended.The applicant was found in possession of a pistol with four live cartridges and other articles.On the report of the informant PSI Pathare, the above-numbered crime came to be registered.::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2018 00:42:12 :::He, therefore, prays that the applicant may be granted the relief of bail.::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2018 00:42:12 :::The learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the application.He submits that the pistol that was seized from the custody of the applicant, was sent for examination and report, to the Forensic Laboratory.It was found that the said pistol and live cartridges were genuine.According to him, pointing out the pistol towards the police would constitute the offence under Section 307 of the IPC.If he is released on bail, it is likely that he would again get absconded.He prays that considering the serious nature of the offences against the applicant, application may be rejected.As seen from the contents of the FIR, in order to escape from the custody of the police, the ::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2018 00:42:12 ::: 5 3 ba 921-18applicant is alleged to have pointed out the pistol towards the police.It is not the case that he had gone to that place with intent to commit murder of anybody.There is nothing in the FIR to show that the applicant tried to fire against the police or tried to do any other act causing injury to the police.In the circumstances, if the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is excluded, the gravity of the crime alleged against the applicant would get reduced to a considerable extent.The other offences alleged against the applicant are not that serious.In the circumstances, I think fit to extend the relief of bail to the applicant with certain conditions.::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2018 00:42:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2018 00:42:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2018 00:42:13 :::6 3 ba 921-18In the result, I pass the following order:(ii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity.(iii) The applicant shall deposit his Passport, if any, in the Police Station Nanded (CIDCO), and shall not leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court during pendency of the Trial.(C) Bail bonds shall be furnished before the Trial Court.(D) The application is accordingly disposed of [SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.]vsm/ ::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2018 00:42:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2018 00:42:13 :::

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Applicants have filed the present petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2019 and 20.08.2019 whereby learned JMFC, Alot has directed for filing of Challan/report, as the case may be.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, applicants preferred a criminal revision before the Sessions Court which has been dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 30.08.2019, hence the the present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C before this Court.Respondent No.1 Pratap Singh filed a complaint under section 200 of the Cr.P.C on 14.08.2019 before the JMFC for taking cognizance against the applicants under section 295(A), 298, 352 & 506/34 of the IPC.Along with the complaint he has also filed an application under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C seeking direction to the concerned Police Station to register an FIR against the applicants.By order dated 14.08.2019 learned JMFC after examining the complaint and the documents has opined that an-2- MCRC No.37372/2019 enquiry/investigation by the concerned SHO appears to be necessary in the matter and accordingly directed the concerned SHO to register an FIR under section 156(3) of the Cr.p.Thereafter, the complainant filed an application on 20.08.2019 for preponement of the hearing but the Court has directed to send a reminder to the concerned SHO.Thereafter on 26.08.2019 again the complainant filed an application that till today the FIR has not been registered by the SHO, hence necessary action be taken against him.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, applicants preferred a criminal revision before the Sessions Court which has been dismissed vide order dated 30.08.2019 as not maintainable.

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

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

This is the first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.As per prosecution story on 20.10.2014 at about 09:00 AM, the complainant Lalla Dhanuk, member of Schedule Caste, had gone to the applicants Manu and Vijay Kumar demanding his old, dues.Because of which there was an exchange of dialogues and the applicants alleged to have abused the complainant by his caste name and also insulted him.The applicants also kicked him and injured him.They further threatened him of his (2) M.Cr.C. No. 12392/2014 life.They are permanent resident of Ganeshpura District Morena and there is no likelihood to abscond the applicants.The applicants further stated that the complainant came to them for his dues, which was already paid to him.Because of this altercation, he lodged the report Learned PP for the State opposed the application.Keeping in view that the Sections 323, 2294 and 506 (B)/34 are bailable offences, prima facie no specific averments has been made by the complainant regarding insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate by calling with caste name and following the law laid down in Ummed Singh and others VS.State of MP and another reported in 2013 (1) MPLJ (Cri) 60, I deem it proper to give the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C to the present applicants.Accordingly, this application under Section 438 of Cr.However, the applicants have to furnish a fresh bail bond and surety before the trial Court after filing of the challan.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Palo) JUDGE dcs/-

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

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

(i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like 3 of 5::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2019 06:26:36 ::: BA 2322-19.doc amount;::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2019 06:26:36 :::(ii) The Applicant shall report to the investigating officer of the concerned police station on the first Saturday of every month between 10:00 a. m. to 11:00 a. m. for a period of 24 months from the date of his release;(iii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;(iv) The Applicant shall not enter the jurisdiction of the Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, except for the purpose of attending the police station;(v) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and mobile contact number immediately after being released and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station;(vi) The Applicant to co-operate with the conduct of the trial and attend all the dates before the trial Court, unless exempted;(vii) The Applicant shall file an undertaking with regard to clauses (ii) to (vi) in the trial Court, within two weeks of his release;(viii) If there are two consecutive defaults either in attending the Police Station or in appearing before the trial Court, or breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek 4 of 5::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2019 06:26:36 ::: BA 2322-19.doc cancellation of the Applicant's bail.::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2019 06:26:36 :::All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.) 5 of 5::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2019 06:26:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2019 06:26:36 :::

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is dismissed as not pressed.( Indira Banerjee, J. ) ( Indrajit Chatterjee, J. ) ,

['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

"HEADQUARTERS, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, UTTAR PRADESH 1, Tilak Marg, Lucknow-1 Letter No. DG-Shi.Pra.-14/2016 Dated: March 2, 2016 Senior Superintendent of Police VaranasiAs per the order of Additional Director General of Police, Law & Order, Uttar Pradesh passed on the application of the applicant Shri Adiyta Singh, S/o Kamal Dev Singh, R/o Village Damanpura, PS Raghunath Pur, District Siwan, Bihar related to PS Lanka, District Varanasi, the matter was ensured by the headquarters to be investigated.The applicant has mainly alleged that by adding Sections 307 & 376 of IPC in case crime no. 213/15 registered u/s 343, 504, 506, 354, 307 of IPC, he and his family members have been falsely implicated.Despite Mathura, Jaipur, Damanpura, PS Raghunath Pur, Siwan, Bihar being the places of occurrences, the case was investigated by the Varanasi police from PS Lanka, and his father was challenged u/s 376 of IPC in spite of the fact that the places of occurrence were not within its jurisdiction.It was requested that the investigation of the said case may kindly be entrusted to any other officer.In the matter, during investigation, it was found by the headquarters that the applicant Shri Aditya Singh is a native of Siwan, Bihar.In the year 2010, the applicant had taken admissions in JRS Coaching and Sunbeam School, Lahartara, Varanasi.In the meantime, he came to be frequenting the place of his relative Vijay Pratap Singh, R/o Ekta Nagar Colony, Phase-2, Jalali Patti, Manduadih, Varanasi.Whenever the applicant's sister Kumari Abha Singh, aged 22 years visited to meet his brother, she used to stay at Vijay Pratap Singh's place.In the meantime, Kumari Abha Singh came to be in love with Vijay Pratap Singh, aged 46 years.Her parents had no information on this count.In the year 2014, when applicant's father Kamal Dev Singh started to fix Kumari Abha's marriage with a person namely Ravi Kant, she refused it.Abha Singh was pursuing MBA at Biyani Girls College, Jaipur and during this span of time, she, without informing her parents and family, married the aforesaid Vijay Pratap Singh on 07.05.2014 in an Arya Samaj Mandir at Jaipur.After completion of MBA, when her father Kamal Dev Singh went to Jaipur to bring her back, Abha Singh, while disclosing her marriage, refused to go with him.Kamal Dev Singh took her back home by saying that he would marry her off to Vijay Pratap Singh performing social customs at home but Abha Singh's marriage with Vijay Pratap Singh, a man twice her age was opposed.During investigation, it was found that the applicant's parents wished to fix her marriage with another person Rana Pratap Singh and ceremony of 'Muh Dikhai' was also performed.After settlement of this marriage, all the preparations were being done but on being insisted by Abha Singh to go with Vijay Pratap Singh, she was locked in a room and restricted from meeting anybody, and she was beaten on calling Vijay Pratap's name.On getting to know about the said thing, Vijay Pratap Singh had on 03.07.2014 by filing an application before the Women Commission, Patna, Bihar alleged that the father of fher wife had forcefully confined her, had been beating her and had not allowing her to go with him.On this, the Superintendent of Police, Siwan on being directed by the State Women Commission on 04.07.2014 to produce Abha Singh and her father Kamal Dev Singh, both were produced before the commission.Before the commission, it was alleged by Abha Singh that her father and family members wanted to marry her off to some other person and they would beat and harass her.She wanted to go with her husband Vijay Pratap Singh to his home because she had married him.Before the commission, applicant's father Kamal Dev Singh admitted that they were not happy with this mismatched marriage; hence they were not allowing her to meet him and they had beaten her when she insisted to follow her fancy.Now, his family would not keep any relation with her and she could go wherever she wanted.They had no objection.On this, the commission passed an order that Abha Singh could go with Vijay Pratap Singh and she went with him.During investigation, it was found that applicant's father was very displeased and felt offended with the mismatched marriage of her daughter Abha Singh.It was found that on 29.05.2015, a case crime no. 213/15 u/s 143/504/506/354/387 was lodged by Abha Singh at PS Lanka against her father Kamal Dev Singh, mother Shakuntala Devi, brother Aditya Singh (the applicant), neighbour Mahesh Kumar, Prasann Singh and 4-5 other persons whose names and addresses were unknown.In was recorded in the FIR of the said case that the said persons were trying to murder her husband and that her former neighbour Mahesh Kumar was aiding them.On 28.05.2015 at around 7 o'clock, they came to her residence and 4-5 persons were sitting in the vehicle.Her mother Shakuntala Devi wrote her address in the visitor register.We would return only after murdering both of you.On telephoning PS Lanka, her father, mother and 4-5 other persons ran away sitting in the car.During the inquiry, on perusal of the CDR of the mobile numbers of Abha Singh's parents 9931697714 and 9973554889 made available by her, their location on the day of occurrence 28.05.2015 was found to be at Lanka, district Varanasi.From this whole inquiry, the investigative proceeding initiated by the Investigating Officer has been found to be one sided.The factum of there being strain and tension over the said matter between both the parties has come into light.In view of the facts having come into the light in course of the inquiry, the following actions have been directed by Additional Director of Police, UP to be taken:-I. In the instant case, further investigation in connection with the registered Case Case Crime No. 213/15 u/s 143/504/506/354/387 IPC at the police station Lanka, Varanasi u/s 173(8) CrPC be thoroughly conducted by the Crime Branch, Varanasi under the close supervision of Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime).A preliminary investigation be held against the Investigation Officer Sub Inspector Shri Ram Darash Yadav with respect to negligence shown in the investigation of the said offence and further proceeding be taken accordingly.Keeping in the mind the tense situation in the instant matter, a careful watch on the activities of the both the parties be had by the local police.Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh, J.)Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.Photo stat copy of the order dated 02.03.2016 of D. G. Complaint, Varanasi passed on the application of one of the accused Aditya Singh and order dated 08.03.2016 of S.S.P. Varanasi, which are also on record.Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, holding brief of Sri Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 8, Sri Ashish Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. and material brought on record.The present writ petition has been filed by by the petitioner with the following prayers:"DG-COMPLAIN SECTION-14/2016 dated 2.3.2016 passed on the application of one of the accused Aditya Singh Respondent no.7 (appears to be wrongly mentioned in prayer clause as respondent No.4) in Case Crime No.213/2015, under Sections 143, 504, 506, 354, 387, 376 and 307 of I.P.C. Police Station Lanka District Varanasi, ordering the further investigation of the case by Crime Branch Varanasi, transferring from the Police Station-Lanka, Varanasi, otherwise the humble applicant shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury, by calling the records of impugned order passed by respondent nos.2 and which is not served to the petitioner.(ii) it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased o issue writ or mandamus to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to arrest the known absconding accused of the case crime no.213 of 2015 Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi.(iii) it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to issue writ of mandamus to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to arrest the 5 shooters hired by the accused Kamaldev Singh, those who have been arrested at Mirzapur, in the case crime no.213 of 2015, Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi.(iv) it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue writ of mandamus to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to provide the police protection and security as provided to them and(v) or, to pass any such other and further order, which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.A letter dated 02.03.2016 written by Director General of Police U.P. which is challenged in this petition is as under:His name in the passport was Vijay Pratap Singh and in the character certificate it was Vijay Kumar Singh.A complaint on this count was made to the Passport Office, Lucknow and Varanasi Police by the applicant's father and he started pairvi for legal action.It also came to the knowledge that an education loan of Rs. 2.70 was taken by applicant's father for her daughter's MBA course wherein he being the guarantor caused a notice to be issued against Abha Singh from the bank for non-payment of any EMI by her.She was telephoned and called downstairs and told that incomplete sentence.Today, we had come with preparation.An allegation was also levelled on her father for indecent behaviour with her from the last one year.The investigation of the said case was taken over by Shri Ram Darab Yadav, Sub-inspector.During investigation, it was found that the complainant Abha Singh had also stated about firing in her statement recorded by the investigating officer.On 28.06.2015, the investigating officer recorded statement of Guard Bablu, as also of the Guard Ram Kumar who was present at the spot and of Vijay Pratap Singh and Section 307 was added in the case.A written statement was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi by the complainant Abha Singh through registered post and it was prayed that her statement may kindly be recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. After perusal of this application, Section 376 IPC was added by the investigating officer.During investigation, Prashant Singh was on 23.08.2015 challenged by the investigating officer and statement of the complainant Abha Singh was on 23.09.2015 recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, a charge-sheet against Kamal Dev Singh and Prashant @ Prasan Singh was filed before the court.On 13.11.2015, non-bailable warrants were obtained for the rest of the named Mahesh Kumar, Aditya Singh and Shakuntala Devi, and on 22.01.2016, an application u/s 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. was moved before the court.During investigation, it was found that whatever allegations were levelled by Abha Singh were levelled post her marriage.A diary of Abha Singh was made available by the applicant wherein during the course of MBA she had written about her parents and brother, "My sweet and cute father and mother and sweet family, always miss you.....", which prima facie goes to establish that allegations were levelled by the complainant Abha Singh for the said molestation and rape on account of displeasure over mere opposition to her marriage with Vijay Pratap Singh.During investigation, the applicant Aditya Singh had produced a certificate issued by his college namely Neel Ratan Sirkar Medical College, Calcutta, which mentions that on 28.05.2015 on the day of the incident, he was present in the college.Indu Singh, sister of the applicant, who lives in Bangkok, had in her statement given through her mobile no. +66954677455 and e-mail stated that her father was a good man.They had a joint family.Denying the allegations levelled against her father, she stated that had there been any such incident, Abha Singh must have disclosed it before the Women Commission.On inquiry, It was found that the CCTV footage of the occurrence on 28.05.2015 mentioned in the FIR was not taken immediately by the Investigating Officer Shri Ram Darash Yadav, SI; rather, the CCTV footage was tried to be retrieved after 03 months when it was deleted.If timely efforts for the same had been taken, the reality of the occurrence might have come into knowledge and the complainant might not have the opportunity to give a coloured version to the occurrence.Abha Singh had made allegation for the rape and the occurrence site thereof is stated to be Bihar, Mathura, Jaipur.However, section 376 IPC has been added to the said case by the Investigating Officer.Please peruse the photocopy of the letter no: DG - 14/2016, dated 02.03.2016 from the Inspector General of Police, Public Grievances, Headquarters of the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow enclosed with this letter, whereupon, in compliance of the order of the Addl.Director General, Law and Order, U.P., matter related to P.S. Lanka, Varanasi has been examined in connection with the application of applicant Sh.Aditya Singh s/o Kamaldev Singh, r/o village Damanpura, P.S. Raghunathpur, District Siwan, Bihar; and during investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer, proceeding of case no. 213/2015 u/s 143/504/506/354/387 IPC has been found to be one sided.In the light of aforesaid facts revealed after the enquiry, the following actions have been directed by the Addl.Director General of Police to be taken:-(1) Further investigation u/s 173 (8) Cr.P.C. in connection with case no. 213/2015 u/s 143/ 504/ 506/ 354/ 387 IPC registered at P.S. Lanka in the matter be thoroughly held by the Crime Branch, Varanasi under the close supervision of the Addl.Superintendent of Police (Crime).(2) A preliminary enquiry be conducted against the Investigating Officer S.I. Sh.Ram Daras Yadav for the negligence on his part and action be taken accordingly.(3) In view of tension in the matter, a careful watch be kept by the local police over the activities of both the parties.You are, therefore, directed that consequent upon the aforesaid directions issued by the Inspector General of Police, Public Grievances, Headquarters of Director General, U.P., Lucknow, investigation of the matter in question be ensured to be conducted under your close supervision and a preliminary enquiry be held against the Investigating Officer for the negligence on his part, following which ensure to make available, within 07 days, enquiry report to the office of the Head Clerk and a copy thereof to this office as well.Encl: As above.No. CST/ RTP-222/2016 Senior Superintendent of Police Dated: March 08, 2016 Varanasi Copy to: The Head Clerk, Police Office, Varanasi with a direction to open a file under the title 'Preliminary Enquiry', to obtain Preliminary Enquiry report from the enquiry officer within stipulated period and place the same before the undersigned followed by submission of the report to the concerned."Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the D.G. Complaint erred in passing the order dated 02.03.2016 as a Police has no right of fresh investigation or re-investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. It was further submitted that the Police has filed charge sheet against two accused, namely, respondent No.4 Kamaldev Singh and respondent No.6 Prashant @ Prassan.It was next submitted that on 13.11.2015 non-bailable warrants were obtained for the rest of accused, namely respondent No.5 Mahesh Kumar @ Mahesh Prasad @ Mahesh Bind, respondent No.7 Aditya Kumar and respondent No.8 Shakuntala Devi and on 22.01.2016, an application under Sections 82 and 83 of Code of Criminal Procedure was moved before the Court.In these circumstances the order passed by the D.G Complaint is liable to be quashed.By the order in question dated 02.03.2016, the D.G. Complaint has passed order for further investigation of the case.The only question, which is to be decided here is that even after completion of investigation under Section 173 (2) of code of Criminal Procedure, Police has right to further investigate the case under Section 173 (8) code criminal procedure.Thereafter the D. G. Complaint by the order dated 02.03.2006 has directed under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation.Investigation against the respondent Nos. 5, 7 and 8 namely Mahesh Kumar @ Mahesh Prasad @ Mahesh Bind, Aditya Kumar and Shakuntala Devi is still pending.The charge sheet has been submitted by the Police against the respondent Nos. 4 and 6 and trial is commencing.But it is made clear that if any relevant document or evidence collected by investigating officer against the respondent Nos.4 and 6 is not produced at the time of submitting the charge sheet, same can be produced later on with the permission of the court after the submission of charge sheet as further investigation is not precluded.As to the concerned respondent Nos.5, 7 and 8, Police has right of investigation against them.In view of the findings discussed, we do not find any good ground to quash the order dated 02.03.2016 passed by the D.G. Complaint.Therefore, prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 02.03.2016 is hereby refused.However, considering the facts of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we direct the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation against the respondent Nos.5, 7 and 8 within 30 days from the production of certified copy of this order before him and submit a report to the competent court in accordance with law.The S.P. Crime Branch, Varanasi shall ensure the compliance of the present order within the aforesaid period.

