Datasets:

Fawazzx

/

full

like 0

This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 7.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Session Judge, Court No.1 Jhansi in S.T. No. 257 of 2015 (State vs. Azhar and others) under Sections 149, 302, 500, 506, 34 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi, arising out of Case Crime No.0157 of 2015 whereby a prayer is made that the said judgment and order dated 7.12.2017 be set aside and court below be directed to summon Dr. R.P. Kala for taking his evidence.The trial court illegally and arbitrarily rejected the application No.121-B vide impugned order dated 7.12.2017 on the ground that the injuries of 1998 were not related to the present incident.The fire arm which has been recovered is 315 bore by which the incident has been carried out.The statement of Dr. R.K. Saxena has tried to mislead by saying that injury no. 2 is communicating to injury no. 3, which is an old injury which had been treated by Dr. R.P. Kala in the year 1998 as has been admitted by Dr R.K. Saxena in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. It is well settled that justice should not only be done but it should appear to have been done.Therefore, in view of the statement of Dr. R.K. Saxena mentioned above, it was necessary to examine Dr R.P. Kala who had treated the deceased Mohd. Rashid in 1998 to prove that the injury no. 3 was an old injury because that would be necessary for proper and just adjudication of the present trial and would be helpful to punish the real culprit who has committed murder of Mohd. Rashid.From the side of the opposite party no.2, Azhar, a vakalatnama has been filed by Sri Amit Daga which is taken on record.No counter affidavit has been filed by him but he has orally made argument opposing the present revision vehemently.Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the post mortem of the deceased would show that he had received five antemortem injuries which were as follows:"i) Incised wound size 3x1 cm, margin clean, sharp, situated 6 cm above from Rt.ear on the Rt. side of skull underlying bone fractured.ii) Lacerated wound size 22x11 cm on left side of skull, 5 cm above from left ear underlying bone fractured, brain matter is coming out.iii) Wound no. 3 is communicating with left side supra clavicular area along Lt. side of neck where 24 pallets of metallic characteristic found.iv) Abrasion size 12.0x0.5 cm over Rt.side anterior abdominal wall 12cm laterally from unbilicus.v) Abrasion size 5.0x0.5 cm over Lt. side of abdomen......." and the cause of death has been recorded due to antemortem injuries.Pointing out the above injuries statement of Dr. R.K. Saxena was read out by the learned counsel for the revisionist which is annexed as Annexure-4, in which he has stated that he conducted autopsy of the dead body of deceased Mohd. Rashid.The 24 pallets which were recovered from behind Lt. side of the neck of the deceased which was an old wound.Thereafter, the attention of the Court was drawn towards the statement given by the witness before court as PW-4, in examination-in-chief wherein he stated as follows:-"....ii) Lacerated wound size 22x11 cm on left side of skull, 5 cm above from left ear underlying bone fractured, brain matter is coming out.iii) Left side supra clavicular area, which was towards Lt. side of neck, was communicating with injury no. 2 where 24 pallets were recovered...."Instead of that the revisionist wants to summon a witness who was not named in the charge sheet by the Investigating Officer nor any document which he now wants to get proved by calling the said witness were handed over to the prosecution/Investigating Agency.Nor the prosecution had provided the copies of these documents to the accused under section 207 Cr.P.C. If without providing any copy of these documents to the accused, the prosecution is allowed to proceed that would cause prejudice to the accused.