['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(a) First Informant/PW1 Suraj Sarvande is brother of injured PW5 Kiran Sarvande.They both were residing at Lokmanya Tilak Nagar, Maratha Colony, Santacruz (East), Mumbai.The incident in question took place on 4 th October 2012 at Lokmanya Tilak Nagar, Mumbai.At about 8.00 p.m. of that day, PW1 Suraj Sarvande along with his friends including PW4 Manohar Nalawade were chitchatting in front of the chawl, where they used to reside.Appellant/accused Shankar Nagam was resident of the nearby chawl.At about 9.30 p.m., appellant/accused Shankar Nagam started quarreling with Abhishek Walke.PW1 Suraj Sarvande, PW4 Manohar Nalawade and their friends Akshay Naik and Deepak Yeram intervened in that quarrel and sent appellant/accused Shankar Nagam to his home.avk 2/16::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 ::: 203-APPEAL-83-2017-J.doc Chitchatting of PW1 Suraj Sarvande with his friends continued thereafter and his brother PW5 Kiran Sarvande joined them subsequently.::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 :::When PW1 Suraj Sarvande, his brother PW5 Kiran Sarvande, PW4 Manohar Nalawade and their friends were chitchatting, appellant/accused Shankar Nagam came, whipped out a knife from his waist and questioned the gathering as to why they had intervened in his quarrel.He threatened them that he will not spare them.At that point of time, PW5 Kiran Sarvande tried to pacify appellant/accused Shankar Nagam by taking him aside.However, the appellant/accused gave blows of knife on chest and stomach of PW5 Kiran Sarvande.(c) Injured PW5 Kiran Sarvande was then taken to V.N.Naik Hospital at Santacruz and from there he was shifted to Nanavati Hospital, Mumbai, where he was treated by PW6 avk 3/16::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 ::: 203-APPEAL-83-2017-J.doc Dr.K. Matchavel and PW7 Dr.Nishant Rao.He was also treated at Sion Hospital, Mumbai.::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 :::(d) Report of the incident came to be lodged on 5 th October 2012 by PW1 Suraj Sarvande and accordingly Crime No.257 of 2012 came to be registered at Nirmal Nagar Police Station, Mumbai.During course of investigation, statement of witnesses came to be recorded.The appellant/accused came to be arrested.the judgment and order dated 7th January 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.276 of 2013, thereby convicting him of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years apart avk 1/16::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 ::: 203-APPEAL-83-2017-J.doc from direction to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 3 months.2 Facts, in brief, leading to the prosecution and resultant conviction of the appellant/accused can be summarized thus :::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 :::Clothes of the victim came to be seized and injury certificates were collected.On completion of investigation, the appellant/accused came to be charge- sheeted.(e) Charge for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was framed and explained to the appellant/accused.He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In order to bring home the guilt to the appellant/accused, the prosecution has examined in all 12 witnesses including the injured, eye witnesses to the avk 4/16::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 ::: 203-APPEAL-83-2017-J.doc incident and the Medical Officers who either treated the injured or who issued medical certificates in respect of injury suffered by him.::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 :::(f) Defence of the appellant/accused, as seen from the line of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses as well as from his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that of total denial.According to him, he was beaten by injured as well as alleged eye witnesses to the incident and one of them attempted to assault him by means of knife.However, that blow landed on person of PW5 Kiran Sarvande.(g) The learned trial court, after hearing the parties, was pleased to convict the appellant/accused and sentenced him as indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment.::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 :::argued that statement of Abhishek Walke is not recorded by the police.It has come on record through evidence of PW5 Kiran Sarvande that the appellant/accused was unable to walk due to heavy drinking and PW5 Kiran Sarvande had gone towards the appellant/accused.The injured as well as eye witnesses are having friendly relations and PW1 Suraj Sarvande is brother of the injured.As such, their evidence cannot be accepted.Arrest Panchnama Exhibit 18 shows that the appellant/accused was injured in the incident but the prosecution has not explained as to how he suffered injuries.Thus, the prosecution has suppressed genesis and occurrence of the incident.Similarly, there is no evidence to show that the appellant/accused intended to cause death of the injured.4 As against this, the learned APP supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence by contending that weapon used and number of blows avk 6/16::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 ::: 203-APPEAL-83-2017-J.doc dealt on the victim coupled with parts of the body chosen for inflicting wounds, reflects intention of the appellant/accused.5 I have considered the submissions so advanced and also perused the record and proceedings including oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution.PW5 Kiran Sarvande is injured in the incident in question.Eye witnesses to the incident are his brother PW1 Suraj Sarvande, who lodged the First Information Report (FIR) soon after the incident and PW4 Manohar Nalawade, who was one of the members of the group, which was chitchatting near the residential chawl of the injured PW5 Kiran Sarvande.Injured PW5 Kiran Sarvande, as seen from evidence of doctors examined by the prosecution, had suffered five stab wounds on stomach as well as on chest.There is no suggestion to the prosecution witnesses that such type of injuries can be caused by self infliction nor is it the defence of the appellant/accused.This implies that PW5 Kiran Sarvande is an injured witness.This is a case of single injured and single accused.In such cases, theory of false implication does not avk 7/16::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 ::: 203-APPEAL-83-2017-J.doc deserve a moments consideration.As other witnesses are brother and friend of the injured, their evidence will have to be examined closely with due care and caution in order to rule out the possibility of false implication.Perusal of cross-examination of the injured as well as both eye witnesses shows that it is not the defence of the appellant/accused that they were on inimical terms with the appellant/accused, and therefore, they had falsely implicated him in the crime in question.On this backdrop, clear, cogent and consistent version coming on record from mouth of PW1 Suraj Sarvande and PW4 Manohar Nalawade is to the effect that when they were initially chitchatting in front of their residential chawl, at about 9.30 p.m., there was worldly duel between the appellant/accused and one Abhishek Walke.Both these witnesses have stated that they along with others intervened in that quarrel and sent the appellant/accused to his home after pacifying him.Their testimony shows that the appellant/accused was under the influence of liquor.Version of both these witnesses shows that then they continued chitchatting with their friends and then PW5 Kiran Sarvande joined them.Congruous testimony of avk 8/16::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 ::: 203-APPEAL-83-2017-J.doc PW1 Suraj Sarvande, PW4 Manohar Nalawade and PW5 Kiran Sarvande shows that at about 11.45 p.m. of 4 th October 2012, the appellant/accused again came on the spot and questioned the group, which was indulged in chitchatting, as to why they intervened in his quarrel.The appellant/accused, as stated by these witnesses, then took out a knife and started terrorising the group by saying that he will not allow them to go scotfree.The injured as well as both eye witnesses then stated that injured PW5 Kiran Sarvande approached the appellant/accused for pacifying him.However, the appellant/accused gave blows of knife on his chest, stomach and arm.::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 :::6 Defence of the appellant/accused that he was beaten by the prosecution witnesses and during the course of beating some one attempted to give blow of knife on him but that blow mislanded on person of injured PW5 Kiran Sarvande, is noted only for the purpose of rejection.Medical evidence shows that injured PW5 Kiran Sarvande had suffered five stab wounds and stab wounds in such large number cannot be caused because of avk 9/16::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 ::: 203-APPEAL-83-2017-J.doc mislanding of a blow intended to harm the appellant/accused.In this view of the matter, I see no reason to disbelieve ocular version about the incident coming on record from mouth of the injured as well as his brother and friend.::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 :::7 Now let us examine nature of injuries suffered by injured PW5 Kiran Sarvande.PW6 Dr.K. Matchavel is holding qualification of Masters in General Surgery and he was working with Nanavati Hospital as a General Surgeon.As per version of this General Surgeon, he noted multiple stab injuries on left epistemic region, side of chest, on iliac fossa and on middle axillary of PW5 Kiran Sarvande.PW7 Dr.Nishant Rao, who was assisting PW6 Dr.K. Matchavel has stated that following were the injuries on the person of PW5 Kiran Sarvande :i) stab injury 2 x 1 cm in anterior axillary line lateral to the one breastii) 2 x 1 cm in posterior axillary lineiii) 3 x cm in epigastrium 2 cm from mid-line.::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 :::ultrasound of abdomen and pelvis of PW5 Kiran Sarvande reflected moderate left hemothorax and perforation hemoperitoneum.Substantial left sided pleural effusion with laminar spread was noticed and therefore, PW5 Kiran Sarvande was required to be taken up for surgery immediately.Six perforations were seen in jejunum of PW5 Kiran Sarvande, half feet away from duodeno jejunal flexure.This Medical Officer further deposed that Henotona was seen in the left renal fossa of PW5 Kiran Sarvande and all those injuries were grievous in nature, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of a human being.There is nothing in cross-examination of this witness to disbelieve his version about the damage caused to the victim by infliction of several blows of knife.::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 :::as eye witnesses that at the time of the incident, the appellant/accused had consumed liquor.But that cannot be a defence for inflicting blows of knife on vital parts of body of injured PW5 Kiran Sarvande.Whether the assault was an attempt to murder PW5 Kiran Sarvande or whether this act of the appellant/accused constitutes some other offence will have to be examined from proved circumstances.Culpable homicide is a genus and murder is its species.The Indian Penal Code practically recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide.Culpable homicide of the first degree is the gravest form which is defined as 'murder' and is made punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.The second may be termed as 'culpable homicide of second degree', which is made punishable under first part of Section 304 of the IPC.The last degree of culpable homicide is 'culpable homicide of third degree' which is made punishable under second part of Section 304 of the IPC.For making out the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, the prosecution is firstly required to avk 12/16::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 ::: 203-APPEAL-83-2017-J.doc establish that a bodily injury is present on the victim.Secondly, the prosecution is required to establish nature and size of the injury on the victim.Then the prosecution is enjoined to prove that there was intention to inflict the particular injury, by adducing clear and cogent evidence for clarifying that such an injury was not accidental or unintentional.Possibility of injury of other kind intended by the appellant/accused is required to be ruled out.Lastly, the prosecution has to establish that the injury so caused was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.If all these factors are established, then only the offence defined under Section 300 of the IPC and punishable under Section 302 of IPC is made out.The offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC is made out when the accused have intended to commit murder and in pursuance of that intention does any overt act towards commission of murder.In order to establish the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, the prosecution is required to establish the intention or knowledge of committing murder and doing of an act towards it.Thus, Section 307 of the IPC contemplates intention or knowledge and not the avk 13/16::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 ::: 203-APPEAL-83-2017-J.doc consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention.::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 :::10 In the case in hand, the injured was not concerned with the quarrel of the appellant/accused with Abhishek Walke.The appellant/accused was pacified by PW1 Suraj Sarvande and PW4 Manohar Nalawade when he indulged in quarrel with Abhishek Walke.However, the appellant/accused armed with a knife appeared on the spot of the incident again at 11.45 p.m. and started terrorising the group of boys who had pacified the quarrel.When PW5 Kiran Sarvande attempted to pacify him, the appellant/accused gave several blows of knife on vital parts of body of PW5 Kiran Sarvande.This shows that without any provocation either by the injured or by other prosecution witnesses, the appellant/accused inflicted wounds by giving blows of knife on vital parts of body of PW5 Kiran Sarvande.The incident did not take place in a sudden fight, in the heat of avk 14/16::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 ::: 203-APPEAL-83-2017-J.doc passion upon a sudden quarrel.Infact, the quarrel took place at about 9.30 p.m. and that too, with some other persons.The appellant/accused, though had been to his house, thereafter reappeared on the scene of the incident, after about two hours, armed with a knife and then assaulted one of the members of the group, who was chitchatting in front of residential chawl.If nature and seat of injury inflicted on PW5 Kiran Sarvande are considered, then it is seen that the assault was with the intention of causing such bodily injuries, as the appellant/accused was knowing to be likely to cause death of PW5 Kiran Sarvande.Still, he ventured to cause wounds on vital parts of body of injured PW5 Kiran Sarvande, and as such, it cannot be said that the offence is not falling under the penal provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 :::11 Arrest Panchnama shows that the appellant/accused was having injuries at the time of his arrest.However, clear, cogent and consistent evidence of injured PW5 Kiran Sarvande which is supported by PW1 Suraj Sarvande and PW4 Manohar avk 15/16::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 ::: 203-APPEAL-83-2017-J.doc Nalawade does not allow me to hold that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the incident.At the most, it can be said that after the murderous assault on PW5 Kiran Sarvande, members of the group who were chitchatting in the locality must have assaulted the appellant/accused.Therefore, no interference in the impugned judgment and order is required at the hands of this court.The appeal fails, and therefore, the order :::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 :::ORDER The appeal is dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 23:08:50 :::

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Criminal Application Nos. 5882/2017 and 6378/2017 arefiled under sections 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafterreferred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for short) for relief of quashing of F.I.R. No.212/2017 registered with Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabadfor offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 120-B of IndianPenal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) and sections 3and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (inFinancial Establishment) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'theAct' for short).Another relief for giving stay to the proceedingbearing Special Case (MPID) No. 2/2017, which is pending beforeSpecial Judge, Aurangabad is also claimed.Both the sides are heard.::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:18:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:18:17 :::No. 5882/17 & Ors.Papers of investigation were made available to this Court.The crime is registered on the basis of report given byrespondent No. 2 Rushikumar, who is resident of Aurangabad andwho is trading in foodgrains.He has contended that he purchasesfoodgrain like Jawar, Bazara, maize, wheat etc. from farmers and hesells the foodgrains through broker Swastik Corporation ofAurangabad to various companies from other State.He hadagreement with Swastik Corporation.It is his contention that oncredit, he had sold 1007 quintile of maize to Anil Limited,Ahamadabad, Gujrat through Swastik Corporation and the value ofthe goods sold was around Rs.14,48,754/-.It is the case of the first informant that when the goodswere sold to Anil Limited, the cheque issued on the account of AnilMines and Mineral dated 31.5.2016 was given to him.It iscontended that on inquiry, it was represented to him by theapplicants that there was no money in the account of Anil LimitedCompany and so, the cheque, was given on the account of othercompany.It is contended that representation was then made thatthe amount of the first informant will be treated as deposit and theinterest at the rate of 18% on it will be given to the first informant.Request was made not to present the cheque for encashment.::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:18:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:18:17 :::No. 5882/17 & Ors.It is the case of first informant that due to aforesaidrepresentation, he agreed to keep the amount of Rs.14,48,754/- asdeposit in the company of the applicants as he was to get interest atthe rate of 18% p.a.It is contended that till March 2017, the date ofthe report given to police, he was entitled to get total interest ofRs.1,95,580/- on aforesaid deposited amount.It is contended thattill the date of F.I.R. the amount was not given to him and thecheque was presented by him for encashment on 1.3.2017, but thecheck bounced as account was blocked.He mentioned the names ofall the Directors of the company, who have filed the two proceedingsas accused.He contended that in the same manner, by using similarmodus operandi, other 15 to 17 traders from Aurangabad weredeceived by the applicants.Due to nature of aforesaid allegations,the crime was registered under the Act also.The learned counsel for applicants submitted thatparties, the present applicants and the first informant had arrived atan agreement and applicants had agreed to return the entire amountalong with interest as the amount is fixed under compromise andmajor portion of the amount is already returned.He submitted thatthe amount of around Rs.50 lakh is due and it will be also given bythe applicants to the first informant and other traders.The learned ::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:18:17 ::: Cri.No. 5882/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:18:17 :::counsel for first informant submitted that time frame was given bythe first informant, but within the fixed time, the amount was notpaid.There are many peculiar circumstances in the presentmatters.Present applicants are not disputing that the amount wasdue from them.The submissions made show that in place of thetotal amount which was due to the first informant and others, whichwas around Rs.11 Crore, the amount of Rs.2.5 Crore more wasagreed to be given by the present applicants.Though the applicantsare saying that this is composite amount agreed to be given as perthe settlement, the fact remains that there is the contention thatthere was representation that the amount was kept as deposit andthe first informant was to get interest at the rate of 18% p.a. Itappears that the first informant and others have got some intereston the amount, which was kept in their names as deposit.There iscopy of Memorandum of Articles of the company showing that thecompany has business of accepting deposits and giving interest on itas one of it's activity.Thus, the factual aspect of the matter showsthat the amount was treated as deposit and interest is alreadygiven , though the entire amount is not returned.The submissions made and the record show that ::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:18:17 ::: Cri.No. 5882/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:18:17 :::aforesaid cheque mentioned by the first informant was issued whenthe signatory was kept in jail in connection with similar offences.Itis surprising that in all 18 such cheques of total amount of morethan Rs.11 Crore were issued by one of the applicants when he wasin jail in favour of the persons who could have file separate reportsagainst him.The cheques bounced and the submissions made showthat the authority constituted under the Companies Act had probablygiven such direction to block the account as there were manycomplaints received of similar nature against this company.The submissions made show that atleast one more caseunder the provisions of the Act was registered against theapplicants.In support of contentions made in this matter, thelearned counsel for applicants has produced on record the copy ofjudgment delivered by this Court at Goa Bench and the decision isreported as 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 3220 [Nilesh N. Shah and Ors.The Officer in Charge/Investigating Officer and Ors.].Itappears that in that matter, the provisions of sections 403, 405,409, 420 r/w.34 of IPC were used and it was the case ofmisappropriation of money received by selling air tickets of Air India.::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:18:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:18:17 :::No. 5882/17 & Ors.The amount involved was around Rs.1.38 Crores.It was submittedfor Air India that there was insurance cover and so, there waspossibility of settlement of the claim of Air India.The facts werealtogether different and the Court granted relief of quashing in thatmatter.The facts of the present matter are altogether different.In the present matter, there is one peculiarcircumstance.In the past, present applicants had filed proceedingslike Criminal Application No. 1606/2017, Criminal Writ Petition No.518/2017, Criminal Application No. 1646/2017, Criminal ApplicationNo.1645/2017, Criminal Application No. 1644/2017 and CriminalApplication No. 1643/2017 and relief of quashing of present F.I.R.,F.I.R. No. 212/2017 was claimed.This Court dismissed theproceedings after considering the allegations made in the F.I.R. andadmitted circumstances.The submissions made and the record showthat Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) bearingNo.3621/2017 was filed in respect of the decision given in CriminalApplication No. 1646/2017 and the petition was dismissed anddirection was given to the petitioners to surrender before the TrialCourt.The relief of stay to the proceeding filed under theprovisions of IPC and the Act is also claimed.But the fact remains ::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:18:17 ::: Cri.No. 5882/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:18:17 :::that the allegations made in the F.I.R. were considered by the Courton merits in the past.The submissions made show that theapplicants are involved in similar matters and authority under theCompanies Act was required to take steps due to many complaintsreceived against them.These circumstances cannot be ignored inthe present matters.Further, there is provision of section 362 ofCr.P.C. which creates bar to reconsider such matters and particularly,there is circumstance that the Apex Court has also refused tointerfere in the order made by this Court in the past.The learned counsel for applicants submitted that theamount which is with the applicants cannot be treated as depositunder M.P.I.D. Act. This submission is not at all acceptable.Thelearned counsel for applicants submitted that the present matterfalls under Explanation II of section 2 (c).Explanation II runs asunder :-"Explanation II.- Any credit given by a seller to a buyer on the sale of any property (whether movable or immovable) shall not be deemed to be deposit for the purpose of this clause."In the present matters, it is the business of the company of theapplicants to accept the deposit and give interest on it.There isspecific allegation that the amount was kept many months as ::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:18:17 ::: Cri.No. 5882/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:18:17 :::deposit and interest was also agreed.Admittedly, more amount thanthe amount which was due from applicants' company is actuallygiven and at present, inference is easy that the additional amountwas give as interest.The learned counsel for applicants made one moresubmission.He submitted that the main purpose behind the SpecialAct is to see that fraud amount is recovered.The provision of section 3 ofthe Act shows that every Director and even staff members who areresponsible for the management or or conducting of the businesscan be held liable under this Act. Peculiar facts mentioned aboveshows that the cheque on the account of different company wasissued and it is clear that this was done only to avoid the filing of thecase under Negotiable Instruments Act. This circumstance can beused to infer that there was intention to deceive.Only when therelief was refused by this Court and Apex Court refused to interferein the order made by this Court, some steps were taken by theapplicants to get out of the clutches of law.They are involved inother similar matters and so, this Court holds that the provision of ::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:18:17 ::: Cri.No. 5882/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:18:17 :::section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be used in favour of such persons.State of Maharashtra & Anr.],(iii) (2008) 8 SCC 673 [State Vs.K.V. Rajendran & Ors.],(iv) (1990) 2 SCC 437 [Simrikhia Vs.Dolley Mukerjee & Ors.],(v) 2007 (109) BOM L.R. 2192 [M.Sundareswaran Vs.State of Maharashtra & Anr.],(vi) 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1189 [Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors.State of Gujarat & Anr.],(vii) (2014) 6 SCC 466 [Narinder Singh & Ors.State of Punjab & Anr.],(viii) (2014) 9 SCC 653 [Yogendra Yadav & Ors.State of Jharkhand & Anr.],(ix) (2012) 10 SCC 303 [Gian Singh Vs.State of Punjab & Anr.],(x) 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 5169 [Farida Aslan Khan & Ors.State of Maharashtra and Anr.],(xi) 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 4055 [Sundar Bhanudas Khose & Ors.State of Maharashtra & Anr.], ::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:18:17 ::: Cri.No. 5882/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:18:17 :::(xii) 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 273 [Vikas Vs.State of Maharashtra],(xiii) 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 1550 [Laxman & Ors.State of Maharashtra & Ors.],(xiv) 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 3968 [Shalini Harpalsingh Dugal & Ors.State of Maharashtra],(xv) 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 4030 [Bapurao Vs.State of Maharashtra and Ors.], (xvi) 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 2558 [Juergen Langer & Ors.State of Goa and Ors.], (xvii) 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 1553 [Amit Kumar Vs.State of Maharashtra], (xviii) 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 1096 [Sayyed Tareque Ali Vs.State of Maharashtra & Anr.], (xix) 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 2295 [Anita Sandip Khese Vs.State of Maharashtra & Ors.], (xx) (2013) 11 SCC 497 [Dimpey Gujral & Ors.In the present matter, provisions of Special Enactment areinvolved and there are aforesaid circumstances.This Court holdsthat general provisions cannot be used in such a case otherwise thevery purpose of the Enactment will get defeated and the mattercannot be treated as dispute between the applicants and the first ::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:18:17 ::: Cri.No. 5882/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:18:17 :::informant only.In the result, Criminal Application Nos. 5882/2017and 6378/2017 stand dismissed.The learned counsel for applicantsrequested for continuation of interim relief.[SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]ssc/ ::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:18:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2018 23:18:17 :::