['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT K.K. Misra, J.This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 7.9.1981 passed by Shri Gauri Shankar Nath Tripathi, the then Ist Addl.Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Session Trial No. 530 of 1979 connected with session Trial No. 529 of 1979, convicting and sentencing the appellants Tashreef Ahmad and Sahvan Ali under Section 302/149 I.P.C. to life imprisonment.They were further convicted and sentenced to one year's R.I. under Section 148 I.P.C. and to six months' R.I. under Section 323/149 IPC.The rest of the appellants Munna, Badrudding alias Achhan, Ismail, Ayub, Sajjan, Javed Alam, Achhan and Sabir were convicted and sentenced under Section 302/149 I.P.C. to life imprisonment, under Section 323/149 I.P.C. to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment.All the sentences on all counts were directed to run concurrently.The prosecution version as contained in the F.I.R. was that litigation was going on between the complainant Ibne Hasan on one side and Achchan alias Munne, Sajjan etc. on the other.For compromising the matter, it was decided that a Panchayat be held at the Chaupal of the deceased Sakir Hussain, Shabbar, Fareed Mistri son of Allahadiya, Tafsil Ahmad, Qamaruddin alias Bhole son of Aminuddin, Kalifuddin, alias Chunnu son of Azimuddin, Aminuddin alias Munne son of Azimuddin and Raisul Hasan son of Faizal Hasan assembled from one side.From the other side, Sabir Hasan son of Naza Hasan alias Chhote (who posted in Delhi in Police Department), Tashreef Ahmand son of Jamir Ahmad, Sahavn Ali son of Mubarak Hasan, Javed Alam, Munna son of Nazir Hasan, Badludding alias Achchan son of Bundu, Ismial Ayub, Achchan son of Avrarul Hasan and Sajjan were present in the Panchayat.A pertromax was glowing in the Baithak.As the Panchayat started, the members from the side of Achchan asked to withdraw all the cases.In reply, the members from the side of the complainant also said to the accused party to withdraw the case and then only the matter would be settled.On their saying so, heated arguments took place between the parties.At that time, Tashreef went to the house of Sahvan situate in the vicinity and brough Lathies, Ballam and Tabal kept there from before and shouted aloud to teach a lesson to the complainant party in respect of the litigation pending in the court.The members of the accused side took the arms brought by Tashreef.At that time, at about 9.10 O' Clock in the night, the accused Sabir Hasan, Sahavn Ali, Javed Alam, Munna, Badluddin alias Achchan, Ismail, Ayub, Achchan, Sajjan and Tashreef attacked the complainant party with Lathies, Tabal etc. By their assault, some members of the complainant party received injuries and Sakir Hussain, the brother of the complainant fell down on the Chabutara sustaining injuries.Hearing the cries of the complainant party, Ghissu, Chunnu and other persons of the village came there.Quamaruddin alias Bhole, Khalifuddin alias Chunnu, Aminuddin alias Munne and Raisul Hasan also sustained injuries.The investigation of the case was taken up by PW10 Devendra Singh Tyagi.He was present at the police station when the F.I.R. was lodged.He recorded the statements of complainant Ibne Hasan and Chowkidar Aziz at the police station itself.He proceeded to the place of occurrence.He reached there at 4.10 a.m. in the morning.He found the petromax on the spot, which was glowing.He prepared the site plan and recorded the statement of the witness Shabbir.However, the factum of enmity and litigation between the parties was admitted.In support of its case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses in all.PW 1 Khalifuddin alias Chunnu was one of the injured.Other eyewitnesses were PW6 Ibne Hasan complainant, PW 5 Ghissu and PW 7 Qamaruddin.He, too, was injured.PW 2 Dr. D.S. Chaudhary, Medical Officer, Incharge Nangal Dispensary, Bijnor examined and injuries of all the injured.Sabbar, Ali, Javed, Achachan, Tashreef Ahmad, Munna, Sabir Husain, Jamaluddin @ Sajjan, Badluddin @ Achchan, Ismail and Ayub were present.A petromax was glowing.Sahvan and Badaluddin @ Achchan asked them to withdraw the cases pending in the court.He and others from his side then told them to do likewise.The altercation turned in heated arguments.Then, Master Tashreff Ahmad went to the house of Sahvan Ali situate in the vicinity and brought Lathis, Ballams Tobal etc. and exhorted his companions to teach them lesson of litigation.The accused persons fled away towards western side.Sakir Hussain died on the spot.The petromax was found by him in working order Blood stained and simple earth was also collected by him from the spot.He inspected the dead body of the deceased and instructed Sub-Inspector Raghubir Singh to prepare Panchayatnama etc. The dead body was then sealed and sent for post mortem.The post mortem examination was conducted by PW 3 Dr. R.K. Nigam on 1.9.79 at 4.45 P.M. He found that the deceased was aged about 30 years and a day had passed since he died.He found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of Shakir Hussain, deceased.Lacerated wound 7 cm x 1 bone on the right side of head 11 cm above the right ear.On exposing, clotted blood was present in the scale and the underlying right parietal bone was fractured.The meninges and brain substance were lacerated and the clotted blood was present on them.The right middle cranial fossa was fractured.Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 1/2 cm x bone in the middle of occipital region of the head.On exposing, clotted blood was present on the meninges and brain substance.Contusion 4 cm x 2 cm on the back of right elbow.Contusion 3 cm x 3 cm on the back of left elbow.Contusion 4 cm x 2 cm below the right eye.Contusion 4 cm x 2- 1/2 cm on the right hip bone on lateral aspect 2 cm below iliace crest.Abrasion 1 1/2 cm x 1 1/2 cm in the middle of back in lumbar region in middle.The doctor opined that the death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage.PW 2 Dr. D.S. Chaudhary examined the injuries of Raisul Hasan, Qamaruddin @ Bhole, Khalifuddin @ Chunnu and Aminuddin.The details are given below:Raisul Hasan (examined on 1.9.1979 at 8 A.M.)Lacerated wound 2" X 1/12" on head front right side, 3" from right eyebrow.Swelling 3" X 1" on right thigh lateral side 10' above from right knee.The doctor was of the opinion that both the injuries were simple and caused by blunt weapon.Qamaruddin @ Bhole (examined on 1.9.1979 at 8.10 A.M.) 1 Lacerated wound 3/4" x 1/2" on head left side, 4" above from left ear (upper part).2 Swelling on right forearm frontally upto elbow joint 5 1/2" x 3/4".3 Swelling 2" x 3/4" on right wrist joint upto the base of right thumb.4 Swelling 3" x 1" on left thumb.5 Swelling 4" x 1" on front of left thing, 9" above from left knee joint.6 Swelling 4" x 1" on right knee.7 Swelling 4" x 1" on front of right thigh, 4" above from right knee.All injuries were simple and caused by blunt object.Khalifuddin @ Chunnu (examined on 1.9.1979 at 8.20 A.M.) 1 Lacerated wound 3/4" x 2/12" on forehead, 2" above from left eyebrow.2 Lacerated wound 3/4" x 1/2" on left laterally, 5" above from left ear.3 Lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" on head centrally, 4" above from right eyebrow.4 Abrasion 3" x 1/2" on upper arm, 6" below from right shoulder.5 Abrasion 1 1/2" x 1/2" on front of right elbow joint.6 Abrasion 1 1/2" x 1/2" on front of right elbow joint.7 Lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" on right thumb.The doctor was of the opinion that all injuries were simple and caused by blunt weapon.Aminuddin (examined on 1.9.1979 at 8.30 A.M.)Lacerated wound 2" x 1/2" on head left laterally, 3" above from left ear.Swelling 2" x 1" on left thumb.Both the injuries were simple and caused by blunt weapon.The accused appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution story and further sated that they had been falsely implicated in the case.PW 3 Dr. R.K. Nigam conducted the post mortem of the deceased.All other witnesses produced at the trial were formal in nature.The trial court found the case set up against the accused appellants to be truthful and convicted and sentenced them as above.Broad features of the evidence may be noted for proper appreciation.PW 1, Khalifuddin deposed that before the incident, criminal cases were pending between the complainant party and the accused persons.A Panchayat was decided to be held at the Chaupal of Sakir Hussain for compromising the matters.He, Aminuddin, Qamaruddin @ Bhole, Ibne Hasan, Raisul Hasan, Shakir Hussain, Sabbar, Fareed Mistri and Tafsil were present there.From the other side.Sahvan Ali took up the Tabal and other accused took Lathis.Tashreef Ahmad had Ballam in his hand.Seeing the accused armed with weapons they started crying.The accused rounded them and prevented them from escaping.He saw that Sahvan Ali gave a blow of Tabal from reverse side on the head of the Sakir Ali, deceased.Sakir Hussain also sustained a Lathi blow on his head.He also sustained injuries on hands and legs.He fell down on the ground.Tashreef Ahamand attacked Ibne Hasan with Ballam.But, Ibne Hasan caught hold of the Ballam.When Sakir Hussain fell on the ground, Tashreef Ahmad fled taking Ballam.He further deposed that the Panchayat had gone smoothly for about 15-20 minutes.Other accused assaulted him, Aminuddin, Qamarudding @ Bhole and Raisul Hasan.Ghissu, Chunnu and many other had arrived at the spot and challenged th eaccused.Then the accused persons fled towards the west.He denied the suggestion that petromax was not glowing at the time of the incident.He specifically deposed that Sahavan Ali attacked Sakir Hussain on his head from reverse side of Tabal.PW 5 Ghissu deposed that it was about 9.10 p.m. when he was returning after easing himself.He heard the cries coming from the Chaupal of Sakir.He ran towards the Chaupal.The petromax was glowing at the Chaupal of Sakir.A bulb was glowing on the mosque and it was moonlit night.So explaining his presence, this witness has supported PW1 Khalifudding in material particulars by his testimony.PW 6 Ibne Hasan is the complainant and brother of the deceased.He deposed that there were two factions in the village, one of the accused persons and the other of the complainant party.Criminal cases were pending between both the factions and to settle the mater, the members of the both parties were sitting on the Chupal of Sakir.The discussion for compromising the matter was going on.He substantially repeated the story as given in the F.I.R. and in the deposition of PW 1 Khalifuddin.He deposed that Tashreef gave him a Ballam blow but he caught the Ballam.He further deposed that Sahvan assaulted Sakir Hussain with Tabal from the reverse side and the other accused made assault with Lathis.PW 7 Qamaruddin is also an injured and he supported the version as given by the other eyewitnesses.We should also observe here that by order dated 8.7.04, the appeal of appellants No. 5, 7, 8 and 9, namely, Badruddin alias Achchan, Ayub, Ismail and Achchan, son of Abrarul Hasan abated because of their death.We have heard Sri P.N. Misra, counsel for the appellants assisted by Sri S.A. Shah and Sri I.M. Khan and Sri S.S. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State.In the case in hand, it has come in the evidence of all the eyewitnesses that a Panchayat in a peaceful atmosphere was being held for compromising the matters between the parties.The conversation turned into heated arguments and Master Tashreef Ahmad went to the house of Sahvan Ali situate in the vicinity and brought Lathis, Ballam, Tabal etc. and exhorted his companions to teach them lesson of litigation.Upon this, the accused persons assaulted the complainant party with Lathis, Ballam and Tabal.It is not in dispute that criminal cases were being fought between the parties and for compromising the matter, a Panchayat was decided to be held.PW 1 Khalifuddin admitted in his deposition before the court that the Panchayat continued smoothly for 15-20 minutes and thereafter heated arguments took place between the parties and the incident occurred as alleged above.From the above, it cannot be inferred that the accused formed an unlawful assembly.Criminal cases were being fought between the parties and they assembled in the Baithak of Sakir Hussain to find out a peaceful solution of the dispute.Therefore, we have to decide the culpability of each accused separately.Learned counsel for the appellants then submitted that the Sahvan Ali gave a Tabal blow to Sakir Hussain from reverse side and, therefore, an intention to cause death cannot be imputed to him.Sakir Hussain also received injuries in his hands, legs etc caused by other accused by Lathis.During the course of deliberations in the Panchayat, after heated arguments took place between the parties, he hurriedly went to the house of Sahvan situate nearby and instantaneously returned with Lathis Ballam and Tabal.He himself plied Ballam targeting Inbe Hasan, though he could not succeed because of the Ballam having been caught by the intended victim.It was the Tabal brought by him which Sahvan took and where with he assaulted the deceased Sakir Hussain.It was also this accused Tashreef Ahmad who had exhorted the other accused and had given a call to teach those on the prosecution side a lesson.Considering all the attending circumstances, it is obvious that he and Sahvan Ali (who gave fatal blow to the deceased Sakir Hussain with Tabal) shared common intention to do the act, i.e., of striking Sakir Hussain with Tabal with such knowledge that it was likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death.Such common intention between the two developed at the spur of moment when he brought the arms from the house of Sahvan Ali and the latter, using the Tabal brought by the former, gave the blow to Sakir Hussain from the reverse side which caused the fatal damage on the head of the victim.In the result, we allow the appeal partly in the following manner:Accused Badruddin alias Achhan, Ayub, Ismail and Achhan son of Abrarul Hasan have died and as such the appeal has abated respecting them.The conviction of the accused appellant Sahvan Ali is converted to Section 304 Part two I.P.C. and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.The conviction of the accused appellant Tashreef Ahmad is also converted to Section 304 Part two I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. He is also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years.The conviction of the remaining four accused appellants, namely, Javed Alam, Munna Sajjan and Sabir is converted to Section 323 I.P.C. Each of them shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.The accused appellants Sahvan Ali, Tashreef Ahmad, Javad Alam, Munna, Sajjan and Sabir are on bail.Chief Judicial magistrate, Bijnor shall cause them to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the respective sentenced passed against them.Judgment be certified to the court below for reporting compliance within two months.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard on this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed o n behalf of the applicant.The applicant is in jail in connection with Crime No.653/2019 registered at Police Station Chourai, District Chhindwara for commission of offences punishable under Section 376(1), 376(2) (n), 376 (2)(f), 506 of the IPC and Section 4, 5 (j) (ii), 5(l) and 6 of POCSO Act.The case of the prosecution against the applicant is that the prosecutrix aged about 18 year went to visit to her relative along with the applicant who is the uncle of the prosecutrix.When they were returning to home the applicant brought the prosecutrix in a forest and committed rape with her and threaten her that if she disclose this fact with anyone he will kill her.Due to commission of rape the prosecutrix became pregnant and delivered a prematured child.Thereafter the prosecutrix lodged a report against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.Statement of the prosecutrix have been recorded during trial in which she stated that the prosecutrix and the applicant want to marry with each other and she was major at the time of incident .Conclusion of the trial will take considerable time, therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the application and prays for dismissal of this application for bail.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant-Bhura Vishwakarma, stands allowed.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE kundan Digitally signed by KUNDAN SHARMA Date: 19/03/2020 15:19:45