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

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

In his place, his legal representatives have been impleaded.The prosecution version is essentially as follows:On 7.4.1991 in the afternoon, the accused along with his wife Shamanthakamani and her two young sons had come to the Lalitha Mahal swimming pool for a swim.This swimming pool is attached to a posh five Star Hotel known as Lalitha Mahal Palace Hotel, situate in Mysore.When the accused came to the swimming pool, he noticed that K. Sathyadev (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was present in the swimming pool.Since the deceased was an unauthorised user of the swimming pool, the accused asked Swimming Attendant (PW-13) to remove the said deceased Sathyadev, from the swimming pool.After instructing PW-13 thus, the accused and his wife went to the dressing room to change into their swimming costumes.Shamanthakamani got into her swimming costume and entered the swimming pool first.The accused also came to the swimming pool in his swimming dress and he noticed that the deceased was sniggering at his wife Shamanthakamani.The accused abused the deceased and gave three blows to the deceased.One blow landed on the mouth, one blow on the shoulder and a third blow which was given in Karate style landed on the left side of neck of the deceased, who fell dead in the swimming pool.PW-13 who was the swimming attendant rushed towards the pool and wanted to save the deceased.The accused restrained him by holding his hand.Subsequently, others brought the deceased out of the swimming pool and placed him by the side of the swimming pool.The deceased was dead when he was brought out of the pool.PW-34 was the Sub-Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Nazarabad Police Station, Mysore.On 7.4.1991, while he was at his residence, he got a message that some person has been drowned in the Swimming Pool of the hotel.He also received a message from the accused that he should bring a life guard to the swimming pool.In the meanwhile, the car of the accused also arrived at the police station.The driver of the car one Chavan told PW-34 that somebody had drowned in the swimming pool.He went to a nearby Nursing Home and was not able to find a doctor and, therefore, went in the accused's car to bring a doctor, who was Dr. Vishnumurthy (PW-20).PW-20 came in the accused's car to the swimming pool followed by PW-34 in his Motorcycle.When PW-34 went to the swimming pool, he saw the accused and his wife and the children of the accused and PW-13 swimming pool attendant.He also saw PW-27 and his son PW-29 near the Swimming pool.He saw the deceased and noticed that he had only an underwear on his body.The accused asked Dr. Vishnumurty (PW-20) to examine the deceased.The sub-Inspector (PW-34) reported before the accused at the swimming pool.The accused told PW-34 in Kannada which translated into English, reads as follows:-"Look here, see some bastard has fallen into the water and drowned.Take the case as per Section 174 Cr.P.C. and prepare inquest Panchanama".PW-34 asked the accused who should give the complaint.The accused retored as to why he was in such a hurry and that Mrs. Mallik (PW-4), the Manager of the Hotel would give the complaint.The accused told PW-34 to draw the inquest mahazar.In the meanwhile, apart from Dr. Vishnumurty (PW-20), another doctor Dr. Ammanna (not examined) came there.He also pronounced that the deceased was dead.PW-34 wanted to ask the accused more details about the incident.However, as the accused started shouting at PW-34, he did not ask more questions.PW-34 immediately drew the inquest mahazar.J U D G M E N T ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.One Somashekar (also described as 'accused') was prosecuted for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 302, 201 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC').He was acquitted by the Trial Court.He was, however, convicted by the impugned judgment by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court by revision of the judgment of the Trial court.The High Court held the accused guilty of offences punishable under Section 304 (part II) and Section 201 IPC.For the first offence the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.1 lakh with default stipulation.According to PW-34, it was the accused, who dictated the inquest mahazar.Even the statements that were recorded during inquest, were done as per the directions of the accused.PW-34 objected to the inquest being prepared without the deceased being identified.The accused was unrelenting.The accused directed that the inquest report be prepared and the dead body be sent to the mortuary and identification of the deceased be done on the next day.Entire inquest on the dead body of deceased was done as per the directions of the accused.When the inquest report was being written, accused went to the South of the Swimming pool and brought a pant, a shirt and a pair of chappal kept near a chair.There was a chit in the pant pocket identifying the deceased as 'Sathyadev' but without any address.However, there was a tailor mark on the shirt collar which was noted by PW-About that time, Dr. Shenoy (PW-32), also arrived on the direction of the accused.He also examined the deceased and pronounced the deceased dead.Till the completion of the inquest proceedings, accused remained there and was giving 'directions and assistance'.The accused sent for PW-34 a little later from the Manager's (PW-4) room.When PW-34 went there, he was given a complaint.It contained Mrs. Mallik's (PW-4) signature.On the basis of this complaint, PW-34 registered a U.D.R. case in Cr. No. 17/91 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code').On the basis of the challan, investigation was undertaken and charge sheet was placed against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 341, 302, 201 and 506 IPC.The accused pleaded innocence and false implication at the behest of higher officials.The case was one of dry drowning.The possibility of the injuries having been sustained when the dead body was being taken out, was not ruled out.The fact that the alleged complaint was recorded much belatedly clearly indicates the prosecution's effort to somehow implicate the accused who had fallen from the grace of higher officials.Thereafter a different approach was adopted, a second medical opinion was obtained and the appellant was falsely implicated.The evidence of the child witnesses which could not have been accepted as they are not reliable witnesses because of their tender age was accepted.This itself shows the impropriety in the conduct of the accused.The position that some of the officials were showing partisan attitude is of significance, because of diluting the evidence of the doctor by seeking answers to hypothetical questions.The doctor's evidence clearly substantiates the accusations.As noted supra, the appellant has died and his legal representatives have been impleaded.

['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

08.10.13 Item No. 78 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 78And In the matter of: Tapas Kar @ Tapas Kumar Kar & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Uttam Kumar Bhattacharyya For the Petitioners Mrs. Kakali Chatterjee For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with KGP (L) Police Station Case No. 318 of 2013 dated 29.05.2013 under Sections 143/149/436/506 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record including the seizure list.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Ranjit Kumar Bag, J)

['Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ORDER P.N. Goel, J.

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

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

The instant revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 25.5.2017 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court no. 2, Maharajganj in Criminal Misc.Case No. 73 of 2017 (State vs. Jagdish Mall and others) by which the protest application dated 17.1.2017 filed by the revisionist under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.It may be noted that learned Judge has not rejected the application for further investigation at the behest of the informant on the ground of its non maintainability.However, I may record that the alleged application for further investigation is dated 17.1.2017 and it is not clear as to when the said application was submitted to the court.Now the question remains to be answered as to whether at the instance of first informant the court below after taking cognizance could have ordered for further investigation, this issue is no longer res-integra.In the latest judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel and others reported in (2017) 4 SCC 177 wherein it has been held that after cognizance has been taken on the basis of police report, at that stage, neither the Magistrate suo motu nor on an application filed by the complainant/ informant or the accused direct further investigation.Such a course would be open only on the request of the Investigating Agency and that too, in circumstances warranting further investigation on the detection of material evidence only to secure fair investigation and trial.

['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

On the day of marriage deceased Smt. Arti was adieu to the marital house, where accused-appellant subjected cruelty to his daughter deceased Smt. Arti and demanded Rs.1 lakh in additional dowry.Whenever deceased Smt. Arti used to come at the house of complainant, she told her plight and the demand of additional dowry by the appellant-accused.On 28.05.2013 complainant was informed at about 09:00 AM that Smt. Arti has died.Upon receiving this information he alongwith two other persons of his village went to the house of appellant-accused situated in village Patau Ka Purwa, P.S.- Sangrampur, District- Amethi where he found dead body of his daughter lying on the floor.The persons who were present there, were talking with each other that the accused-appellant ultimately has murdered his wife Smt. Arti.Upon receiving this information, complainant submitted an application Exhibit Ka-1 on 31.05.2013 in P.S.- Sangrampur.In pursuance of which a formal First Information Report (in short F.I.R) was registered against the appellant-accused.Inquest (Exhibit Ka-2) was conducted upon the dead body on 29.05.2013 in the morning about 08:00 AM and the relevant papers for the postmortem of corpus were also prepared which are photo of cadaver, the sample of seal of dead body, police form no.13 and the body was sent for postmortem.The document was admitted by the accused-appellant with a note that the genuineness of document is admitted while the contents are denied.According to postmortem report as many as sixteen injuries were found upon the dead body of deceased Smt. Arti which are as under:-1.- Contusion 9 cm x 4 cm over left side skull 4 cm above from left eyebrow.2.- Abrasion 4 cm x 1 cm over right side face, 2 cm below from right eyebrow.3.- Abrasion 7 cm x 4 cm over right cubital area.4.- Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm over chin.5.- Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm over right wrist.6.- Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm over left wrist dorsal.7.- Abrasion 2 cm x 1/2 cm over dorsal of right hand.8.- Contusion 15 cm x 6 cm over back of left of forearm.9.- Abrasion 21cm x 4 cm over inner aspect of left thigh.10.- Abrasion.11.- 12 x 7 cm over inner aspect of right thigh.12.- Abrasion 4 x 1 over lateral aspect of right thigh.13.- Abrasion 3 x 2 cm anterior of right knee.14.- Multiple abrasion 15 x 6 cm over dorsal aspect of right foot.15.- Multiple abrasion 12 x 6 cm over dorsal aspect of left foot.16.- ligature mark 43 x 2 cm present all around neck above thyroid, below chin, obliques present which interrupts 4 x5 cm right side of neck behind right ear ligature mark is 2 cm below from right ear and 6 cm below from left ear on cutting ligature mark is white and glistering base of (sic) and parchment like.According to Doctor the death of Smt. Arti (deceased) was caused due to Asphyxia as a result of hanging.After registration of the crime, investigating officer (for brevity I.O.) R.K. Chaturwedi (C.O.) commenced investigation, visited the place of occurrence, prepared site plan and after completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant Pawan Kumar Yadav.7. Accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C stated that the narration of the prosecution and the evidence of the PWs is wrong.He resides elsewhere and was not present at the residence on the day and time of occurrence.To prove the guilt of the accused-appellant, prosecution examined PW-1 Babu Lal Yadav complainant/father of the deceased, PW-2 Smt. Sushila Sister-in-law of the deceased, PW-3 Shri Jangbahadur real brother of the deceased, PW-4 Dev Raj Yadav, PW-5 Sri Ram Sewak both are the witnesses of inquest and PW-6 Km.Sharaswati Yadav real sister of the deceased.9. accused-appellant admitted genuineness of the prosecution document viz. charge-sheet, chick F.I.R., carbon copy of general diary, memo of recovery of rope of Jute, site plan and postmortem report.After hearing to the learned counsel for the appellant and learned D.G.C. for the State learned trial Judge hold guilty to the appellant and punished appellant as mentioned above.Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and gone through the entire record.For analysing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and appreciate the judgment of the learned trial Judge, it will be better to reproduce the text of Section 304 B I.P.C:-Section 304B. Dowry death.- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.explanation--For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.According to Section 304-B to hold guilty to any accused four ingredients should be proved, firstly by the prosecution.That the deceased lady was married with appellant-accused within 7 years from the date of her death.That there was demand of dowry from the side of husband or his family members or relatives.That the lady was subjected to cruelty in connection of demand of dowry soon before her death.That the death occurred otherwise then in normal course of nature.When the prosecution succeeds to prove above mentioned four ingredients, then the accused is liable to explain under which mysterious circumstances, the lady was died.In the light of above proposition of law, it is obvious that the prosecution miserably fails to prove that the deceased Smt. Arti was subjected to cruelty soon before her death by the accused-appellant in connection of demand of dowry.Prosecution examined PW-1 Babu Lal Yadav father of the deceased, PW-2 Smt. Sushila sister-in-law of the deceased, PW-3 Shri Jangbahadur Yadav brother of the deceased and PW-6 Km.Saraswati Devi sister of the deceased, but all these four witnesses of facts have not supported the narration of the prosecution and turned hostile, They admitted and narrated in their statement in-chief that his or her daughter and sister never told them that accused was demanding Rs.1 lakh in dowry and due to non-fulfillment, he was subjecting to her cruelty.Since, these crucial ingredients demand of dowry and subjecting to cruelty have not been proved by the prosecution, that's why the offence under Section 304 B I.P.C is not proved against the accused-appellant.The prosecution only succeeds to prove that the deceased Smt. Arti was married with accused-appellant and had died within seven years of her marriage in abnormal conditions due to Asphyxia and 16 ante mortem injuries were also found on the body of the deceased Smt. Arti at the time of postmortem.As far as the offence under Section 498 A I.P.C is concerned, from the evidence of the prosecution, it is not proved that the accused-appellant ever demanded dowry from the deceased Smt. Arti or pressurized her to bring Rs.1 lakh additional dowry from his father or brother.Prosecution further failed to prove that the deceased Smt. Arti was subjected to cruelty by the accused-appellant in connection of demand of dowry.In the light of such type of weak evidence, the offence under Section 498 A I.P.C is also not made out against the accused-appellant.The record demonstrates that the alternative charge under Section 302 I.P.C was also framed against the accused-appellant regarding which no finding has been recorded by the learned trial Judge.It was the bounden duty and obligation of the trial judge to record the findings, but learned trial Judge fails to do so.The evidence of prosecution witnesses PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-6 does not disclose that at the time of death of Smt. Arti, the accused-appellant was with her at his residence situated in village Patau Ka Purwa, Police Station- Sangrampur, District Sultanpur.The appellant-accused admitted genuineness of the prosecution documents but due to this admission appellant can not be hold guilty because the witnesses of facts do not support the prosecution version.All the witnesses of facts resiled from their statement given under Section 161 Cr.P.C.Before parting, I will express my anguish that the father, brother, sister and sister-in-law of deceased turned hostile due to some reason which is known to them.When the witnesses were being examined in the court, it was the obligation of learned trial Judge to participate actively in the trial, but learned trial Judge sit idle and did not resort the Provisions of Indian Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code, when PW-1 the father of the deceased/complainant Shri Babu Lal Yadav turned hostile.If this recourse was adopted then the other PWs were restrained from turning hostile.