['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard on admission.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State; as such, no further notice is required.Let record of the Court below be requisitioned.Heard on IA.No.23548/2016 under section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that appellant Bhupendra Goswami stands convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 354-A and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.He has been sentenced to undergo effective RI for a period of 2 years and fine in the sum of Rs.2000/-.In default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 months.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, and the short duration of sentence imposed upon the appellant, in the opinion of this Court, the appellant deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, I.A. No. 23548/2016 is allowed .It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 04-05-2017 and all other subsequent dates fixed by the Registry in this regard, the remaining part of the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall stand suspended and he shall be released on bail.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE

['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

2.The respondent herein has filed a charge sheet against the appellant, who was working as Senior Assistant and promoted as Assistant Administrative Officer, United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai Division, committed criminal misconduct and cheated United India Insurance Company Limited/Oriental Insurance Company by dishonestly submitting three medical claims in the name of his mother G.Vadivambal during the year 1991, 1995, 1997 and 1999 to 2001 knowing fully well that his mother was getting a family pension from Southern Railway, Madras and as such she was not a dependent.So she is not an eligible person as a dependant to claim mediclaim.The appellant herein had fraudulently shown his mother as dependent and claimed mediclaim and induced United India Insurance Company/Oriental Insurance Company to pay the following sum of Rs.44,938/-, Rs.88,031/-, Rs.1,60,220/- and Rs.18,616/- towards three claims by abusing and misusing his official position illegally and got corresponding pecuniary advantage to himself.3.P.W.17-Inspector of Police, filed a charge sheet against the appellant/accused stating that while the appellant/accused was working in United India Insurance Company, the said company has launched Employees Group Medi-Claim Scheme in the year 1990, wherein the scheme implemented medical expenses for its office employees.The Group Insurance Scheme of United India Insurance Company is insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the premium is properly paid by the company.In respect of employees, 3/4th of the premium amount was paid by the United India Insurance Company and <th of the premium amount paid by the concerned employee for the coverage amount as per the Rules.In respect of Officers, the United India Insurance Company paid 2/3rd of the premium amount and 1/3rd of the premium amount paid by the officers.The mediclaim was restricted to the staff, wife and two children.Subsequently, in view of the amendment, the parents and the other dependants were also allowed to be included in the scheme.But whereas the appellant herein has shown her as a dependent and he paid the premium amount and claimed medical reimbursement for his mother.To prove the same, P.W.3-Chamundeeswari, Section Officer, Southern Railway, Chennai, was examined and through her, Exs.P11 and P12 were marked to show that the family pension of the mother was Rs.773/- per month and as on 31.12.2001, her family pension was Rs.1,849/-.The Appellant admitted his mother in Trinity Acute Care hospital and presented the medical documents Exs.P3 to P10 for reimbursement and that has been marked through P.W.2-Radhakrishnan, Administrative Officer.Vadivambal was also admitted in some other hospitals and the Doctors, who treated her were examined as P.W.8-Dr.C.B.Krishnakumar, P.W.9-Dr.A.Krishnasamy, P.W.12-Dr.J.Jayaprasad and P.W.15-Dr.P1-Schedule-B, the amended schedule of authorities.In Ex.C.B.Krishnakumar, P.W.9-Dr.A.Krishnasamy, P.W.12-Dr.J.Jayaprasad, P.W.13-S.Viswanathan and P.W.15-Dr.C.Anbarasu has clearly proved that the mother of the appellant was suffering some ailments and admitted in the hospital and got treatment and the hospital issued medical bills.Till his death, he received pension.After his death, his wife Vadivambal, who is the mother of the appellant, received family pension.P.W.3-Chamundeeswari, Section Officer, Southern Railway, Chennai, was examined and through her, Exs.P11 and P12 were marked.From 01.06.1991 to 30.06.1991, pension of Vadivambal was Rs.773/-.Now it has been decided to raise this limit to Rs.500/- per month.Accordingly, the family members of the employee who are not having income more than Rs.500/- per month shall be considered as dependent family members and covered under the Group Mediclaim Scheme."From 29.05.1990 onwards, the income limit of the dependent has been raised to Rs.500/- per month.Subsequently, as per Ex.P17-Circular, dated 20.01.1998, the income limit has been increased from Rs.500/- per month to Rs.1,500/- per month.(in all Crl.Appeals) Prayer:Criminal Appeals filed under Sections 374(2) CrPC.read with 27 of the P.C. Act against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 19.12.2007 made in C.C.Nos.8 to 11 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai.C.Anbarasu and through them some of the medical documents have been marked.P.W.6-G.Sundararaman, P.W.7-Thathachari, P.W.10-Rengarajan, Deputy manager and P.W.18-Vedachalam, Deputy manager of United India Insurance Company had received application from the appellant for reimbursement of mediclaim and they perused the documents and passed an order.Since P.W.17 has received some reliable information and on that basis only, he made an enquiry and came to know that the appellant/accused fraudulently and dishonestly including his mother as a dependent and enjoyed the premium concession and obtained a wrongful gain by way of mediclaim, which leads to wrongful loss to the United India Insurance Company.Then, P.W.17-Inspector of Police obtained sanction order Ex.P2 from P.W.1 and after completing his investigation, filed a charge sheet against the accused.6.The learned Special Judge after following the procedure, framed necessary charges against the accused.The accused pleaded not guilty.The Special Court examined the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.18 & marked the documentary evidence Exs.P1 to P72 and placed the incriminating evidence before the Accused and considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Special Court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above and acquitted the accused for an offence under Sections 468, 468 read with 471 IPC, against which, four appeals have been preferred by the appellant herein.P.W.1 has not applied his mind while according sanction for prosecuting the accused.Further, he submitted that Exs.P14 and P22 would prove the mother is a dependent and that there is no document to show that the mother was drawing Rs.1,500/- per month during the relevant period.Even though P.W.3-Section Officer of Southern Railway stated that Vadivambal, mother of the appellant has got family pension more than Rs.1,500/-, there is no evidence to prove the same during the relevant period.P12 was marked to prove the same.For officers, the Company has paid 2/3 premium amount and the concerned officer has to pay 1/3 of the premium amount.The coverage amount under the scheme differs as per the basic salary of the individual.P1, for the posts in the cadre of Assistant Managers, A.Os., A.A.Os.Assistant General Manager is having right to appoint and remove the Assistant Administrative Officer of the Company.While perusing Ex.P2-sanction order, P.W.1-Mr.M.Siddique, who was working as Assistant General Manager accorded sanction for prosecuting the accused.So as per Ex.P1, the Assistant General Manager is a competent person to appoint and remove the Assistant Administrative Officer.I did not call for his service register and perused it.My Vigilance Department has briefed me regarding any pending disciplinary proceedings against the accused and whether he was punished in any departmental enquiry etc. I did not mention about the briefing by my vigilance department regarding the above in my Ex.P2 sanction order.Myself and the Vigilance Department together have drafted Ex.That medical bills have been submitted for reimbursement and the same has been considered by P.W.6-G.Sundararaman, who was working as Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, P.W.7-Thathachari & P.W.10-Rengarajan, who were working as Deputy Manager, United India Insurance Company.P.W.13-S.Viswanathan, who was working as Administrative Officer, after processing the papers under Exs.In her chief-examination itself, she stated that as on 31.12.2001, Vadivambal was drawing pension and D.A. amounting to Rs.1,849/-.In the year 1991, her pension was Rs.773/- per month.At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider Ex.P15-Circular, dated 29.05.1990, in which, it was specifically stated as follows:"As you are aware, under the existing provision for coverage under Group Mediclaim Scheme, 'Family Members' mean, spouse, not more than 2 legitimate children (and additional children and parents to be covered on payment of full premium by the employee).At present any of these 'Family Members' is considered dependent on the employee provided such family member is not having an income more than Rs.100/- per month.18.In Ex.P14, it was specifically mentioned in 'B' Terms of coverage, in clauses-iv and v, which reads as follows:"iv.The employee's spouse/children becoming eligible for coverage after the employee's entry into the Mediclaim Scheme, may be granted cover from the first day of the month following the submission of enrolment from in respect of them.Hence, as and when any new dependant family members of the insured is to be included, the same may be done, subject to exclusion of pre-existing diseases.v. Coverage of dependant parents and additional dependant children shall be subject to the condition that the Company shall not bear any portion of the premium for such dependant as in the case of eligible members of the family. "In the definition of 'Family' and 'Dependants', clause(g) reads as follows:As per clause-(g), since the mother has received family pension below Rs.1,500/- per month, she is eligible for group medi-claim.So the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the mother of the appellant is not a dependent as per Ex.19.It is also pertinent to note the document under Ex.P22-a list of persons proposed for insurance, dated 25.03.1997, wherein the appellant herein has mentioned his family members to be covered with an insurance viz., himself, Vadivambal (mother), Kalaivani (wife), his two sons namely, Gowtham Ganesh and Gowshik Ganesh.In Ex.P22, it was stated as follows:Age limitNo.of persons Employees contributionCompany's contributionTotalUpto 45 years43204804400856 to 65 years11645Total48498045653In such circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the appellant herein has abused his position and cheated the United India Insurance Company and Oriental Insurance Company dishonestly and fraudulently and induced the United India Insurance Company to pay the portion of the premium to his mother.20.Admittedly, no complaint has been given by United India Insurance Company.As already discussed above that as per Ex.P14, mother is a dependent.The evidence of P.W.3-Chamundeeswari, Section Officer, has proved during the relevant period, the monthly family pension of the mother was Rs.773/- and it was below Rs.1,500/-.As per Ex.P22, the entire premium for the mother has been paid by the appellant herein.The evidence of Officers of the United India Insurance Company and the Doctors has proved that Vadivambal has suffered ailments and admitted in the hospital and thereafter, medical reimbursement has been claimed and after perusal of the document, the concerned authority from the United India Insurance Company has ordered for medical reimbursement.So the appellant/accused has no dishonest or fraudulent intention to cheat the Company.Hence the ingredients of Section 420 IPC has not been made out beyond reasonable doubt.21.Since sanction accorded by P.W.1 is not in accordance with law as per the finding made in para-14 of this Judgement, the prosecution itself fails.Moreover, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for an offence under Section 420 IPC and since the ingredients of Section 420 IPC has not been made out, the ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, which deals with a public servant abused his financial power and obtained gain for himself or for any other person, does not arise.Hence, the ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) has also not been proved.But the learned Special Judge has failed to consider this aspect, convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 420 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act.So the Special Court is erred in convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 420 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act.Therefore, I am of the view, the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Court is liable to be set aside and hence, they are hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him.22.In fine, The Criminal Appeals are allowed.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.The Judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 19.12.2007, made in C.C.Nos.8 to 11 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai, is hereby set aside.The bail bond executed by the appellant, if any, shall stand cancelled.The fine amount paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him.06.02.2012Index:YesInternet:YeskjR.MALA,J.1.Principal Special Court for CBI Cases Chennai.3.The Special Public Prosecutor (for C.B.I. Cases) High Court, Madras.4.The Record Keeper Criminal Section High Court, Madras.Pre-delivery Judgment made inCrl.A.Nos.19 to 22 of 200806.02.2012