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

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

Petitioner Counsel: R.K. Pandey, Pawan Kumar Shukla.Respondent Counsel: Govt. Advocate.Petitioner: Sabnam.Petitioner Counsel: A.G.A, Arshiyam Nasir, Braham Singh, From Jail, S.I. Siddiqui, Tahira Kazmi.Respondent Counsel: From Jail.Hon'ble Amar Saran, J Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal, J (Delivered by Hon'ble Amar Saran, J) These two connected capital appeals arise from the judgement of Sessions Judge dated 15.7.2010 convicting and sentencing the two appellants Saleem and Shabnam to death sentence under section 302/34 I.P.C.An FIR was lodged by PW-1 Lateef Ullah who was a neighbour of appellant Shabnam and the deceased at Police Station Kotwali Hasanpur which was 4 ½ Km away from the place of incident on 15.4.2008 at 3.05 a.m. The said report was scribed by Sabir Ali.This FIR alleged that at 2.15 A.M in the night of 14/15.4.2008, the informant had heard the cries of Shabnam "Bachao-Bachao Maare-Maare".He rushed to the house of the deceased Shaukat and on climbed up the stairs of the house he found Shabnam lying in an unconscious condition and found the corpse of Shaukat in the verandah with his neck cut.In the eastern room, Rashid was lying dead on a cot.In the South-Western room, Shaukat's son Anees and his daughter-in-law Anjum were seen lying on the cot with fatal injuries on their necks, and their ten month old child Arsh was also lying dead on the same cot.In the north-eastern room, Hashmi the wife of Master Shaukat and Master Shaukat 's niece Rabia were also lying dead with injuries on their necks.Blood was spread all over.On his alarm, the villagers gathered and he proceeded to the police station for lodging the FIR.After registering the FIR, PW-26 SI Babu Ram Sagar started investigation of this case.Stomach contained about 350 ml food content.There was gas in small intestine and large intestine.The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries and the viscera was preserved.Rigor mortis had passed from the neck and it was present on the upper and lower parts of the body.The time of death was about one day.The cause of death was Asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem throttling.The viscera of the child was also preserved.Post-mortem was conducted on the body of Rashid Ali aged 22 years on 15.4.2008 at 4.30 P.M.Rigor mortis in the neck present, upper and lower limbs, passed.The following ante-mortem injuries were found:1.Incised wound 12 x 6 cm x Trachea cut in front of neck, both carotid arteries cut.Both lungs were congested.Both chamber of hearts were empty.The small and large intestines contained gas.The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.The viscera was preserved.PW-27 Dr. R.P. Sharma conducted the postmortem on the remaining four deceased persons at District Hospital.She was aged about 50 years.Rigor mortis was present on both upper and lower limbs.Clotted blood was present.Clotted blood present.Viscera was preserved.PW-27 Dr. R.P. Sharma also conducted autopsy on the body of Km.Rabia aged 14 years on 15.4.2008 at 4.00 P.M. Rigor mortis was present in both upper and lower limbs.Decomposition was not present and clotted blood was present from both nostrils.The following ante-mortem injuries were seen:1.Transverse incised wound of size 8 cm x 5 cm x trachea, esophagus and blood vessels were cut.Wound direction from right to left.Clotted blood present.Gall bladder, spleen and both lungs were congested.Wound is directing from outer to inwards.3.Transverse incised wound 8 cm x 5 cm trachea cut in front of lower part neck 3 cm above Manubrium sterni esophagus, blood vessels and nerves are cut.Clotted blood present.Larynx was congested.On internal examination, membranes of brain, both lungs, spleen and both kidneys were congested.C 6 vertebra was cut.Death was due to Asphyxia as a result of shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.The viscera was preserved.Clotted blood present.Wound is directing from medial to lateral.Wound is directing from medial to laterally.Clotted blood present.On external examination, both lungs were congested.Both chamber of hearts were empty.Lever and kidneys were congested.The viscera was preserved.The cause of death as due to Asphyxia due to shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injury.The viscera of all the seven deceased persons was sent to the Forensic Laboratory at Agra.In the case of Shaukat Ali , Smt. Hashmi, Anees Ahmad, Smt. Anjum, Rasid Ali and Km.Rabia, diazepam tranquillizer poison was found in the organs of the viscera.It was however, not found in the viscera of the 10 month old child Arsh.He supported his FIR (Ext. Ka-1) in his examination in court.He further clarified in his testimony that Shabnam was lying on the ground in an unconscious condition.By her side, in the Verandah, her father's corpse was lying with his neck cut.He further mentioned that one empty unused bedding was lying near the corpses of Rabia and Hashmi in the room where they were sleeping.He identified all the deceased persons and stated that apart from Arsh, the neck of the other six deceased persons had been cut, as a result of which, blood had spread all over in the room.It was also clarified that the necks of none of the deceased was severed from their bodies.He further mentioned that as his access to the house from the main door was blocked, as it was shut, he entered the house from another place, where there was no wall.When he tried to shake Shabnam on reaching her, she did not respond.He further stated that as he did not know the names of the assailants, he did not mention the same in the report.After Hashmat gave some water to Shabnam, she became conscious and as she kept on crying, he could not speak to her.PW-2 Husain who lived in front of the house of the deceased stated that he was a regular visitor to the house of Master Shaukat.He was a retired teacher.At about 2.00 A.M in the night, he had heard the cries of Shabnam, whereupon he had rushed to the house.Shabnam was crying from the stairs and on great persuasion, she opened the door of the stair way.On all the beddings, Gaddas sheets, and pillow cases there was blood.There was also blood on Rabia and Shaukat and his wife Smt. Hashmi.He remained at the house till arrival of the police and was present at the time of inquests and post-mortem.He further disclosed that there was a love affair between Shabnam and Saleem.He had seen them going together on a motorcycle.On the night of the incident at about 1.00 A.M, he had seen Saleem going in the Southern direction when he stopped to urinate.The claim of Shabnam that she was sleeping alone on the roof appeared to be false when the others were sleeping inside, hence when he had gone on the roof, he found that there was no cloth or bedding etc. lying there but that Shabnam had closed her eyes and was lying on the floor.He further stated that on 16.4.2008, when his statement was recorded by the police, he disclosed his version and he further disclosed to the police that Master Shaukat was annoyed with Shabnam on account of her love affair.PW-3 Lal Mohammad, resident of village Rajhaiti, P.S. Bahadurgarh, district Ghaziabad was the father of deceased Anjum, who had married deceased Anees son of Shaukat two and a half years earlier and they had given birth to Arsh.He received information of this incident on the mobile of Shabnam's mama Abdul Rahman on 15.4.2008 at 6.00 A.M. When he arrived at the spot, he saw seven dead bodies lying there and when he enquired from the appellant Shabnam, she disclosed that in the night she was feeling hot and hence she had gone to the terrace to sleep but when it started raining at about 2.00 A.M she came down and then she saw all the bodies lying there and hence she had raised an alarm.She also stated that some miscreants had caused the incident.The inquest was conducted in his presence but he was distressed owing to the murder of his daughter.He further mentioned that Anjum had earlier disclosed to him that the conduct of Shabnam was not good.She was insisting on marrying Saleem, making the atmosphere of the house very uncongenial.His daughter had also told him that Shabnam's father had even beaten her and had snatched away her mobile, but she did not know how Shabnam had got another mobile.PW-3 also stated that on 18.4.2008, the I.O had taken him on his vehicle on which the accused Saleem was also sitting.They parked the vehicle at some distance from Saleem's house.They then reached Saleem's house from where Saleem took out a checked gray coloured shirt which had blood stains on it and which was lying behind a wheat coloured tin trunk.He also gave a mobile which was sealed and the recovery memo was prepared on which he signed.PW-3 also disclosed that on 19.4.2008, the I.O recovered the Salwar- Kameez, mobile, a SIM, an empty wrapper of ten tablets.The Salwar-Kameez had spots of blood.He further disclosed that Saleem had entered in a pond and taken out an axe whose handle was broken.Mud and blood stains were visible on the axe.It was exhibited, on which he appended his signature.PW-4 Mahendra Singh had stated that he was Block Pramukh of Hasanpur.On 16.4.2008 at 7.15 A.M, Saleem had come to his house in Hasanpur and began to make excuses and confessed to his guilt stating that he was in love with Shabnam and that he along with Shabnam had committed the murders.Saleem further stated that he had given intoxicating (Nashe ki golis) tablets to Shabnam, who had administered the same to her family members, making them unconscious.Thereafter Shabnam had caught each of the deceased by their hair, whilst Saleem cut their necks with the axe.According to Saleem, Shabnam throttled the 10 month child Arsh herself.He claimed to have thrown the axe in the Pond and clothes in the jungle.PW-5 Nischal Tyagi deposed that he was an-Incharge Teacher in the primary School Bawankheri.Noor Fatima and Km.Shabnam were working as Shiksha Mitras with him in the school.Shabnam had told him on a number of occasions that she would marry Saleem and Saleem used to come to visit her at the school.Shabnam used to travel on his motorcycle.She did not deposit her wages at her home and had collected Rs. 16,000/ which as per information furnished to him by Shabnam, she had given to Saleem.She further told him that her mobile had been snatched by her family members.PW-6 Belal Ahmad who is the other witness of extra-judicial confession stated that on 16.4.2008 at about 1.00 P.M the accused Saleem had come to his hotel and had told him that he had fallen in love with one co-villager Shabnam.As the family members of Shabnam were educated and belonged to another caste and Saleem was poor hence they were not agreeable to marry Shabnam with Saleem.Saleem also disclosed to this witness that he given ten sleeping tablets to Shabnam who mixed it with the tea meant for the deceased, and when they became unconscious after partaking of the same, she called him, whereupon Saleem reached there along with an axe.Thereafter he cut the necks of the six deceased and Shabnam throttled the deceased Arsh herself.He threw the axe in the pond whilst running to the jungle.PW-7 Sukkhan Ali disclosed that in the night of incident i.e. 14/15.4.2008, he had gone from his village to Taharpur.When he was returning to his village, he saw Saleem in the jungle, and when he questioned him about what he was doing there, Saleem had become nervous.PW-8 Rais Ahmad claims to recognise Saleem very well from before.On 14.4.2008 at about 10.00 A.M, he saw Saleem asking for some intoxicating/sleeping tablets from Dr. Mobeen at S.K. Nisha Medical Store but the doctor refused to give him the said medicines.Then Saleem asked Pappu, a fruit seller from where he could get the tablets.Pappu disclosed that it could be brought from Moradabad.Then Saleem gave him Rs. 25/- and the keys to his motorcycle.After one and a half hours, Pappu returned with ten calmpose tablets which he handed over to Saleem.PW-9 Fareed alias Boby disclosed that during the period of incident, he used to deal in Mobiles.Saleem who had an earlier mobile, had sought a fresh mobile connection from him.Saleem had shown his Driving Licence as his identity proof and this witness had given a new SIM to Saleem.The photograph and DL of Saleem were present on the application form.PW-10 Sajil Ali had disclosed in his evidence that he used to sell SIMs.He had sold a SIM bearing number 9917812718 to Saleem who had filled his identity card with the application.PW-11 Mobeen Husain had disclosed that he had a Hakeem shop at Hashimpur Chauraha, where he used to sell juice and Chatni.Earlier, Noor Mohammad was running S.K. Nisha Medical Store in the said shop which he had taken on hire from Noor Mohammad in December 2007 and which he transferred to his father-in-law.The appellant Saleem who was running a Saw Mill and a brick-kiln nearby used to visit him.Ten days before the incident, Saleem had come to him and told him that he was suffering from great tension and he was in need of sleeping pills but he had refused to give them to Saleem.The latter had met him in the morning on 14.4.2008 at 10.00 A.M, at that time Pappu Thelawala who was present nearby overheard their conversation that Saleem was in need of medicines.Then Pappu agreed to get them for Saleem from Moradabad for which the appellant Saleem had given him Rs. 25/- and his motorcycle.Pappu returned after 1 ½ hours and gave Saleem 10 biopose tablets .As it appeared in the news paper on 24.4.2008 that the tablets had been purchased from S.K. Nisha Medical Store, he shut the shop and had run away from the place.Pappu had also left the place.When the police came to his residence two months later searching for Pappu then he disclosed the aforesaid facts to the police.PW-12 Dr. Vandana disclosed that she was a Law Officer at the Forensic Laboratory, Moradabad unit.She disclosed that she had visited the spot with her team on 19.4.2008 and prepared the inspection report ( Ext. Ka-6).PW-13 Constable 406 CP Manveer Singh of Forensic Laboratory, Moradabad Unit deposed that he had gone to the place of incident with the Dog Squad.Six corpses, whose necks were cut and the corpse of a little child Arsh who had been strangulated were lying there.They inspected the spot but found no finger prints there nor did the field unit find any weapon of attack at the spot.There was no facility of climbing up the wall.It appeared to him that the deaths had been caused by the same person with the same weapon.There appears to be no resistance at the time of murder and that it appears that some intoxicating substance had been given to the deceased persons in order to facilitate the crime.Nothing was disturbed in the house.There was only one door for reaching the second floor of the house.This was a strong steel door which could be closed from the inside.On questioning Shabnam when they had gone to sleep as to whether the door had been locked from the inside, Shabnam replied that the door was locked from the inside.When Shaukat's house was inspected from all sides, then no signs of any attempt of scaling the wall were seen.In 2007, he had given the shop on rent to one Mobeen.PW-15 Constable 295 Virendra Singh of P.S. Hasanpur deposed that after the inquests, he along with Constable Teekam Singh took the four corpses of Rabia, Shaukat, Hashmi and Arsh for the post-mortem.PW-16 SI, Ganesh Dutt Joshi deposed that on receiving orders, he tried to search out the accused and in this connection, they interrogated Saleem who got a mobile and Gray colour Shirt recovered from a tin trunk.He had noted the IMEI number and prepared the recovery memo ( Ext. Ka-9).According to SI Ganesh Dutt Joshi, the accused Shabnam was arrested on 19.4.2008 and she got her Salwar suit and mobile with Nokia paper and SIM recovered.She also got recovered an empty wrapper of Bipose tablets (Ex. Ka-10).PW-17 Sayeed Ahmad disclosed that he possessed no SIM Card but someone had got a fake SIM card made in his name.Paper No. 5/29 and 5/30 did not contain any photograph of this witness.PW-18 Pankaj Sharma, Assistant Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd, gave out call details as sought by the police person and verified the same (Ext. Ka-12) which contained seal of the company and Tower number.When he prepared the call details, the computer was in a fit condition.PW-19 SI Madan Pal Singh stated that he prepared the inquest papers and got the signatures and opinions of the witnesses scribed therein.He sealed the clothes of the deceased persons and sent them for post-mortem through Constable Virendra Singh and Constable Preetam Singh.He had filled the inquest detailed in the inquest of Smt. Hashmi and prepared the relevant papers viz form 33, photo lash, challan lash, Seal mohar, letter for CMO, letter for RI, Nakal Chik and Nakal G.D, under his signature (Exts. Ka-13 to Ka-20).He also prepared inquest and other relevant papers relating to deceased Arsh (Ext. ka-20 to Ext. Ka-30).PW-20 Chandra Prakash Sharma, the photographer had deposed that he took 10 photographs of all the seven corpses which were present on record.PW-21 SI Dinesh Kumar Singh stated that he collected one and a half litres of milk which were lying in a steel bucket on the spot.He prepared the inquest note and relevant papers regarding the death of Rasid Ali (Ext. Ka 33 to Ext. ka-41) and also relating to deceased Anees ( Exts.ka-42 to Ext. ka-50).He sent the viscera of all the deceased to Forensic Laboratory, Agra.PW-22 SI Sanjay Kumar has deposed that he had conducted the inquest on the dead body of Smt. Anjum and prepared other relevant papers at Exts.The axe which was recovered at the instance of accused Saleem from a pond on 19.4.2008 and was marked as Ext. Ka- 11 also bears the signature of this witness.PW-23 Karanveer Singh deposed in his evidence that he prepared the inquest of Shaukat Ali and Km.Rabia, which have been exhibited as Exts.PW- 24 Dr. Deewan Ram, Medical Officer, Moradabad, who has conducted the post-mortem as mentioned above of the dead bodies of deceased Shaukat, Arsh and Rashid, the reports of which are Exts.Ka 78 to 80 respectively.PW-25 Dr. Jagmal Singh conducted the ultrasound of appellant Shabnam and certified that Shabnam was pregnant of about 7 weeks and prepared the report ( Ext. Ka-81).PW-26 Babu Ram Sagar, S.O. P.S. Hasanpur got the inquest conducted and also collected the blood stained pillow near the corpse of Anees Ahmad.He dictated the recovery memo to SI Madan Pal Singh on which he signed ( Ext. ka 82).From near Rashid's corpse, he took a piece of blood stained Gadda (Ext. Ka- 83).From near Smt. Hashmi's corpse, he took a piece of Razai ( Ext. ka-84) and from Shaukat's corps, he also cut out a piece of rope and Razai from Shaukat Ali's cot (Ext. Ka 85).He took a piece of blood stained mattress and Razai from near Anjum corpse ( Ext. ka 86), from near Km.Rabia he collected a blood stained piece of Gadda ( Ext. ka 87).The milk-can ( Ext. ka 88) and piece of Gadda were found near Anees's corpse.He also made a spot inspection and prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka 89).PW-27 Dr. R.P. Sharma conducted the post-mortems as mentioned above on the corpses of Smt. Hashmi ( Ext. ka- 90), Rabia ( Ext. ka- 91), Anees Ahmad ( Ext. Ka-92), Smt. Anjum( Ext. Ka-93).PW-27 was also shown the axe and he stated that the injuries received by the aforesaid deceased could have been caused by the said axe.He also investigated the case at crime No. 880 of 2008 under Section 302 IPC.He prepared C.D. no. 11 in which he entered the inquest reports of all the deceased Shaukat Ali, Hashmi, Rabia, Rashid, Anees, Smt. Anjum and Arsh.After that he recorded the statements of Km.Shabnam, Lal Mohammad, Hashmat, Sukkhan Ali, Shahnawaj, Mahendra Singh, Nischal Tyagi and Bilal Ahmad and he also arrested the appellant Saleem and made an entry in the G.D. On the pointing out of Saleem, he recovered Nokia Phone No. 2300 bearing SIM No. 9917812718 from his house and also one blood stained shirt (Ex.Ka-9).He arrested the accused Shabnam from her house on 19.4.2008 ( vide Ext. 96-97).On Shabnam's pointing out, from the room in the basement, he recovered a Nokia mobile and an empty wrapper of 10 biopose tablets, one SIM which was wrapped in a paper, one blood stained Salwar suit (ext. ka-10).On 22.4.2008, he prepared C.D. Paper no. 7A, in which he mentioned that SIM No. 9837873493 and 9837873503 were purchased from Muskan Telecom on fake IDs.Against accused Irfan and Mohd. Nawaj, a case under section 420 IPC was earlier got registered and their statements were recorded on paper no. 8 on the same day.In paper no. 9, a site plan and recovery of an axe was entered ( Ext. Ka- 98).On the same day, the memos of the mobile recovered from the appellant Saleem, SIM and blood stained shirt were also prepared by this witness (Ex. Ka 99).The site plan and recovery of mobile phone, SIM, clothes and wrapper of tablets was also prepared ( Ex. Ka 100).On 25.4.2008, the case property viz. clothes, crime weapon, blood stained clothes of Saleem and Shabnam, wrapper of intoxicating tablets were sent through constable Rakesh Kumar to the Forensic Laboratory.On 28.4.2008, he recorded the statement of Dr. R.P.Sharma and on 30.4.2008 this witness recorded the statements of S.K. Tyagi, SO, Aman Dehat, Ganesh Dutt Joshi, S.O.G. Incharge , J. P. Nagar, Constable Vikal Kumar, Const.ChandraPal Singh, Constable Mohd. Arif, Constable Rajendra Singh and Constable Yogendra Singh.Thereafter he recorded the statements of the remaining constables.On 11.5.2008 he received the report of the Forensic Laboratory, Agra.On 13.5.2008, he sent the blood stained shirt of Saleem to the Forensic Laboratory.On 29.5.2008, he received the viscera reports which were recorded in the case diary.On 30.5.2008, he recorded the statement of Dr. Deewan Ram.On 5.6.2008, he recorded the statement of Pankaj Sharma, Nodal Officer, Idea Company and received C.D.R and I.D from Pankaj Sharma (Ext. ka 12).On 7.6.2008, he received the Forensic report.After that he recorded the statements of Constable Manveer Singh, HC Rakesh Singh, Constable Mahesh, HCP Nahar Singh, Dr. Smt. Vandana Dubey, Forensic Officer, Mobeen alias Pappu and Rais Ahmad.On 20.6.20-08, he recorded the statement of Constable Rakesh Singh, Constable Dinesh Kumar, Pargana Magistrate M.M. Khan.He was interrogated as is mentioned in GD No. 28 at 6.30 PM.On his disclosure, a mobile phone Nokia 2300, SIM No. 9917812718 and a bloodstained white and gray shirt were got recovered from his house from behind a tin trunk, whose recovery memo (Ext. Ka 9) were made.As per the report of the Forensic Laboratory, Agra dated 13.5.2008 (Ext. Ka 102), big bloodstains were seen on a large part of the shirt which was recovered from the accused-Saleem.The biggest bloodstain being 3 cm in length.After recording the statements of the informant and the scribe, he reached village Bawankhera, and found seven dead bodies at the house of the deceased Shaukat.After conducting inquests, the copses were sealed and sent for the post-mortem through PW 15 Constable Virendra Singh.PW-24 Dr. Deewan Ram conducted the post-mortem on the dead bodies of Shaukat, Arsh and Rashid at District Hospital, Moradabad.The deceased Shaukat Ali, whose post-mortem was conducted on 15.4.2008 at 3.30 P.M had the following ante-mortem injuries:1.Multiple stab wound 9 x 5 cm on front of chin and left cheek x bone deep.2.Multiple two stab wound 6x5 cm x trachea cut x front of neck.The post-mortem on the body of 10 month old Arsh was carried out on 15.4.2008 at 4.00 P.M. Rigor mortis had passed from the upper part of the body but it was present on the lower part.The following ante-mortem injuries were seen:1.Multiple abrasion and contusions on both side of front of neck.Decomposition had not started.The time of death about half a day old.Ante-mortem injuries were as under:1.An oblique incised wound of size 4 cm x 2 cm x trachea deep on the front of right side neck.Clotted blood present and its direction from above downwards.2.Stab wound 2.5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on right side chest from upper part 4 cm above right tip of shoulder tapering from medial to lateral.Clotted blood present.3.Transverse incised wound 7 cm x 5 cm x trachea cut just above right side manubrial sterni, direction from medical to lateral.Both chambers of heart were empty.Stomach contained unidentified food material and gases.Death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.Viscera was preserved.Dr. R.P. Sharma conducted post-mortem on the body of Anees aged 35 years on 15.4.2008 at 4.30 P.M. Rigor mortis was present in upper and lower limbs.Decomposition was not present.Blood from both nostrils coming out.Following ante-mortem injuries were found:1.An oblique incised wound 1 cm x .5 cm x muscle deep on the right side face just outside the right eye.Clotted blood present.Wound's direction from above downward.2.An oblique incised wound 3 cm x 0.8 cm cartilages cut on upper part of right ear pinna.Clotted blood present.Dr. R.P. Sharma also conducted postmortem of Smt. Anjum aged 25 years on 15.4.2008 at 4.45 P.M. Time of death was about half a day old and rigor mortis was present.No decomposition was present.The following anti-mortem injuries were found:An oblique incised wound 3 x 2 cm trachea cut on the front of neck, lower part on the right side .The empty wrapper of 10 tabs biopose tablest was also sent in Forensic Science Laboratory but there was no chemical poison seen in the said wrapper.After the charge sheet was submitted by the IO PW-29 on 21.6.2008, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges on 22.8.2008 against the accused persons under sections 302 and 302/34 I.PC to the effect that in the night of 14/15.4.2008 at about 2.15 A.M, in prosecution of their common intention after administering biopose tablets in their tea to the deceased persons namely Shaukat Ali , Smt. Hashmi, Anees Ahmad, Smt. Anjum, Rasid Ali and Km.Rabia other than deceased Arsh by, they were murdered by causing injuries on their necks with an axe and baby Arsh was done to death by throttling.The prosecution has examined 29 witnesses in this case.PW-1, informant Lateef Ullah who was the neighbour of the deceased Master Shaukat and the appellant Shabnam lodged the report containing the allegations as mentioned above.On 21.6.2008, he submitted the charge sheet (Ext. Ka 101).We have heard Shri Saiful Islam Siddiqui and Mrs. Tahira Kazmi for the appellant-Shabnam and Shri R.P. Pandey and Shri Pawan Kumar Shukla for the appellant-Saleem and learned Government Advocate assisted by Shri Anand Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate.Learned counsel for the parties have also filed some case laws.Shri Anand Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate has also filed written arguments.After additional hearing S.I. Siddiqui and Tahira Kazmi have also filed written arguments on behalf of appellant Shabnam.However no written arguments have been filed by learned counsel for appellant Saleem.Arguments for appellant Shabnam It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the incident has been committed by some unknown persons.The FIR does not mention the names of any accused persons.When the informant Latifullah arrived and entered the house of the appellant-Shabnam on his own at 2.15 a.m., he found her lying in an unconscious condition.The appellant-Shabnam was sleeping on the terrace and when she came down subsequently she saw that seven of her family members had been murdered and after raising a cry she became unconscious.No blood was seen on her clothes, which negatives her participation in the crime.There was no evidence of administration of tranquilizer by the appellant-Shabnam.The motive suggested by the prosecution that the deceased Master Shaukat and other family members used to object to the liaison between Shabnam and Saleem, provides an inadequate motive for committing the murders.The appellant Shabnam being an educated lady could have taken legal advice regarding her proposed marriage to Saleem, being an earning person she would not have acted in this manner which would have jeopardized her future.She also had the option of leaving her home with Saleem.The field unit which reached the house of the deceased and appellant Shabnam did not find any finger or foot prints or blood stains or any other marks anywhere in the house.The trial court has wrongly treated the 313 Cr.P.C statement of the appellant as a confession of guilt, which was factually and legally incorrect.Before imposing the death penalty the earlier circumstances of the threat to the appellant's life because of her liaison with Saleem which may have prompted her to adopt this extreme measure ought to have been taken into account.Another reason for commuting the death sentence awarded to the appellant with a sentence of imprisonment for life, was that the appellant Shabnam had given birth to a child in jail, Taj Mohammad, who would be orphaned if the appellants were executed.Arguments for Appellant Saleem Learned counsel for the appellant-Saleem further argued that in this case there was no direct evidence, but only circumstantial evidence, and the chain of circumstances for establishing the complicity of the appellant in this incident was not complete.PW 2 Hashmat did not disclose to the investigating officer in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. that he had seen Saleem at 1.00 a.m. in the village on the date in question.PW 6, Bilal Ahmad and Bhure, who are said to be the so-called independent witnesses of the recoveries were in fact the pocket witnesses of the police.Much reliance could not be placed on the alleged extra-judicial confession made by Saleem to PW 4 Mahendra Singh and PW 6 Bilal Ahmad.In any case an extra-judicial confession is regarded as a weak kind of evidence.Only the co-appellant Shabnam had committed the crime because of her dispute with her family, and the appellant had nothing to do with the offence.Submissions on behalf of the State Learned Government Advocate on the other hand argued that there was a clear motive for the appellants for committing this crime as the appellant-Shabnam was in love with Saleem, who belonged to another caste group and was comparatively poor, and the deceased Master Shaukat used to object to the liaison.Shabnam had a six weeks pregnancy at the time of incident and she admitted in her 313 Cr.P.C. statement that the said child (Taj Mohammad), who was born later had been fathered by Saleem.The appellant-Saleem purchased the tranquilizer and gave it to Shabnam, who administered it to six of the deceased other than Arsh, the ten months old child and in pursuance of that conspiracy the six grown up deceased persons other than Arsh were given axe blows on their necks and done to death and Arsh was murdered by throttling.At the time of incident, the residential house of Shabnam, who used to live with the other deceased was closed from inside and there was no other way to reach the first floor where the incident occurred.According to PW 1 and PW 2, Shabnam herself had opened the door.At the time of spot inspection by the forensic team, Shabnam stated that the main door of the house was closed from inside when the entire family went to sleep.No other sign of ingress in the house by any other means was found, as per the evidence of P.W. 13 Manveer Singh, the Forensic Expert.Under section 106 of the Evidence Act, a heavy burden lay on Shabnam to explain as to how the deceased persons had died in her house and she has failed to discharge this burden.Furthermore, in her statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., she admits her presence by taking the stance that the co-accused Saleem had committed the murder and she herself has seen Saleem having a Chhoori in his hand at the place of occurrence.Learned Government Advocate further submitted that administration of the tranquilizer diazepam to six persons of the house was only possible with the help of an inmate.The viscera report of six of the seven deceased persons other than the minor child Arsh, showed the presence of a tranquilizer in the visceras, which no outsiders would have been able to administer.On the pointing out of Shabnam, her Salwar and Kurta were recovered (item Nos. 43 and 44), which were found to be bloodstained in the report of the forensic expert.This shows that she was very near to the deceased when the incident took place.Furthermore, after the incident she has changed the clothes and concealed the bloodstained clothes, which were recovered later on her pointing out after her arrest.This was another circumstance against her.She did not deny the recovery of bloodstained clothes, wrapper of biopose tables and mobile phone.When a specific question was put to her under section 313 Cr.P.C., that her claim that she was sleeping on the roof alone is improbable and unreliable as she had earlier stated that she never used to sleep alone and she used to sleep along with her mother or father.It was also not explained why on that date, she chose to sleep alone.The call details showing the repeated calls on the date of incident between the mobile phone of Shabnam (number 9837873493) to Saleem 9917812718 show the frequent calls on the date of incident.They talked on the said mobile numbers since 7.30.52 to 1.9.41 and there was a gap of 31 minutes.This was the time when the co-accused Saleem would have been in the house of Shabnam and had not talked on the telephone.There was no evidence of any loot or dacoity in the house and there was no occasion for any other person for committing the said offence and if any other person for any other motive has committed the offence, then Shabnam would not have been left unharmed and she would also have been assaulted.So far as the appellant Saleem is concerned, learned Government Advocate contended that motive was established against both Saleem and Shabnam on account of their love affair and inability of Saleem to marry Shabnam because Saleem was very poor and the liasion was opposed by the family members.The extra-judicial confession by Saleem to PW 4, Mahendra Singh and PW 6, Bilal Ahmad is reliable and finds corroboration from the other circumstances of the case.There was last seen evidence of Sukhan Ali as he had seen the accused between Bavankhedi and Tehpur on the date of incident after mid-night and the accused Saleem himself admitted his presence in the house of the co-accused Shabnam in the night of incident in his written statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.On the pointing out of accused-Saleem the recovery of bloodstained shirt and bloodstained axe, which was confirmed to have human blood on them as per the report of the forensic expert, is also a very important circumstance against this accused, which is unexplained by the appellant-Saleem.The evidence of PW 8 Raes Ahmad and PW 11 Mobin Husain with regard to the talk between accused-Saleem and Mobin Husain in respect of sleeping pills is the another piece of evidence for showing that accused-Saleem procured sleeping pills through one Pappu, who brought the sleeping pills after he got Rs. 25/- and motorcycle from Saleem.In his written statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. each and every aspect of the matter has been admitted by the accused-Saleem, but he stated that the murder has been committed by accused-Shabnam.Analysis of the evidence and findings So far as the analysis of the motive is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants argued that in case Shabnam wanted to marry Saleem and her family members were objecting to the liaison , there was no reason for them to have murdered all the family members as they could have simply gone away.This is also an undeniable fact that Shabnam at the time of incident, was carrying a six weeks' fetus of Saleem, whom she allowed to take birth.In her 313 Cr.P.C. statement, she clearly stated that Saleem was the father of the said infant.In our view it is the idiosyncratic reaction of an accused when faced with such a situation when there had been a major confrontation in the house of Shabnam regarding the relationship of the two appellants as has been mentioned by PW 2, Hashmat, PW 5 Nischal Tyagi and PW 7 Sukhan Ali, who even stated that Shaukat had beaten accused-Shabnam because of her relations with accused-Saleem, who was of another caste and of poorer economic status and who had snatched away her mobile.It is possible that in such circumstances, one couple may decide to leave their house and to go elsewhere to get married and another couple may decide to murder the inconvenient persons going to the extent of eliminating every single member including the ten months infant so that no co-sharer remains for inheriting the property of the deceased.The issue of motive can never be conclusive for establishing as to whether a particular accused has committed the crime, but the other circumstances have to be examined for reaching a conclusion as to whether the accused persons have committed the crime.An important circumstance that has been relied on in this case for connecting the two appellants with the crime are the recoveries of bloodstained clothes from the two accused-appellants and the bloodstained axe from the appellant-Saleem.The shirt contained human blood, although the blood group could not be determined.On the pointing out of Saleem, an axe with a broken handle was got recovered on 19.2.2008 by S.H.O. Shri R.P. Gupta, PW 29, PW 16, Ganesh Dutt Joshi and other police personnel and witness Lal Mohammad, PW 3 and Bhure from a pond about 200 yards from the road.On close examination, the said axe was found to contain small spots of blood and it was also covered with wet mud.According to the report of Forensic Laboratory, Agra dated 5.5.2008 at item No. 45 the said axe contained a big spot of blood.Also the blood on the axe was of human origin.In response to question No. 44 in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C, which inter alia mentions about the recoveries of the Nokia phone and bloodstained shirt, the accused offered no explanation.Again in response to question No. 30, as to how the appellant-Saleem got recovered the axe from the pond on 19.4.2008 in the presence of police party and witness, the appellant-Saleem stated nothing in his initial statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.However, in his written statement, which he handed over on 17.6.2010, he stated that Shabnam had called him after committing the seven murders and then Shabnam gave him a knife and clothes wrapped in a polythene and asked him to throw them at some distant place.The knife was about 10-12 inches long and it had bloodstains.He put the clothes of Shabnam and knife on a truck loaded with timber, which was standing there.So far as the recovery of axe is concerned, he stated that he himself came to the police station on 18.4.2008 at about 10-11 AM to one constable Vijay Pal, but was detained by the S.H.O, who beat and tortured him and forced him to confess.After than the police picked up the axe whose handle was broken from the police station and took him in the night on a car to a pond in the village, and there the police threw the axe in the water.After few minutes the police personnel with some divers reached there.He was asked to tell the divers about the location of the axe, so he pointed out the direction, and after 6-7 minutes, the divers took out the axe.Then the SHO asked the divers to again place the axe in the same place.On the next morning on 19.4.2008, he was taken to the pond at 8-9 AM, then he was forced to point out to the police where the axe was thrown and the axe was got recovered by the divers.This version of the accused does not commend itself to us.Clearly, as the said axe had human blood and which has been corroborated in the report of the Forensic Expert, it is wholly improbable that the police would be in a position to obtain such a bloodstained axe and they would engage in the complicated operation as described by the appellant-Saleem only for the purpose of falsely implicating him in this case.Significantly, in his written statement, Saleem does not mention that the axe, which has been given to him by the police had no bloodstains on it.Also, if the said axe was planted by the police, the police would never risk throwing the axe in the water not once, but twice because in such circumstances the blood stains may vanish or disappear.The appellant Saleem appears to have developed the theory of use of knife by the co-accused Shabnam for committing the crime only because two doctors PW 24, Dr. Deewan Ram and PW 27, Dr. R.P. Sharma have found some stab wounds on the six dead bodies of Master Shaukat, Rashid, Smt. Hashmi, Anees, Smt. Anjum and Rabia.However the recovered axe was shown to the two doctors, who have clearly stated that the said axe could have caused the stabbed wounds if its edge had struck the deceased persons.No doubt the bloodstains were dim as by that time, 4 days after the incident the appellant could have been expected to have washed off the bloodstains.Another problem with the theory of Saleem that Shabnam had handed over the bloodstained knife and her clothes in a cellophane sheet to him when he was standing downstairs and she was also standing downstairs when the deceased had already been murdered on the upper floor.As per this theory, there was no question of any blood stains being found on his shirt, which have actually been found as per the report of the Forensic Laboratory and he has given no explanation as to how his shirt, which was got recovered from his house from behind the tin trunk contained human blood.Even otherwise, it is highly improbable that Shabnam could have single handedly cut the necks of six deceased persons with the axe and also throttled the little child Arsh with her bare hands, without the assistance of appellant-Saleem, who appears to be hands in gloves with Shabnam at every stage of the crime.So far as Shabnam is concerned, when she was arrested by the S.H.O. R.P. Gupta, PW 29 and SI G.D. Joshi, PW 16 and other police personnel on 19.4.2008 at 4.45 a.m., from her house, on interrogation, she is said to have confessed to her guilt and to have agreed to get the intoxicant bio-pose, mobile, SIM and clothes which she was wearing at the time of the incident recovered.The report of the Forensic Laboratory, Agra dated 5.5.2008 (Ext. Ka 104) clearly establishes that the Kurta and Salwar (item Nos. 43 and 44) contained bloodstains in large parts, although the origin of the blood could not be determined as it had disintegrated.To the specific question Nos. 29 and 44 put to Shabnam that on 19.4.2008 after the police arrested her, she got recovered Salwar suit, mobile and SIM wrapped in a paper and tranquilizer (Exts.3 to 6) respectively, in her explanation she had stated nothing regarding these recoveries.When the witnesses arrived, they saw Shabnam wearing normal clothes, which were not blood stained.The recovery of the blood stained clothes from the basement of her house and their concealment in the said portion of the house, was another circumstance for suggesting that Shabnam had hurriedly changed her clothes which she would not have done had her clothes got blood stained when she was embracing the deceased after she had found that they had been murdered by some outsider.This is another circumstance which suggests her complicity in the offence.The forensic field unit not finding finger or foot prints, blood stains or other marks in the house of the appellant Shabnam and the deceased rather than being a circumstance in favour of the appellant, is either a neutral circumstance or an inculpatory circumstance.Even if some outsiders had committed the crime, such marks would be present if the field unit had carefully searched for them, unless they had all been wiped off by Shabnam, in the same manner that she had changed her clothes before she dramatically raised the alarm for drawing the attention of the witnesses, and then feigned unconsciousness.The viscera report of the Forensic Laboratory, Agra dated 16.4.2008 regarding the six deceased persons (Ext. Ka 105 to 110) showing the presence of diazepam tranquilizer and absence of any poison in the viscera of the ten month old deceased Arsh who may still only have been drinking milk, also supports the prosecution suggestion that the grown up deceased persons were given tranquilizer probably in some food substance such as tea, so that when the murder was committed, they could offer no resistance, and this indeed appears to have been the case as the six deceased persons appear to have been murdered when they were still lying on their beds as established by the fact that the beddings, pillows etc. of all the deceased persons had bloodstains and except the injuries on their necks and chest portion of the deceased, they appears to have received no injury on any other part of the body.Only the little child Arsh was not given any tranquilizer as it was not needed for throttling the little child.None, but a family member who has normal access in the house could have administered the tranquilizer to the deceased persons in order to accomplish the job of murdering the deceased.The finger of guilt would point for this reason also on Shabnam the only other surviving inmate of the house.The explanation given by Shabnam that she was sleeping on the roof alone and hence the assailants had murdered the other seven members of her house sparing her, appears wholly unbelievable.This conduct appears to be improbable and unnatural.The Forensic team and witnesses have not found any bedding on the roof.No doubt Shabnam claimed that she brought the bedding down when the rain started.No robbery or dacoity was committed.None else had a motive for committing these serial killings.The appellant Shabnam who was the solitary person who remained alive in the house was required to explain how the 7 persons had been killed on the night in question.A heavy burden was cast on her in view of section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain these circumstances of which she alone could have special knowledge, which burden has not at all been discharged by her.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

All the sentences were to run concurrently.Convict appellant Ram Achal and the informant Uma Kanti (P.W. 1) lived in the same village Odar, police station Kursi, District Barabanki.The house of Uma Kanti situated towards south of the Galiyara in the village.The prosecution case is stated briefly.Ram Naresh, the son of Smt. Uma Kanti, wife of Raghunath married Smt. Ram Pyara, the wife of appellant Ram Achal about 5 months before the occurrence.It happened when the marriage of Smt. Ram Pyara and Ram Achal was not at all broken.This provided motive for the occurrence in question, inasmuch as Ram Achal was annoyed and had developed illwill against the members of the family of the informant Uma Kanti.On 1-5-84 at about 6.30 p.m. Ram Achal armed with a Banka entered into the house of Uma Kanti.At that hour, two sons of Uma Kanti, namely, Tirath Ram, aged about seven years and Ramu, younger to Tirath Ram, Uma Kanti and Prakash, the son of Ram Achal were present in the house.Uma Kanti was busy in connection with the cooking of food at her house under the Chhappar.Ram Achal after entering into the house attacked and assaulted Tirath Ram with a Banka.He ran towards south but Ram Achal chased him and again gave strokes at him with the Banka causing him fatal injuries.Tirath Ram died on the spot.The remaining two boys Ramu and Prakash ran towards south, entered into the southern Kothri and closed it from inside.The appellant took up the wooden rod which was lying in the courtyard and broke open the Kothri with its help.He attacked Ramu with the Banka and cut off both his arms so that both phalanges separated and fell down on the ground.On raising of the alarm, Raghunath, the husband of Uma Kanthi, the neighbour Parashu Ram and his wife rushed to the house of Uma Kanti and saw the appellant Ram Achal running away from the scene of occurrence.Uma Kanti (P.W. 1) took her son Ramu, whose arms were cut, to police station Kursi situated at about 4 Kilometres from her house and lodged the first information report at 8.10 p.m. on the same day, i.e., 1-5-84 by dictating the same to the Head Moharrir at the police station.Raghunath, the father of the deceased remained at his house where the dead body of Tirath was lying.On the basis of the first information report case was registered in the general diary at the police station.The case was investigated by Sub-Inspector S. N. Pandey (P.W. 7).Dr. Amrik Singh (P.W. 4) who was the Medical Officer at Balrampur Hospital, examined Ramu on 1-5-1984 at 1045 p.m. and prepared the injury report.Following injuries were found on his body : --Amputated right forearm 16 c.m. below from right elbow joint.Edges were clean and clotted blood was present.Amputated left forearm 18 c.m.below from elbow joint, edges were clean and clotted blood was found present.In the opinion of the Doctor, the injuries were fresh and could have been caused by a heavy sharp edged weapon like 'Banka'.He opined that the injuries could have been caused on 1-5-84 at about 6.30 p.m. He denied that the injuries could have been caused by the fodder cutting machine.He advised X-ray.As a result of X-ray of Ramu on 2-5-84 at Balrampur Hospital, Lucknow, X-ray plate was prepared which showed clearly that his both hands were amputated below the wrist.Thereafter he gave the stroke of Banka on the hands of Ramu, so that the portions of both the hands of Ramu, below the wrists were cut off.Thereafter he took up his son Prakash and ran away from the main gate of the house.When he was running out with the Banka as well as Prakash in his lap, Raghunat, and the neighbours Parashu Ram and his wife were rushing towards the scene of occurrence from outside the house.Blood had fallen down in the courtyard as well as in the Barotha and the cut off portions of the hands of Ramu also remained lying in the Angan.JUDGMENT V. Kumar, J.The gate of the house existed towards north and on the south-western end of the house there was fixed a tatiya (a temporary covering made of leaves and branches) and on the northern side of the house there situated a Barotha.Thereafter there existed an open courtyard with Chhappar towards south-west which was used for cooking food.Thereafter, towards the south-west corner, a Kothri situated.This is evident from the testimony of the informant Uma Kanti (P.W. 1) coupled with the site-plan, Ex.Ka-11 which was prepared by the Investigating Officer after his reaching the scene of occurrence on lodging of the first information report about the murder by Uma Kanti on 2-5-84 at 8.30 p.m.Injured Ramu was sent to Balrampur Hospital Lucknow for his medical examination and treatment.The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the informant Uma Kanti at police station Kursi.He proceeded to the spot in the same night, recorded the statements of witnesses including Raghunath.Due to night, further investigation was conducted on the next morning when the inquest report in respect of the dead body of Tirath was prepared, diagram, as well as the challan in respect of the dead body were prepared.After the dead body was duly sealed by the Investigating Officer, it was sent for post mortem examination.Site-plan of the spot was prepared at the instance of the witnesses, wooden rod (pahrua) was also found at the place of occurrence, in respect of which recovery memo was prepared.Bloodstained earth and ordinary earth were also taken from the places inside the house of Uma Kanti where the dead body was lying, as well as where Ramu was attacked and his arms were cut.The phalanges of Ramu were sent to the Balrampur Hospital after being sealed by the Investigating Officer.From the house of Darshan, the child Prakash was recovered by the Investigating Officer.He also recovered bloodstained Banka from the house of Smt. Dhankunni.Recovery memos were prepared.Investigation was subsequently taken over by Sub-Inspector Ram Ashish Misra who recorded the statement of the accused Ram Achal.Only Ram Achal was convicted by the trial Court and the remaining two accused were acquitted.From the side of the prosecution, eight witnesses were examined, out of whom two witnesses, namely, Uma Kanti (P.W. 1) and Ramji (P.W. 2) are the witnesses of the occurrence and the remaining witnesses are formal.Besides the Investigating Officer, Shambhu Nath Pandey (P.W. 7), and the Constable Vikram Prasad (P.W. 6) who had taken the dead body of Tirath from the place of occurrence for post-mortem examination, three Doctors, namely, Dr. Amrik Singh (P.W. 4), Dr. V. S. Saluja (P.W. 5) and Dr. A. D. Dass Gupta (P.W. 8) were also examined.Dr. A. D. Dass Gupta has conducted the post-mortem examination, and the remaining two Doctors have examined the injured Ramu and his X-ray reports.Appellant Ram Achal denied the occurrence and pleaded not guilty.Rigor mortis had passed off on the upper part of the body, but was present in the lower part.Doctor has further opined that the injuries could have been caused by Banka and were quite sufficient to cause death in ordinary course.In cross-examination, he denied that the injuries could have been caused from a weapon like 'Kulhari'.In the opinion of the Doctor, the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the ante-mortem injuries.Injured Ramu was admitted in the Balrampur Hospital and was medically treated there for about a month before he was discharged.The prosecution case is supported by Smt. Uma Kanti (P.W. 1) and the injured witness Ramu (P.W. 2).Uma Kanti deposed that at about five months prior to the occurrence marriage of his son Ram Naresh with Smt. Pyara, the wife of the accused-appellant Ram Achal had taken place.Ram Achal was, therefore, annoyed with and inimical to the members of the family of Uma Kanti.On her remarriage with Ram Naresh she brought two sons, Prakash and Padari with her and the remaining two issues were left behind with Ram Achal.Two days before the incident, along with her son Padari, Pyara had gone away to the house of her relation, but Prakash continued to live at the house of Uma Kanti.Uma Kanti further deposed that on the date of occurrence, Ram Naresh was in jail.She as well as her husband Raghunath had returned to their house at about 3 p.m. on the date of occurrence after meeting their son Ram Naresh in Barabanki jail.At the "time of incident, there were only four persons, namely, she herself, her two children namely Tirath, Ramu and the aforementioned Prakash inside her house.She was making preparations for cooking food near the Angan of her house.The main gate of the house was bolted from inside.In the evening about half an hour before sun set (1-5-84), Ram Achal, after breaking open the Tatiya which was existing on the north-western side of her house, entered the house.He was armed with a Banka.The three children were present in the Angan of the house.Ram Achal gave a blow with Banka over the head of Tirath.An alarm was raised by her and the children.Tirath ran towards Barotha.Ram Achal gave further blows to Tirath with Banka.She further stated that Ramu and Prakash escaped and went inside the Kothri and bolted the same from inside, but Ram Achal rushed towards them.From the courtyard he took up a wooden rod (Pahara) used for thrashing paddy and broke open the door of the Kothri.Further Uma Kanti (P.W. 1) sworn that she, accompanied by Suresh and Sukhraj, took Ramu to police station Kurshi where first information report about the occurrence was written by the Head Moharrir on her dictation.Ramu was sent to Balrampur Hospital where he remained admitted for about a month in connection with his treatment.In cross-examination she stated that Ramu was taken on a cot by Suresh and Shukhraj up to the police station.According to her, Prakash was aged about four years when Ram Achal took him away in his lap after committing the offences.She denied the suggestion of the appellant's side that at the time of occurrence, she and her husband had not returned to their village from Barabanki.She stated that while running away from her house after the incident, Ram Achal himself had opened hinges of the main gate of the house in order to get out of the house.She admitted that when she and her husband Raghunath had gone to visit Ram Naresh in Jail at Barabanki in the same morning, three children were left behind in the house.Her testimony shows that the house of Parmeshwar was situated close to her house and after the house of Parmeshwar there existed the house of one Bhuneshwar.Adjoining the house of Bhuneshwar, there existed the house of Ram Achal.She stated that when she went to the police station, she had left her husband Raghunath at her house where the dead body of Tirath was lying.Injured Ramu was sent from the police station to the hospital by Ekka.She stated that after the marriage of his son Ram Naresh with Smt. Pyara, she had no talk or altercation with Ram Achal up to the date of the occurrence.She denied the suggestion of the appellant's side that Tirath and Ramu were injured in the course of dacoity at her house.She stated that after lodging the first information report at the police station, she returned home at about 10 p.m. on the same day with the Sub-Inspector by his vehicle.She denied that on the date of occurrence Prakash was not living with her at her house, but on the other hand he was living with his maternal grandfather.Ramu (P.W. 2) is a child witness.Before recording his deposition the trial Court had satisfied itself that the child witness was intelligent enough to understand the questions and answers and also the sanctity of oath, and it was thereafter that Ramu was administered oath before his deposition was recorded.Ramu (P.W. 2) supported the prosecution case of the occurrence.According to him in the evening before sun set, about 1 1/2 years prior to the date of his deposition, i.e. on 27-1-86, Tirath was murdered and both of his hands were cut off by Ram Achal by means of Banka.Giving the details, he stated that at that time he himself, his mother, Tirath and Prakash were present inside the house, and out of them, the three children including himself were playing in the courtyard inside the house.Ram Achal entered the house with a Banka in his hand from the side of the Tatiya and struck the Banka at Tirath.All the persons raised an alarm.Tirath ran away towards Barotha, but Ram Achal chased him.He supported his mother (Uma Kanti, P.W. 1) by stating that his mother ran behind Ram Achal.He sworn that he and Prakash rushed and concealed themselves in the Kothri, but the door of the Kothri was broken open by Ram Achal who caught hold of him, dragged him up to the Tarwaha in the courtyard and cut both his hands over there by means of the Banka.Ram Achal took Prakash with him and ran away.Tirath succumbed to the injuries.In cross-examination he stated that his mother was not cooking food but was making preparations for cooking food.According to him his parents had returned home earlier after meeting Ram Naresh in Jail the same day.He denied that Smt. Pyara was remarried to any one else except Ram Naresh.In cross-examination he further stated that on the date of occurrence Ram Naresh was in Jail and prior to it also Ram Naresh did not live in the house but he did not know where he lived.When he was asked about how many years prior to the occurrence in question Ram Naresh lived outside the house, he expressed ignorance.He stated that after the occurrence Pyara had come to the house of his mother and stayed there.He denied that he had become unconscious when his hands were cut by Ram Achal.Both the witnesses, namely, Uma Kanti and Ramu relating to the occurrence have withstood the test of cross-examination.There is no divergence on any material particular relating to the occurrence.It is a fact that the statement of Ramu who remained in the hospital for about a month for his treatment just after the occurrence was not recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. But the prosecution side at the very initial stage of the trial before, the oral evidence was produced in the case had moved an application pointing out the importance of the evidence of Ramu, an injured witness in this case and requested that despite the fact that his name had not been mentioned as a witness in the chargesheet submitted by the police or in the calendar sent by the committing Magistrate to the Court of Session, the prosecution side be allowed to produce him as a witness in the interest of justice.On that application dated 14-1-86 moved from the side of the State, Court ordered thus : --He had given a vivid account of the occurrence just like Uma Kanti (P. W. 1).He was cross-examined at length by putting to him varied and diverse questions and his answers seem to have been given on his own.Himself being attacked and injured during the course of the occurrence, he was definitely in a position to watch and thereafter narrate the happenings.It will not be correct to say that Ramu is a tutored child witness.His testimony which gets corroboration from other evidence also is reliable and inspires confidence.The medical evidence detailed above corroborates the oral testimony of the P.Ws.Uma Kanti and Ramu.Dr. Gupta (P. W. 8) who conducted the post-mortem examination and Dr. Amrik Sin (P. W. 4) and Dr. V. S. Saluza (P. W. 5) in respect of the injuries of Ramu were cross-examined, but there has come on the record nothing to discredit their testimony or in other words the medical evidence.The first information report about the occurrence was lodged at the nearest police station after an hour and forty minutes from the time of the occurrence.It was lodged at 8.10 p.m. on the same date, i.e., 1-5-84, while the time of occurrence was about 6.30 p.m. The police station situated at about 4 Kms.from the place of occurrence.It is evident that the injured Ramu was taken by Uma Kanti on a cot with the help of two persons and they covered the distance on foot in order to reach the police station and on reaching the police station report was lodged at 8.10 p.m. The first information report is prompt.It corroborates the testimony of the informant Uma Kanti (P. W. 1) and the prosecution case in all material particulars.It was not necessary to mention in the first information report the motive of the occurrence which concerned the remarriage of Pyara with Ram Naresh, and the fact that the informant Uma Kanti and her husband had returned to their house in the afternoon of the same day, i.e. 1-5-84 after visiting their son Ram Naresh in Jail.These are not the particulars of the occurrence.On the other hand these are the points of details which are not necessarily required in a report particularly of such occurrence as the instant one.Moreover the appellant Ram Achal in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. has himself admitted that his wife Pyara had remarried Ram Naresh about five months before the occurrence, while his marriage with Pyara was subsisting, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the first information report is belated and is not worthy of reliance is not correct.In the instant case, the Investigating Officer has recovered bloodstained earth from two places inside the house of Uma Kanti (P. W. 1), mentioned as the scene of occurrence.This is borne out from the testimony of the Investigating Officer coupled with the recovery memos prepared.The suggestion from the appellant side put to Uma Kanti (P.W. 1) shows that according to defence version dacoity was committed at the house of Uma Kanti in the same night and in the course of that dacoity the murder of Tirath and cutting of both hands of Ramu took place.Thus, there is hardly a dispute about the place of occurrence.In the circumstances, not sending the bloodstained earth to Serologist and Chemical Examiner for ascertaining that it is human blood doesAccording to the learned counsel for the appellant it is improbable that the appellant would have attacked the two brothers (viz. Tirath and Ramu) of Ram Naresh instead of Ram Naresh and his mother Uma Kanti.Ram Naresh was in jail from prior to the date of occurrence.It cannot be said whether he had any opportunity of taking revenge against Ram Naresh personally.Uma Kanti (P. W. 1) no doubt ran behind the appellant after his first attack at Tirath in the course of occurrence but she did not resist, nor could check the appellant in making the assaults.Hence the appellant, it appears, did not make her his target of attack.According to the appellant he has been implecated falsely on account of enmity.He himself has not put forward anything to make what enmity according to him was.He has produced no evidence, oral or documentary.His version that he has been implicated falsely on account of enmity is not correct.There is convincing evidence on the record to make out the prosecution case.The prosecution side having established its case against the appellant beyond all shadow of doubt, the appellant has rightly been convicted for the offence of murder of Tirath under Section 302, I.P.C., for causing grievous injury to Ramu with Banka under Section 326, I.P.C., as well as for the offences punishable under Section 452, I.P.C. He had taken away his son Prakash aged about 4 years while he was running away after the murder and assault.This was extended from the side of the appellant against the family members of Uma Kanti in whose house and with whom Pyara lived for some time after Pyara's marriage with Ram Naresh.The appeal is partly allowed.The conviction of the appellant Ram Achal under Section 302, I.P.C. passed by the trial Court is upheld.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