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The applicant is an innocent person, who has no criminal antecedents alleged against him and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.Name of the applicant neither find place in the FIR nor in the 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.as per rules.(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge Durgekar* Digitally signed by SANJAY N.DURGEKAR Date: 2018.05.18 15:29:42 +05'30'Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Gohad, District Bhind in connection with Crime No. 81/2018 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/S. 188, 147, 148, 149 of IPC.As per prosecution, short facts of the case are that the District Magistrate, District Bhind vide order dated 02/04/2018 has imposed section 144 of Cr.P.C. in that area.On 03/04/2018, the SDM, Gohad along with his team were on duty.At that time, at about 1 'O' Clock in the afternoon various persons numbering more than 200 gathered together along with Lathis/Dandas in their hand and violated the order passed under section 144 of Cr.P.C. by raising slogans and adopted recourse to violence.On the basis of aforesaid, the applicant has been implicated in the present case.The offence alleged are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class.The maximum punishment under section 188 of IPC is one month or Rs. 2,00/- fine.The applicant is in jail since 04/04/2018 and early conclusion of trial is bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention is an anathema to the concept of liberty.Under these grounds, applicant prays for grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.After hearing aforesaid arguments and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 16620/2018

['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and the learned Counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.The trial Court has imposed maximum sentence to suffer rigorous ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 03:43:58 ::: Order 0611apeal439.20 2 imprisonment for 6 years and to pay total fine amount of Rs.1,26,000/-.::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 03:43:58 :::3. Admit.Call for R & P.Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of respondent State.The convicted appellant/applicant-accused urged for exercise of discretion in terms of Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to suspend execution of sentence till disposal of the appeal.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has manifestly erred in convicting the appellant, who was not at all involved in the monetary transaction which was indulged by her husband (co-accused).True at paragraph no.37 there is reference ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 03:43:58 ::: Order 0611apeal439.20 3 about the admission given by the Investigating Officer that the witnesses did not spoke against the appellant/ applicant.The appellant was on bail during the trial which is evidence from paragraph no.9 of the final order.The appeal will take its own time for disposal.If the appellant/applicant succeeds, then irreversible position would occur in case of rejection of this application.Further the appellant/applicant is awarded with fixed term of sentence.There are no special or compelling reasons to reject this application.Moreover, the applicant is a lady.Having regard to all these facts, following order is passed.::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 03:43:58 :::(i) The execution and implementation of the substantive sentence imposed by the Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge-II, Nagpur in MPID Case No.5/2016 vide judgment and order dated 31.10.2020 is suspended during the pendency of the appeal on condition that the appellant / applicant shall deposit entire fine amount of Rs.1,26,000/- with the trial Court.::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 03:43:58 :::bail on her furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount.This order shall be executed only on confirmation of deposit of the find amount.Criminal Application is accordingly disposed of.This order be communicated to the counsel appearing for the parties, either on the e-mail address or on WhatsApp or by such other mode, as is permissible in law.JUDGE Rgd.::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 03:43:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 03:43:58 :::