I am not referring to the names of these persons (which can be seen in the record) so as not to reveal identity of the victim.I will refer to them as father, mother brother and victim.(b) On 3.5.2013, P.W.9 father of victim filed report with Beed Rural Police Station, claiming that, on 2.5.2013 there was marriage of one Sheetal Nagargoje at Kapildhar, Taluka and District Beed.The victim and her family are residents of Shekta, Taluka Georai, District Beed.The report claimed that, for the marriage of Sheetal (P.W.7) the victim had gone along with the bride to Kapildhar and was ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:58 ::: Criminal Appeal No.889/2015 4 present at the time of marriage ceremony till about 4.00 p.m. The mother of the victim had also gone for the marriage.The mother could not find the victim after 4.00 p.m. and started searching for her.She rang up her husband (father of victim) and told the fact.The family searched for the victim at the place of relatives and when the victim was not found, the missing report (Exh.57) was being filed.Photograph of the victim was affixed on the same.In the missing report, the father expressed suspicion rather on P.W.7 Sheetal for the daughter going missing.(c) Subsequently, P.W.2, the mother of victim on 6.5.2013, filed F.I.R. Exh.45 reporting to the police that the victim, aged about 15 years, had been studying in Rajmata Jijau Middle School in 9 th Standard.There was marriage at Kapildhar in the brotherhood, for which the victim had gone along with bride Sheetal @ Balu (P.W.7).The bride had called the victim on 29.4.2013 itself, and it was ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:58 ::: Criminal Appeal No.889/2015 5 reported that, along with the marriage party she and her son (P.W.8), aged about 10 years had gone to Kapildhar.The husband remained back to attend another marriage in the village Shekta.The victim had gone along with the bride in jeep.The marriage took place at around 2.00 p.m. and the victim was seen to be around till 4.00 p.m. Thereafter, she was not seen.When she was not found, her son (P.W.8) told her that, some time back he had seen her talking with juvenile Dnyaneshwar and accused No.2 Anna Gavhane.Even thereafter they searched for the victim and came back to village Shekta and searched there also.The report alleged that, the accused No.1 Bhagwan had enticed and made the victim run away and that accused No.2 Anna and juvenile Dnyaneshwar had helped the accused No.1 in this regard.The victim had been taken away enticing her with the promise of marriage.Thus, the complaint.He recorded statements of witnesses.After some days on 14.5.2013, police traced the location of the accused No.1 on the basis of location of mobile and the victim and the accused were found in an Omni Car parked on the side of the road about 3 Kms.from place called Badalwadi on Pune Solapur Road in the Taluka area of Indapur, District Pune.On the victim being found, she was taken to the police Station.She was got medically examined.Accused No.1 was also medically examined.Their clothes were seized.The statement of victim was recorded.Accused No.1 had taken her from place to places and went on committing forcible intercourse with her.The material fact remains that, the victim claimed that she had been forcibly taken and was indeed found subsequently in the Car of accused No.1 with him on Highway.There is evidence of P.W.10 Police Constable Ramesh stating that he was attached at Police Constable to Jalas Chowki Highway Police on Pune Solapur Road.The evidence of P.W.10 Ramesh is that, he was told by the Hawaldar that A.P.I. from Beed has come as location of Bhagwan who has kidnapped minor is noticed at Badalwadi and he was directed to go with the A.P.I. According to him, he phone called his ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 ::: Criminal Appeal No.889/2015 15 friend Mane, resident of Badalwadi area, asking him to collect information about the Maruti vehicle in which the accused had kidnapped a minor.In the incident concerned, prosecution alleged involvement of one another juvenile in conflict with law -::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:58 :::Dnyaneshwar Kamble.366-A, 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC in brief).By way of additional charge, the original accused No.1 and 2 were charged with offence under Section 4 as well as Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("Act" in brief).Accused No.2 was additionally charged with offence under Section 16 of the Act. After the trial, the accused No.2 came to be acquitted of the charges which were framed against him while the appellant - accused came to be convicted under Sections 363 and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code.For both these Sections, there is sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.The accused has also been convicted under Section 4 of the Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.The Trial Court found that in view of the conviction under Section 4 of the Act, need of invoking Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code became ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:58 ::: Criminal Appeal No.889/2015 3 redundant.The trial Court acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 376 of the IPC and also Section 6 of the Act, holding that, accused was not police officer etc.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:58 :::The case of the prosecution in short may be stated to be as under :(a) P.W.9 is father and P.W.2 is mother of prosecutrix, who has been examined in the trial Court as P.W.14 (hereinafter referred as "victim").The father followed up the missing report with a complaint or reminder to the Superintendent of Police on 4.5.2013 sending letter Exh.58 that no action has been taken.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:58 :::Crime No.58/2013 was registered on such ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:58 ::: Criminal Appeal No.889/2015 6 complaint on 6.5.2013 at about 12.30 noon.The investigation was taken over by P.W.17 A.P.I.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:58 :::The Car had broken down when police found them.The investigating officer collected birth certificate of the victim from school and the evidence collected showed that the victim was a minor and consequently, the charge sheet came to be filed for ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:58 ::: Criminal Appeal No.889/2015 7 kidnapping and rape of the victim.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:58 :::Trial Court framed charge under various Sections as mentioned earlier.The accused persons pleaded not guilty.The defence of the accused No.2 was of denial.Accused No.1 claimed that, he and the victim had a love affair and he did not entice her to go with him.It is a defence that, rather the victim herself ran away from the place of marriage at Kapildhar and joined the accused who was waiting at fixed spot in the Omni Car and she on her own went along with the accused.In the defence and statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused claimed that, he had not committed any sexual intercourse with her.The accused being found with the victim from the Car as brought in evidence, was not disputed.Prosecution examined 17 witnesses.Accused No.2 examined himself in defence.Trial Court considered the evidence and acquitted accused No.2, not accepting the evidence of the victim that accused No.2 and the juvenile had forcibly taken her.The evidence was read with statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and trial Court held that, the role of accused No.2 in the ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:58 ::: Criminal Appeal No.889/2015 8 kidnapping had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:58 :::The acquittal of the accused No.2 has not been challenged and I need not enter into that aspect.As far as regards accused No.1 - the appellant is concerned, trial Court found that, the offence of kidnapping and committing forcible intercourse was established.Section 5(l) clearly provides that, whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on the child more than once or repeatedly is said to commit aggravated penetrative sexual assault.This would attract Section 6 of the Act.) However, against such finding of the trial Court and acquittal under ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:58 ::: Criminal Appeal No.889/2015 9 Section 6, State has not come up in appeal and I may not go into those details.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:58 :::I have heard learned counsel for the appellant -accused as well as A.P.P. for State.The learned counsel for the accused took me through the evidence and submitted that, statement of victim was recorded after she was found by police where she had spoken in favour of accused, but later contradicted her ig statement to police which was earlier recorded.According to the counsel, it was a case of consensual going of the victim with the accused and looking to the contradictions and omissions, the victim should have been disbelieved that she had been forcibly kidnapped and raped.The counsel submitted that, P.W.11 Dr. Deepali opined that the victim was between the age of 12 to 14 on the basis of ossification report she had obtained, but the Radiologist was not examined.According to him, the doctor accepted that the opinion regarding age varies by plus - minus two.Thus, according to the counsel, the victim should not have been held as below 16 years of age.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 :::Criminal Appeal No.889/2015 10 Thus, according to him, there was variance regarding the date of birth and exact age was not established.It is further argued that, the prosecution did not prove that it was the accused who enticed or induced the victim to leave the marriage premises at Kapildhar.She went on her own and thus, kidnapping was not established.The counsel stated that, to apply Section 366-A of IPC, it will have to be established the minor was procured to have sexual intercourse with "another person".For this, the counsel relied on the case of Mohd. Nisar Vs.State of Maharashtra reported in 2007 Cri.Counsel for the accused further submitted that, looking to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence to 7 years instead of 10 years as imposed by the trial Court.The learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant -According to him, the victim was between the age of 12 to 14 at the time of incident, which takes care of the plus minus of two years.He supported the reasons recorded by ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 ::: Criminal Appeal No.889/2015 11 the trial Court.According to him, she was less than 16 years of age at the time of incident.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 :::Thus, according to the A.P.P., looking at the matter from any angle, the victim was a minor in the eyes of law.She was taken out of the custody of her parents without their consent and her willingness was immaterial.Her evidence is that, she was threatened and taken and subjected to forcible intercourse.The evidence of the witnesses as to the manner in which the victim was found along with accused No.1 on the Highway in the Omni Car standing on side of the road was not at all disputed.The medical certificate showed that, the hymen of the victim was ruptured.Reading the medical evidence with the evidence of the victim shows the kidnapping and rape and multiple forcible intercourse was proved.According to the A.P.P., the earlier report of the ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 ::: Criminal Appeal No.889/2015 12 parents to the police was that the daughter was missing and suspicion rather on P.W.7 Sheetal was expressed and this showed that, there was no love affair or else the parents would have in the first instance itself suspected the accused.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 :::In reply, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that, between 2.5.2013 to 14.5.2013, the victim was with the accused and there was no evidence that, she tried to run away.ig On her person there were no marks of violence and thus, she was consenting party.Initially she gave statement in favour of the accused, but later on resiled at the time of evidence, it is stated.I have gone through the evidence.Regarding the victim going missing on 2.5.2013, there are witnesses examined.P.W.2 is the mother of victim.Her evidence read with the evidence of P.W.9, the father of victim as well as P.W.8, the brother of victim shows that, these people are residents of Shekta and victim was residing with them.Victim went for the function of marriage with P.W.7 Sheetal from Shekta to Kapildhar.The evidence of these witnesses as well as P.W.6 Babasaheb Misal who also attended the marriage as well as P.W.7 Sheetal shows that, the victim indeed was ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 ::: Criminal Appeal No.889/2015 13 present at Kapildhar at the time of marriage.The marriage appears to have taken place in the afternoon and the evidence is that, after about 4.00 p.m., she was not to be seen and there was frantic search by the mother which did not yield results.P.W.2, the mother called up the husband P.W.9 and informed.The evidence shows that, these people searched at Kapildhar as well as Shekta, but the victim was not to be found.Consequently, P.W.9 father filed report Exh.57 on 3.5.2013, in which rather he expressed doubts on P.W.7 Sheetal, the bride to be responsible for his missing daughter.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 :::Then the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.9, parents of victim, which shows that, noticing that the accused No.1 Bhagwan was also not to be seen in the village since 2.5.2013 and his Omni Car was also not there, the mother filed F.I.R.Exh.15, reporting that they had learnt from the brother of victim that the victim had been seen on the date of marriage talking with P.W.2 Annasaheb and the juvenile Dnyaneshwar and that the accused No.1 Bhagwan was missing since 2.5.2013 from the village.And so the F.I.R. claimed that accused No.2 and juvenile Dnyaneshwar kidnapped the victim.It appears from the evidence of these parents and P.W.8, the brother that, the brother claimed that he had seen accused ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 ::: Criminal Appeal No.889/2015 14 No.2 and juvenile Dnyaneshwar talking with the victim some distance away from the place of the marriage and the evidence of the brother is that, both those persons told the victim that her mother was feeling giddy and to come with them but she was not ready and they forcibly took her on motorcycle.Even the victim has deposed in this regard claiming that she was forcibly taken by those two persons.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 :::There is evidence of P.W.16 Santosh Mane, who has corroborated this P.W.10 claiming that on 14.5.2013, at about 10.00 a.m., he was in his field and received phone call from Constable Bhosale, asking whether there is Omni Car in the vicinity.He deposed that, he saw that vehicle while returning to his house and accordingly informed Bhosale.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 :::ig P.W.16 deposed that, police of Indapur and Beed then reached the spot and took custody of boy and girl from that Omni Car.This witness pointed out towards the accused as the same person.No cross-examination of P.W.16 was done by the accused and thus, the evidence on this count was unchallenged.The evidence of P.W.10 Constable Ramesh and P.W.15 Shivaji Kadam shows that, along with A.P.I., the police had gone in the vehicle of this P.W.15 and when they reached the concerned spot, at some distance from Badalwadi, they found the Omni vehicle standing.P.W.16 Mane appeared to have already caught the said boy and girl.The evidence shows that, the victim and the accused No.1 were sitting in the Car.The cross-examination of P.W.15 Shivaji shows that, P.W.16 Mane at the concerned time was accompanied with two friends and these people were standing ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 ::: Criminal Appeal No.889/2015 16 near the vehicle which was standing by the side of the road.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 :::The evidence of P.W.15 is that, he had asked accused No.1 why he did like this and he claimed that, he had love affair with the victim and was going to marry her.As per this witness, even the girl replied in the same fashion.Thus, what appears is that, in the couple of days after the victim was taken when she was with him she was under his threat (as deposed by her) or came under his influence to initially support him.In the evidence, the victim deposed that, she was taken in the Omni Car by the accused and when she shouted, he had pressed her mouth.The Car proceeded towards Solapur.Her evidence is that, she was unable to tell the names of the places.The evidence is that, the accused used to halt at places where there was no locality and used to commit forcible intercourse on her in the vehicle.Only the two of them were in the Car.She deposed that, the accused committed forcible intercourse with her 4-5 times.She deposed that, when she was refusing and shouting, the accused was threatening her.The evidence is that, at a place the vehicle developed mechanical defect and the police reached and caught them.She deposed that, when the police ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 ::: Criminal Appeal No.889/2015 17 was making enquiries with her, she was unable to tell properly.(Thus the initial support to accused).I have gone through the cross-examination of the victim.In the cross-::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 :::She denied the suggestion.Even this suggestion was denied.The witness cannot be said to be shattered on this count.It was suggested to her that, she voluntarily left with the accused No.1 for performing marriage.The suggestion was denied.She was confronted with the portions of her statement to police earlier.The portions from her earlier statement to police have been proved at Exh.78, which relate to questions like - "If she had told to police that she had recorded mobile number of accused No.1 which was printed on the car; that she had talk with the accused on telephone; that they used to talk with each other on telephone since last four months; that she rang up accused on 30.4.2013 and asked him to come at Kapildhar on 2.5.2013 and then they would run away and perform marriage; that on the day of marriage at about 3.20 ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 ::: Criminal Appeal No.889/2015 18 p.m., she left marriage hall and went directly to the vehicle of the accused; and that they had taken meals at Tembhurni".::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 :::The evidence of victim is that, she was being threatened so as not to shout and giving her threats, the accused had been committing forcible intercourse.The argument that she had no injuries is thus not material.A school going young girl from village caught in such manner could be influenced with passage of days to speak in favour of accused when they were caught.The contradictions and omissions, in the circumstances, would not be material.Important is that, after the accused and victim were found, the accused was got examined from P.W.11 Dr. Deepali and the doctor found that the accused was capable of performing sexual intercourse and the victim when got examined from P.W.1 Dr. Deepali, it was found that the hymen of the victim was ruptured and opined that sexual intercourse had been committed on her.In the ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 ::: Criminal Appeal No.889/2015 19 circumstances, and taking overall view of the evidence, the evidence of victim deserves to be accepted that she was taken by accused and there were instances of forcible intercourse on her.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 :::Regarding the age, the evidence shows that, the victim was studying in 9 th Standard.The evidence of P.W.2, the mother is that, the victim was admitted in the school when she was about 5-6 years old and that she had not failed in any Standard.The mother herself has studied up to 5 th Standard and it is not that she is illiterate as such.There is evidence of P.W.12 Avinash Pandit, the Head Master of school, who has proved certified copy Exh.74 from the school record.P.W.12 Avinash proved this document on the basis of original record.He deposed that, the original register was in his handwriting and that he had recorded the date of birth as per Zilla Parishad School Leaving Certificate which had been brought by the victim.Although that certificate of Zilla Parishad school had not been brought on record, the acts performed by P.W.12 were in ordinary course ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 ::: Criminal Appeal No.889/2015 20 of business much before the present incident took place and there is no reason to doubt the acts of P.W.12 performing duty in ordinary course of business.The learned counsel for the appellant - accused relied on the case of Sunil Vs.State of Haryana, reported in 2010(1) SCC 742 to submit that, in that matter, interalia the Supreme Court observed that, admission form of the school had not been produced which would have been primary evidence regarding age of the prosecutrix.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 :::According to the counsel, the document of Zilla Parishad School Leaving Certificate should have been brought on record and thus, the evidence of P.W.12 should be discarded.The present matter will have to be considered on cumulative effect of facts proved in this matter.This was in the matter of Jarnail Singh Vs.No doubt in the present matter the date of birth certificate is not from the first school.However, the evidence of P.W.12 Head Master Avinash is that, he had made the entry on the basis of school leaving certificate of the Zilla Parishad school which had been attended.The witness P.W.12 Avinash does not have any reason to depose in favour of victim or against the accused.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 :::Apart from this, there is evidence of P.W.14, the victim herself.This is slight variation or slip of tongue, but in the cross-examination of the victim, her evidence regarding her date of birth was not denied or challenged.Take it to be 5.6.1995 or 6.5.1997, on the date of incident of 2.5.2013, she would still be less than 16 years.This is apart from the fact that, at the concerned time, Section 375 of IPC had already been changed and the relevant age had become 18 years.Even under the Act, the relevant age is 18 years.Again there is evidence of P.W.11 Dr. Deepali, who has deposed that, she had got done X-ray of the victim and obtained Radiologist report and opinion and found that the victim at the relevant time was between 12 to 14 years of age.In the cross-examination, she denied that, her opinion of the age was based only on the opinion of the Radiologist.She deposed that, the age of the victim could not be 16 to 18 years for the reason that, the line of fusion exists below the ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 ::: Criminal Appeal No.889/2015 23 age of 14 years or up to 14 years and then disappears.Her evidence regarding age of the victim to be between 12 to 14 at the concerned time was on the basis of the X-ray plates she had obtained.No doubt the X-ray plates were not proved in the trial Court and the Radiologist was not examined, but the evidence of the doctor who was medical officer in the District Hospital, Beed, is based on her own examination of the victim and supporting X-ray which she got done in the discharge of her official functions.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 :::ig Thus, the evidence of P.W.11 Dr. Deepali would be required to be given some weighage regarding her opinion.Keeping in view the school record, the oral evidence of the victim as well as the medical evidence of P.W.11 Dr. Deepali, in any case the victim must be said to be minor and it could not be said that she was above 18 years of age.The learned counsel for the appellant - accused relied on the case of Mohd. Nisar Vs.State of Maharashtra (supra) and referring to observations of this Court in para 12 of that judgment, stated that, Section 366-A of the IPC could be applied only if the minor girl was taken so as to force or ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 ::: Criminal Appeal No.889/2015 24 seduce her to illicit intercourse with "another person" and could not be applied if the accused had taken her to himself commit the forcible intercourse.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 :::It would be thus appropriate to convert the conviction awarded by trial Court under Section 366-A into a conviction under Section 366 of IPC and otherwise maintain the sentence as was passed by the trial Court.I have gone through the judgment of the trial ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 ::: Criminal Appeal No.889/2015 25 Court.The Trial Court rightly found the accused guilty of kidnapping as well as committing repeated forcible intercourse on the victim who was minor.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 :::that, had there been a love affair, the parents would not have in earlier filed Missing Report Exh.57 on 3.5.2013 suspected the bride Sheetal, whose marriage the victim had gone to attend.In judgment, Trial Court gave benefit to accused under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure w.e.f.20.5.2013 to 14.5.2015 when judgment was passed.::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 :::Criminal Appeal No.889/2015 26 ORDER (A) The conviction and sentence of the appellant - accused under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, as imposed by the trial Court, is maintained.(B) The conviction imposed by the trial Court under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is converted into conviction under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the ig appellant-accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.The appeal is disposed of in these terms.( A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2016 01:05:59 :::