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The facts leading to conviction are as follows:a) The appellants/A1 and A2 and other accused (A3 to A6) belong to Scheduled Caste Community.The deceased Sakthipandian, an auto driver, belongs to Thevar Community.P.W.6 Ganesan is the brother-in-law of the deceased.P.W.7 Marithai is the wife of the deceased.b) One year prior to the date of occurrence, the accused No. 1 Muruganandam engaged the auto of the deceased, but did not pay the hire charges.On that reason, there was a quarrel between them.Sometimes later, the deceased Sakthipandian on the eve of Thevar Guru Pooja, fitted mike set in a van and displayed songs praising Thevar in public place and on noticing this, the accused 1 to 6, who belong to Scheduled Caste raised objection.Due to this also there was a quarrel between these two groups.c) Some days prior to the date of occurrence, one Shanmugiah Pandian, the Vice President of Thevar Youth Forum was arrested by the police.Opposing this arrest, the deceased Sakthipandian arranged to get posters raising objection slogans against the police and pasted the same in public places.Due to this also, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased.d) On 24.12.1997 at about 3.00 p.m., A1 to A3 came to the auto stand and requested the deceased to take them to Lanthai to hand over the TV which got repaired, to the Panchayat Union.Accordingly, A1 to A3 were taken and after handing over the TV to the Panchayat Union, they came back.Near the place of occurrence, other accused were waiting.A1 by pulling the shirt of the deceased, the driver of the auto, asked him to stop the vehicle.The deceased stopped the auto and thereafter, the deceased was forcibly taken from the auto to the place of occurrence, where he was stabbed to death by all the accused.e) On hearing of the news that a dead body was found lying near the auto, P.W.6, the brother-in-law of the deceased went and informed P.W.7 and came to the spot.In the meantime, P.W.1 Chelliah, Village Assistant saw the dead body in the evening with multiple injuries and identified the dead body as that of Sakthipandian.He then went to Bazaar Police Station and gave Ex.P.8 is the printed First Information Report.f) P.W.14 Kumar, Inspector of Police, in charge of the police station, came to the scene at 6.45 p.m. He received the copy of the F.I.R. He prepared Ex.P.2 observation mahazar and drew Ex.P.3 rough sketch.He recovered M.O.1 bloodstained earth, M.O.2 sample earth and other things available in the scene of occurrence.He also recovered M.O.5 auto.On the requisition given by P.W.14, P.W.17 Finger Print Expert came and taken the finger prints available in the auto.JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Murugesan (A1) and Sankar (A2) were convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.P.7 complaint to P.W.11 Sub inspector of Police, who registered a case in Crime No. 334/1997 under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.He also took the finger prints of the deceased.P.11 is the inquest report.The body of the deceased was sent to Government Hospital to conduct post-mortem.g) P.W.10 Dr. Rathinam conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased on 25.12.1997 at 11.30 a.m., and he noticed that the deceased had sustained 24 stab injuries of various dimensions.He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to injury to lung, trachea and bleeding due to multiple injuries.P.6 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him.h) During the course of inquest, P.W.14 came to know about the involvement of A1 to A6 in the case.Therefore, he took steps to arrest the accused.On his confession, he recovered M.O.9 aruval.After arrest, finger-prints were taken from the accused and the same were sent to P.W.17 Finger Print Expert to compare the finger prints taken from the auto.P.W.15 took up further investigation on 31.12.1997 and examined witnesses.i) P.W.16 another Inspector of Police took up further investigation and after obtaining opinion from the Public Prosecutor, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 342, 302 and 149 I.P.C.j) After framing appropriate charges, the trial Court went on with the trial.During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 17 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.29 were filed and M.Os.1 to 12 were marked.Through P.W.17, the reports of the Finger Print Expert viz., Ex.k) When the appellants/accused 1 and 2 were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied their complicity in the crime.l) After considering the materials on record,though the trial Court acquitted A3 to A6 in respect of all the charges, convicted A1 and A2, the appellants herein only for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C. and sentenced them each to undergo life imprisonment.With reference to the infirmities pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, we have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor at length.We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also gone through the records.On perusal of the entire records, it is seen that most of the witnesses turned hostile.Since no other evidence available with reference to the actual occurrence and also in regard to the overt acts attributed to each of the accused, the trial Court was constrained to acquit all the accused in respect of the main charge under Section 302 I.P.C. However, the trial Court, merely on the basis of the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.17, convicted A1 and A2 alone for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C.On analysing the materials available on record, we are to conclude that the evidence of P.W.6, who had last seen the deceased in the company of the accused 1 to 3 is not credible and as such, the same cannot be acted upon to connect the appellants with the crime in question.The reasons for the above conclusion are the following.It is the specific case of the prosecution that earlier, there were quarrels between the accused and the deceased on so many occasions.According to P.W.6, A1 engaged the same auto for some other purpose, but did not make payment of hire charges.With reference to that, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased.It is further stated by P.W.6 that on the eve of Thevar Guru Pooja, the deceased fitted the mike set in the van and displayed songs in praise of Thevar and this was objected to by all the accused and due to this also, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased.Apart from that, when Shanmugiah Pandian, the Vice-President of Thevar Youth Forum was arrested by the police, the deceased pasted posters, opposing the act of the police in arresting Shanmugiah Pandian and in protest, the accused came and picked up quarrel with the deceased.In the light of the the materials with reference to enmity between these two groups, the evidence of P.W.6 that A1 to A3 came on that day at about 3.00 p.m. and engaged the auto of the deceased to go to Lanthai, which is situate 12 kms away from the auto stand, is not believable.When there was enmity between the deceased and the accused, with reference to the non payment of hire charges, it is quite artificial to say that the deceased readily agreed to take the accused 1 to 3 to go to Lanthai to hand over the TV to the Panchayat Union.However, he had not chosen to inform P.W.7 that at about 3.00 p.m. accused 1 to 3 engaged the deceased auto to go to Lanthai and thereafter, the deceased did not turn up.His evidence can be analysed from yet another angle.According to P.W.7, one Pandian was present at the scene of occurrence, when she went to the spot.She also specifically stated that he was examined by the police.On a perusal of Exs.P.11 inquest report, it is noticed that it has been specifically written in Col. No. 4 that the last person who saw the deceased alive is one Pandian.Despite this reference about Pandian, P.W.14 would state that Pandian was not examined during the course of inquest.Unfortunately, P.W.6 has not stated anything about the presence of Pandian in his evidence.When P.W.7 would specifically admit that the said Pandian, who had last seen the deceased alive, was available at the scene and he was examined by the police, it is not known as to why P.W.14 had failed to state that Pandian was not available and so, he was not examined.Only thereafter, the Finger Print Expert was examined as P.W.17, through whom all these documents viz., Exs.P.24 to P.29 were marked.It is the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they were compelled to give their finger prints.Though it is stated by P.W.17 that he went to the spot on 24.12.1997 itself and took the chance finger prints found on the auto, there is no reason as to why he had not sent the final reports such as Exs.P.24 to P.29 immediately either to the Court or to the Police Officer.As a matter of fact, all these documents have been prepared even according to P.W.17 only after getting the summons from the Court.It is the specific evidence of P.W.17 that even on 24.12.1997, he was present at the scene of occurrence.

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

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

Briefly the facts are that the complainant one Suresh Chand had lodged a report at P.S. Preet Vihar, Delhi at about 1100 p.m. on 17/11/94 where this report was registered as DD No. 20A. He has alleged that he along with his two co-villagers Satbir and Rakesh travelled in a bus after visiting the then Agriculture Minister, and alighted from the bus at Shakarpur Chowk and while going to ALT Ghaziabad Bus stop near Coffee Home to catch a bus to Ghaziabad for going to river Ganges, a girl named Aarti Hejmadi hit him from behind with an iron rod, two other persons accompanying her also gave beating to him with iron rods.When his two companions came to resuce him, she had fired at him but the bullet passed over his head.Due to fear of shooting, his two companions went away.It was also alleged that at that time Aarti had told him that "he had slapped me in the bus, to take revenge she would kill him and had also abused him.In the crowded bus Arti Hejmadi d/o P. Hejmadi who was claiming herself to be from Lady Hardinge Medical College.She was standing in the crowded bus and was holding the overhead rod and she said that you, (Suresh Chand) had put your hand on her hand by which she was holding the rod.ORDER J.B. Goel, J.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code') and Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks for setting aside of summoning order dated 17.2.1996 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma and for quashing of FIR No. 72/95 registered at P.S. Preet Vihar, Delhi under Sections 307/323/34 IPC.Some motorists came there and then the said girl went away on a motorcycle along with her two accomplices.After registration of the DD a copy of it was entrusted to ASI Sompal Singh who made inquiries and recorded statements of several persons from the neighbourhood area, but he did not find any truth or substance in the report and case was not registered.However, it appears that the complainant pursued the matter further with higher police officers and then on 6.4.1995 a case FIR No. 72/95 under Sections 307/323/34 IPC was registered.During investigation some more statements from neighbouring area and also of the alleged two companions of the complainant were recorded.The petitioner had also given a written reply dated 28.5.1995 that she was on duty at Safdarjung Hospital at the relevant time supported by the certificate from the doctor Incharge of her Department.The prior incident in which complainant had misbehaved with the petitioner in a bus and in which he was arrested was also taken notice of and a report was submitted to the Magistrate suggesting that there was no truth in the complaint, it was false and bogus and recommending to close the matter.The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the aforesaid proceedings, being misconceived and mala fide.The proceedings before the trial court have been stayed by this Court.The complainant was imp leaded as respondent No. 2 in these proceedings.Notice was served upon him but he did not put in appearance.I have heard Shri Mohit Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Seema Gulati for the State.Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the police had investigated the case, collected the relevant material and on the basis of such material had recommended that the complaint was false and no case is made out but the learned M.M. has acted illegally and with material irregularity in taking cognizance and summoning the petitioner.He has relied on the material collected by the IO, the background to the case and also certain case law.Whereas learned counsel for the State has contended that the petitioner should have approached the Court concerned before coming to this Court and if she feels that no case is made out she could urge the same before the Trial court instead of coming to this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of this Court.It has a previous history as noticed hereinafter.Report lodged by the complainant at 11.00 p.m. on 17.11.1994 on which DD No. 20A was recorded (Annexure-B is its English translation filed with the Petition) reads as under :-"At 11.00 p.m. registered and the person mentioned in column No. 2 has made his statement that on 9.6.93 I was travelling in a D.T.C. Bus.At this she punched her elbow into my stomach on which I told that girl to be a misbehaved person.She slapped me, on which I also slapped her.She got the case reported at the Police Station Parliament Street under Section 506 IPC and I was taken into custody.I was acquitted from the case by the Magistrate at the Patiala House Courts.On 19.3.94 that girl had fired on me at the Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg for which I had lodged an FIR at P.S. Mandir Marg, in that case the police officials did not do anything and instead hushed up the case.Today I along with two farmers of my village namely Satbir s/o Jouhari and Rakesh s/o Shiv Charan went to meet Agricultural Minister Sh.Balram Jakhar in relation to the paved passages for the fields of the farmers.Later on return I was going along with these two persons for a dip at the Ganges.After alighting from the bus at Shakarpur Chowk, I was going towards Coffee Home ALT Bus stop to catch a bus to go to ALT Ghaziabad.A girl hit me by the iron rod on my back, and two other persons who were accompanying this girl also beat me with iron rod.When the two persons who were accompanying me tried to rescue me, Arti Hejmadi fired at me from behind, the bullet passed over my head.Out of fear from the shooting, my companions left the spot in order to save their lives.After that Arti told me "You had slapped me in the bus, I will take my revenge by taking your life" and further added "I will kill you today", and abused me.After that when 2-4 motorists came towards us, this girl left the spot on the motorcycle alongwith the two boys.Even after waiting for a long time when the police did not reach, I have come to the police station to lodge the report.SI Sompal Singh had made inquiries in the matter.He has recorded the statements of several persons from neighbouring area on 18.11.1994 and 22.11.1994 who had stated that no such incident had at all taken place at the aforesaid time and place.The complainant was also medically examined at SDM Hospital, Shahdara on 17.11.1994 vide MLC No. 4830/94 (C-72043) and the Doctor had noticed the following injuries :.ls1 "1 Contusion injury (L) Middle of leg2. Lacerated Injury overC/o loosening of cipper (L) med.incisor tooth.However, clinically no signs of bleeding locally.No fracture clinically.The injuries were opined to be simple.If there was pre-planned attack with iron rods by three persons and firearm was actually used, the nature and extent of injuries perhaps would have been more serious.These injuries are not such which could not have been self inflicted or manipulated to create false evidence.After the FIR was registered on 6.4.1995 statements of two companions of the complainant Satbir and Rakesh were recorded who have not supported the complainant in material respects and have made statements at variance to his statement.Statement of some more persons from the neighbouring areas were also recorded who have also denied that any such occurrence had taken place.The matter is to be seen in the light of this legal position.The petitioner had alleged that at the time of occurrence his two co-villagers Satbir and Rakesh were with him."About 4-5 months back I alongwith Suresh and Satbir who are my co-villagers had gone to meet the Agriculture Minister, Shri Balram Jakhar but the Minister did not meet and his P.A. has met at about 3.00 p.m. and after meeting him we got a bus at about 3.05 p.m. and got down from the bus at about 3.15 p.m. at Shakarpur Chowk and proceeded to catch a bus for going to Ghaziabad and at about 3.20 p.m. when we reached near Coffee Home two persons and a girl came on a motor cycle.All the three were armed with Iron rods and all the three gave blows with series on Suresh Chand.I and Satbir tried to rescue him but the said girl fired a shot and I and Satbir ran away and I do not know what happened thereafter and I alongwith Satbir went to Ghaziabad and then reached Anup Shahr at about 8.00 p.m. and Suresh had met us 15/20 days thereafter in the village."Satbir in his statement recorded on 18.4.95 has stated as follows, so far is relevant (English translation) :-"I am agriculturist and in November 1994 I alongwith Suresh Chand Sharma and another person whose name he did not know had gone to meet the Agriculture Minister and took a DTC bus in which we reached at about 5.00 p.m. at Shakarpur Chowk.We had gone some distance when two boys alongwith a girl came on a motorcycle.One of the two boys got down from his motorcycle and started giving beatings to Suresh Chand with saria when I and my companion tried to rescue him the other boy fired a shot and on this shooting we separated from Suresh who had fallen down.The two boys alongwith that girl went away.We brought Suresh to Jagatpuri, Shahdara at the house of one Balbir Dahiya in a bus upto Shahdara and then in a cycle rickshaw.Suresh was left there and I and Rakesh went to Anup Shahr to take a dip in the Ganga and reached there at about 9.00 p.m. The girl who was accompanying the aforesaid two boys did nothing nor she had uttered any words.I could not recognise that girl but I can identify the two boys".Both these witnesses have not supported the complainant on material aspects including the time of occurrence.According to Rakesh they had got down from the bus at Shakarpur Chowk at about 3.15 p.m. and obviously the occurrence according to him would have taken place at about that time.Satbir on the other hand had stated that they had reached there at about 5.00 p.m. In the complaint the time of occurrence is not mentioned but in subsequent statement under Section 161 of the Code of the complainant, the time of occurrence stated is 8.00 p.m. On his report DD No. 20A was recorded at 11.00 p.m. There is great variance in these three statements about the time of occurrence.Rakesh in his statement has stated that the girl and her two companions were armed with iron rods (saria) and all the three had given saria blows to Suresh Sharma and the said girl had fired a shot at Suresh.Satbir has stated that one of the two boys had given saria blows to Suresh Sharma while the other boy had fired.He does not assign any overt act to the petitioner and does not support the other two.He has further stated that he, Rakesh and Suresh had gone to the house of one Balbir in Jagatpuri, Shahdara and left Suresh there.Both Suresh and Rakesh do not corroborate him that they had gone to the house of Balbir Dahiya in Jagatpuri.These are not minor variations but major contradictions which make their statements untruthful and untrustworthy.Complainant Suresh Chand in his statement under Section 161 dated 11.4.1995 has admitted that at the complaint of Arti Hejmadi, a FIR No. 206/93 under Section 509 was registered at P.S. Parliament Street regarding his alleged behaviour while both were travelling in a bus and in that case he remained in jail for over two months, at that time he had written letters to Arti Hejmadi from jail requesting her to withdraw her complaint and to get him released to enable him to attend the marriage of his sister which she did not agree.He had earlier also lodged a complaint against her on 19.3.94 at P.S. Mandir Marg against her about shooting by her.That complaint was also found baseless and the matter was dropped.The learned M.M. has given the following reasons while taking cognizance:"A notice was issued to the complainant who appeared in person and has opposed the request for cancellation of the case.I have heard the complainant, Ld. APP and the IO and have gone through the record.The learned Magistrate has not only misread the statements of the complainant and his two witnesses, he has completely ignored the material contradictions.The circumstances appearing on the record show that the complaint is wholly misconceived, for oblique motives, maliciously instituted with ulterior motive for wrecking the vengeance on the petitioner and with a view to spite her due to personal grudge and mala fides and the same ought not to have been allowed to perpetuate the injustice on the petitioner.