['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent.He has been falsely implicated.The marriage certificate is annexed as annexure-3 to the petition which shows that the victim is the legally wedded wife of the applicant.Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Let the applicantAnkit, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

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

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

The petitioner herein has been charged for offences under Section 148, 324, 326, 307 IPC r/w 149 of IPC.The incident which 1/4http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.22253 of 2019 culminated into a First Information Report, is a group clash between two groups of students of the Government Law College of Pondicherry.The petitioner herein has been arrayed as 19 th Accused.As per the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of L.W.18, L.W.19 and L.W.20, the petitioner was implicated on the basis of the statement therein that he had assaulted the victim with an iron rod.Apart from these three witnesses, there is no other overtact as against this petitioner.Subsequently, during the course of trial, L.W.18 was dispensed with and insofar as L.W.19 and L.W.20 are concerned, they have not implicated the petitioner and there is absolutely no overtact to connect the petitioner with the offences.When the only two witnesses had earlier implicated the petitioner in their 161 Cr.P.C., statement, had now turned hostile and have not mentioned the name of the petitioner herein, this Court is unable to appreciate as to how the trial Court can convict this petitioner.3.In the absence of any incriminating material or evidence as against this petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner need not undergo the ordeal of the criminal proceedings before the trial Court.2/4http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.22253 of 2019 In view of the conclusion that the trial Court could arrive, this would be an appropriate and fit case where the extraordinary powers of this Court can be invoked for quashing the proceedings as against the petitioner.4.In the light of the above observations, the impugned charge sheet in S.C.No.8 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Assistant sessions Judge at Puducherry , insofar as the petitioner/ 19th accused is concerned, stands quashed and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.12.09.2019 Internet: Yes/No Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order pnn To The Sub Inspector of Police, Kalapet Police Station, Pondicherry.3/4http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.22253 of 2019 M.S.RAMESH, J.pnn Crl.O.P.No.22253 of 2019 12.09.2019 4/4http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 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 J.G. Chitre, J.The appellants are assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 539 of 1993 wherein appellant Navin Purshottam Shetty has been sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo 51 for 7 days for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC.He has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years for the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 397 of IPC.He has been sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default S.I. fr 3 days.Appellant Bhaskar Virappa Kanchan has been sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo SI for 7 days for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC.He has been sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default S.I. for 3 days for the offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC.These two appellants were tried before the trial Court mentioned above along with other three co-accused, namely, Ejaj Badshah Shaikh, Rashid @ Mamit Abdul Majid Ansari and Sayyed.Their appeals are not before this Court today for hearing.The prosecution case in brief is that PW-1 Ghevarchand Sonaji Jain runs a courier business under the style "Maruti Express Service Pvt. Ltd.".Rajendra Ganpat Lalji Sharma was at the relevant time in his employment as servant and was working in his said shop which was the subject matter of the said decoity.On 8.9.1991 at about 6.15 p.m. PW-1 Ghevarchand Sonaji Jain was in his cabin of the shop and his employees, namely Rajendra Sharma, Manojkumar Mehta were working in his shop.As per the prosecution case, at that time one person entered in shop and dragged PW-2 Manojkumar Mehta, PW Rajendra Sharma at the point of weapons and by pointing a chopper towards PW-1 Ghevarchand Sonaji Jain, took away cash belonging to him to the tune of Rs. 55,000/-.At that time some persons were standing outside the cabin.After looting the said cash from him, those persons started to run away who were chased by some of the prosecution witnesses and the members of the public.They could not be caught.The appellant Navin Purushottam Shetty was arrested on 23.10.1992 and appellant Bhaskar Kanchan was also arrested near about the same day.Appellant Navin Shetty was put to identification parade on 24.10.1992 and as per prosecution case was identified by PW-1 Ghevarchand Sonaji Jain, by PW Manojkumar Mehta and PW Rajendra Sharma.Appellant Navin Shetty has been identified by those witnesses as the person who took away Rs. 55000/- from PW-1 Ghevarchand Sonaji Jain by showing him the chopper.They identified Bhaskar Kanchan as the person who was with him and associate of Shetty at that time.He has taken sufficient care for avoiding any possibility of interference from the police personnel.The evidence of the panch witnesses is also above board in this context.

['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Ms Megha Bahl, Advocate.SI Sanjay Kumar, PS- Madhu Vihar.(c) That both the parties further undertake not to file any case/petition/complainant against each other in respect of the aforesaid case in future.W.P.(CRL) 789/2016 Page 2 of 4(e) That the present MOU has been arrived between the parties to settle the matter amicably and by their own free will, without any pressure, fear and coercion and after fully understanding the implication having arrived at this MOU.This MOU shall not be calling in question in future on the ground that the parties were not competent to enter into this MOU or were under in any disability or on any other similar ground.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J MARCH 11, 2016 mk W.P.(CRL) 789/2016 Page 4 of 4W.P.(CRL) 789/2016 Page 4 of 4Through: Mr Avi Singh, Addl.Mr F.Khan, Advocate for R-2 with complainant in person.HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No.98/2015, under Sections 279/509 IPC registered at Police Station- Madhu Vihar, Delhi.W.P.(CRL) 789/2016 Page 1 of 4W.P.(CRL) 789/2016 Page 1 of 4The subject FIR came to be registered against the petitioner on an allegation made by the complainant/respondent No.2 herein that the petitioner had misbehaved with her and used abusive language over a trivial issue of incorrect parking of vehicle by the latter.The salient terms and conditions of the afore-stated settlement are as follows:-"(a) That both parties agreed that the pending cases and FIR against each other would be withdrawn unequivocally, unconditionally without any demur.(b) The First Party/petitioner shall prepare a quashing petition for quashing the FIR No. 98/2015, U/s:- 279/509 I.P.C., P.S.:- Madhu Vihar and the respondent shall co-operate to quash the said F.I.R.Both the parties bound with the terms and conditions of this MOU."In view of the foregoing, since the dispute that led to the registration of the subject FIR has been amicably resolved between the parties without W.P.(CRL) 789/2016 Page 3 of 4 any undue influence, coercion or pressure, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the subject FIR.W.P.(CRL) 789/2016 Page 3 of 4Resultantly, FIR No.98/2015, under Sections 279/509 IPC registered at Police Station- Madhu Vihar, Delhi is hereby set aside and quashed qua the petitioner subject to his depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/- with the Victims' Compensation Fund within a period of two weeks from today and an undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of one year.The receipt of the said deposit shall be furnished to the IO in the subject FIR.With the above directions the present writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(20-2-2017)This criminal revision is directed against order dated 4.2.2016 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur in Criminal Complaint Case No.74/2012, whereby a charge under Section 182 of the I.P.C. was framed against the petitioners/accused persons Baladeen Kushwaha and Maheshchandra Tiwari.The facts giving rise to this criminal revision may briefly be stated thus: One Brij Lal was tried by Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nowgaon, under Section 302 of the I.P.C. for murder of his wife Undi.After the trial, he was acquitted of the charge by judgment dated 17.2.2006 passed in Session Trial No.163/2005; however, in paragraph No.15 of the judgment, learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the petitioners Baladeen Kushwaha and Maheshchandra Tiwari had fabricated false evidence against the accused Brij Lal 2 Cr.On that date, one Neeraj Kumar Dwivedi, who was Sarpanch of the village, reminded the SHO of P.S. Nowgaon District Chhattarpur regarding the direction dated 17.2.2006 made by learned Additional Sessions Judge.Consequently, the S.H.O. of Police Station Nowgaon, filed an Istagasa No. 1 of 2010 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nowgaon, under Sections 182 and 211 of the I.P.C. against the petitioners Baladeen and Maheshchandra.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by order dated 29.12.2011; however, by order dated 29.2.2012 passed learned Additional Sessions Judge, in Sessions Trail No.4/2012, it was held that since the complaint for the offence punishable under Section 211 of the I.P.C was not made by the concerning Court in accordance with Section 195 (1) (b) (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court could not proceed with the trial of that offence.Since, the offence under Section 182 of the I.P.C. could be tried by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, the case was remitted back to the Judicial Magistrate First Class for disposal in accordance with law.Subsequently, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 4.2.2016, framed 3 Cr.The cognizance was taken on the basis of the Istegasa dated 15.6.2010 filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class by S.H.O., Police Station Nowgaon.Thus, the Istegasa on the basis on which the cognizance was taken, was filed by the same public servant to whom allegedly false report was made.Even otherwise there is no reason for condoning such delay.Thus, there is no manner of doubt that the complaint was hopelessly time barred as far as Section 182 of the I.P.C. was concerned; therefore, the trial Court should not have framed a charge for that offence.5 Cr.In the result this criminal revision succeeds.The impugned order 4.2.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nowgaon in criminal complaint case No.74/2012 framing charge against the petitioners under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and the petitioners stand discharged in the case.{C.V. Sirpurkar} Judge ahd IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Cr.R.No.735/2016 Baladeen Kushwaha and another Vs.The State of M.P.ORDER Post for : 20.02.2017 (C.V.Sirpurkar) Judge

['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 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 occurrence giving rise to the present case took place onMarch 31, 1967 at 2.30 p.m. in front of and inside thetarwaha of the house of Jaskaran, father of Jagannathaccused, in village.Gadarian Purwa at a distance of twomiles from police station.Thepossession of these plots had been taken by the vendeesabout one or two months earlier when they paid Rs. 500 asearnest money.The vendees sowed wheat in those plots.Sarju and Putti accused, who are both brothers, laid claimto, those plots.As Ram Prasad accused was an influentialperson, Sarju and Putti sought his assistance in obtainingthe possession of the plots.Ram Prasad is also stated tohave been assured by Sarju and Putti that in case they weresuccessful in getting those two plots', they would give himhalf of the land.On March 31, 1967, it is stated, Parmeshwar Din was gettingthe wheat crop standing in the two plots mentioned aboveharvested.The plots are at a distance of about 150 pacesfrom the house of Jaskaran, father of Jagannath accused.Umrao (PW 1) as well as Sita Ram (PW 4) were also present inthe fields along with Parmeshwar Din.The actual work ofharvesting was being done by seven labourers, four of whomwere women.The male labourers were Shankar, Baddal andBubba.At about 2.30 p.m., it is alleged, Udit Narainaccused came to Parmeshwar Din and told him that somepersons were waiting for him in the abadi of Gadarian Purwato have some talks with the deceased regarding the two Plotsin dispute.Parmeshwar Din deceased then went with UditNarain.Shortly thereafter, Umrao and Sita Ram PWs heardthe cries of Parmeshwar Din.On looking towards the houseof Jaskaran, they found that the six accused had surroundedParmeshwar Din and were giving bank a blows to him in frontof that house.The six accused then dragged Parmeshwar Dindeceased inside the tarwaha which had a thatched roof.Thetarwaha had one shutterless opening.Umrao and Sita Ramthen ran towards the tarwaha and stood close to the openingof the tarwaha.The labourers engaged in harvesting alsofollowed Umrao and Sita Ram to that place.Chandrika (PW 2)and Mohan (PW 3) were passing that way at that time.Bothof them on hearing alarm also came there and saw the accusedgiving banka blows to Parmeshwar Din.Umrao and othersshouted to the accused not to kill Parmeshwar Din, but theytoo were threatened by the accused.The accused thereafterran away.Umrao and652Others then went inside the tarwaha and.found ParmeshwarDin lying dead in a pool of blood.Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 10th October,1969, of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) Lucknow,in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 1968).K. B. Rohatgi, for the appellants.O. P. Rana, for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byKHANNA, J. This is an appeal by special leave by Ram Prasad(65), his son Udit Narain (22) and their servant Sri Pal(22) against the judgment of the Lucknow Bench of theAllahabad High Court affirming on appeal the judgment of theAdditional Sessions Judge Lucknow whereby the threeappellants and three others, namely651Sarju Putti and Jaganath had been convicted under section148 and- section 302 read with section 149 Indian Penal Codeand had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment fora period of 18 months on the first count and imprisonmentfor life on the second count.A number of persons thencollected 'there.Umrao got report Ka-1 written by his son Hari Prasad.Umraothereafter went to police, station Mandiaon and lodged therereport Ka-1 at 5.30 p.m. Station Officer Tiwari (PW 11) wasnot present at the police station at the time he report waslodged.On being informed about the lodging of the report,the Station Officer went to the place of occurrence andarrived there at 6.30 p.m. The Station Officer on arrivalrecorded the statements of Umrao, Sita Ram and Mohan PWs andprepared inquest report relating to the dead body of thedeceased.The six accused in their statements denied the prosecutionallegations about their having participated in the assaulton Parmeshwar Din deceased.Sarju and Putti also denied theprosecution allegation that Parmeshwar Din and Sita Ram hadpurchased the land in question and had brought the sameunder cultivation.The case of Ram Prasad and Udit Narainwas that they had been falsely involved in this case'because of the enmity of Sita Ram PW with whom, accordingto these accused, Ram Prasad had an altercation on anearlier occasion.The trial court accepted the prosecution case and convictedand ,sentenced the six accused as mentioned above.Thejudgement of the trial Court was, as already stated,affirmed on appeal by the High Court.In appeal before us, Mr. Anthony on behalf of the appellantshas assailed the conviction of the accused-appellants on theground that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in thiscase is not reliable and suffers from infirmities.The death of the deceased was due to shockand haemorrhage resulting from the head and neck injuries.The injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course ofnature to cause death.According to the prosecution case, the injuries found on thebody, of the deceased had been caused by the six accused,including the three appellants.The prosecution, in orderto substantiate that allegation, examined Umrao (PW 1),Chandrika (PW 2), Mohan.(PW 3) and Sita Ram (PW 4) as eyewitnesses of the occurrence These witnesses supported theprosecution case as given above.The trial court, onconsideration of the material on record, accepted theevidence of the four eye witnesses.On appeal the learnedJudges of the High Court again examined that evidence andfound the same to, be convincing.Nothing cogent has beenbrought to our notice as may justify interference with theconcurrent findings of the trial court.and the High Courtarrived at as a result of the appraisement of the evidenceof the four eye witnesses.It has been pointed out that the statement of Chandrika was,recorded during the investigation of the case 25 days afterthe occurrence, and as such, not much reliance can be placedupon the testimony of this witness.In this respect we findthat the evidence of Chandrika shows that on the morning ofthe day following the,occurrence, he went to Muzaffarpur indistrict Barabanki where his father-in-law was lying ill.The witness stayed in Muzaffarpur for about six days andthereafter returned to his village.In the meanwhile, Sub-Inspector Tiwari had gone back to the police station.Chandrika's name as an eyewitness of the occurrence had been mentioned in the firstinformation report which was lodged within about three hoursof the occurrence.In the circumstances, the delay inrecording the police statement of Chandrika by theinvestigating officer would not justify rejection ofChandrika's testimony.In any case, we find that apart fromthe statement of Chandrika, the prosecution case is alsosupported by the evidence of' other three eye witnesses.Sofar as these witnesses are concerned, their statements wererecorded by the investigating officer soon after he arrivedat the place of occurrence.Argument has also been advanced on behalf of the appellantsthat there, is no mention in the first information reportthat injuries were caused to Parmeshwar Din deceased by theaccused before the deceased was dragged inside the tarwaha,while, according to the evidence of the eye witnesses incourt, the injuries to the deceased' were caused by theaccused both before he was dragged as well- as inside thetarwaha.Reference to the first information report shows-that it is recited therein that the deceased was dragged andgiven banka blows by the accused.The omission to make anexpress mention in the first information report that bankablows were given to the deceased before he was draggedinside the tarwaha would not in the circumstances, in ouropinion, make much material difference.Assuming that bankablows were caused to the deceased inside the tarwaha, thisfact would not exculpate any of the accused.The accused atthe time of the occurrence were armed with bankas.Theydragged the deceased inside the, tarwaha and gave bankablows to654him.It is plain that the injuries were caused to thedeceased prosecution of the common object of all the accusedto cause death of the deceased.The appellants, in thecircumstances, car derive any benefit from the inability ofthe prosecution witnesses .state as to which particularinjury was caused which of the accused.It has also been argued that the evidence of the eyewitnesses is of partisan character and, therefore, It is notsafe to base the conviction ,of the accused upon thatevidence.We find it difficult to accede to this contentionbeause the trial court and the High Court while appraisingthe evidence of these witnesses, considered all the features,of the case and came to the conclusion that the evidence ofthe witnesses was trustworthy and reliable.Considerable stress has been laid by Mr. Anthony upon thefact ,that, besides the four eye witnesses who have beenexamined in this case, the occurrence, according to thefirst information, report, had also been witnessed byBaddal, Shankar and Hubba.These persons were, however, notexamined as witnesses at the trial.It is also pointed outthat in addition to these persons, the occurrence was also,witnessed by Sham Lal and Hubba (this Hubba is differentfrom Hubba whose name was mentioned in the first informationreport), who also arrived at the scene of occurrence.ShamLal and Hubba too.were not examined as witnesses.The non-examination of these witnesses, in our opinion, would notintroduce an infirmity fatal to the prosecution case: It isno doubt true that the prosecution is bound to producewitnesses who are essential to the unfolding of the nar-rative.on which the prosecution is based.Apart from that,it cannot be laid down as a rule that if a large number ofpersons are present at the time of the occurrence, theprosecution is bound to call and ;examine each and every oneof those persons.The answer to the ,question as to what isthe effect of the non-examination of a particular witnesswould depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The appellant Ram Shankar was tried and convicted by the Sessions Judge Bench under Sections 392/397, I.P.C. and sentenced under the latter count to seven years' rigorous imprisonment which is the minimum punishment prescribed for that offence.His appeal was dismissed by the High Court.He has now come before us in appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution,The prosecution case against the appellant, as it emerges from the record was that on Dassara Day, the 17th October, 1972, ten persons including P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 of village Maniriban and P.W. 2 a resident of village Aslama, came to Damoh to see procession of Goddess Kali.After seeing the procession at about 3 a.m. in the night these persons came to the booking office at the Railway Station Damoh as they had to buy tickets for taking the train to Aslama.There was a big crowd at the Booking Office.All these eleven persons gave 35 paise each to Ram Singh (P.W. 1) and asked him to purchase tickets for all of them.Ram Singh then stood in the queue before the ticket window.He was carrying Rs. 3.85 in the palm of his left hand.While Ram Singh was counting the money the appellant suddenly appeared.He was carrying a naked sword.The appellant touched the palm of Ram Singh with the tip of his sword, and lifted the money.The appellant then carried away the money and entered the Booking Office.P.W. 1 informed about the incident to constable Shaikh Karim (P.W. 4) who was on duty at the Railway Station.P.W. 1 also informed the Station Master, On receiving a telephonic call from the Station Master the policemen arrived in a lorry and disarmed, arrested and took away Ram Shanker-Appellant.The plea of the appellant at the trial was that liquor was administered to him against his will by Ram Gopal and Haricharan of Damon as a result of which he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act that he might have committed, In short, the defence was under Section 65, I.P.C. The appellant did not examine Ram Gopal and Haricharan and otherwise failed to establish his defence.But there were several mitigating circumstances in the case.There was nothing on the record that the appellant was a person of bad antecedents.He was a primary school teacher.He did not cause physical hurt to anybody.He did not make any attempt to rob the cash in the booking office, where he quietly remained standing for a sufficient time.He did not resist his arrest.According to the Station Master, Rishi Kumar Khare (P.W. 5), constable Shaikh Karim had informed him that the appellant had given his name as Shanker S/o Nand Lal of Damoh.Thus, the appellant made no attempt to conceal his real identity.With this observation, we dismiss this appeal.The appellant is granted three weeks' time to surrender, to his bail bonds to serve out the sentence inflicted on him.

['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code ofCriminal Procedure, to set aside the Judgments passed by the learnedAdditional District Judge, Fast Tract Court No.I, Tirunelveli, TirunelveliDistrict, in Crl.R.C.No.74 of 2010, dated 18.01.2011, and the order passed bythe learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli, in Crl.M.P.No.1798 of2010, dated 16.09.2010, on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.2.The brief facts of the case as follows:(i) The petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 191Cr.P.C., for the alleged offences under Sections 342, 347, 352, 384, 448,451, 506(i) and 109 I.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Tirunelveli, and the same has been numbered as Crl.Theallegation of the petitioner is that, on 26.02.2010, at 12.00 p.m., the firstrespondent along with police party came to the house of the petitionerwithout following the procedure established under law and they have taken thepetitioner to the illegal custody.The first and second respondents withoutfollowing due process of law, illegally detained the petitioner for 3 daysand after making complaint to the higher officials, they remanded thepetitioner to the judicial custody.(iii) Due to the illegal act of the respondents, the petitioner filed aprivate complaint under Section 190(1) of Criminal Procedure Code before theChief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirunelveli, in Crl.M.P.No.1798 of 2010.Initially, the said complaint was taken on file and thereafter, the learnedChief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli, dismissed the complaint, as if thepetitioner did not show any evidence to implicate the respondents for theoffence alleged in the complaint.(iv) Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed a revision underSection 397(1) Cr.P.C., before the Additional District Judge, Fast TractCourt No.I, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District, in Crl.5.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondentsubmitted that the respondents 3 and 4 filed a complaint against thepetitioner under Sections 342, 347, 352, 384, 448, 451, 506(i) and 109I.P.C., before the Tirunelveli Town Police Station.In order to defeat the rights of the third respondent, thepetitioner filed a private complaint against the respondents 3 and 4 as wellas the law enforcing agency.P.C. and whether the lower Court can dismiss the complaint at the initialstage after conducting a detailed enquiry.On the basisof the complaint, a search was conducted for the purpose of investigation andtherefore, the petitioner was taken to their custody and thereafter, remandedto the judicial custody.In order to wreck vengeance against therespondents 3 and 4 and other police officials, the petitioner filed acomplaint before the respondent police, as if the respondent police committedserious error in law.Further, there was an allegation by the petitioneragainst the Law Enforcing Agency is that the police officials recovered asum of Rs.2,387/- (Rupees Two Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Seven only), which was not returned to him.However, the petitioner has not produced anydocument before the Courts below in order to substantiate the high-handednessof the police officials.After considering the matter elaborately, in orderto prevent the abuse of process of law, the said complaint was dismissed bythe learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli.Thereafter, thepetitioner filed a revision before the Revisional Court.After consideringthe matter elaborately, the Revisional Court, confirmed the order passed bythe learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

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