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Savita d/o Narhari Jaware is the resident of village Antri.She has a maternal aunt by name Sou.Police Patil of the said village is PW-7 Ganpat Devman Mahajan.On the day of incident i.e. on 12-11-1987, prosecutrix Ku.Savita, was asked to go to the field of her father at Antri to protect the crops.At that time she was aged about 16 years.The time was about 7 a.m. Her father had gone to village Motala.Her mother had gone to the other field.Prosecutrix went to the said field known as "Ambewali" field with a dog.When she reached to the field, it was at about 7.30 a.m. She tied her dog to Beri tree and she sat below the Bel tree.She started reading 'Gajanan Stotra', as it was her fast day.There was standing crop of cotton in the field.It is alleged that accused No. 1 i.e. respondent No. 1 - Rameshwar Shridhar Jaware, who was aged about 22 years, came in the field.He asked her whether there was anybody in the field.She told that she was alone.Thereafter accused No. 2 i.e. Respondent No. 2 - Eknath Onkar Jaware, aged about 21 years also came to the field.He told that his bullocks had entered in the standing crops of cotton in her field, so he was going to catch the bullocks.All of a sudden, respondent No. 1 caught hold her hands and dragged her towards the standing crops of cotton.She was crying and questioning him as to why she was being dragged.At that time Respondent No. 2 came running there.They both, then, dragged her despite her resistance.They took her to the crops of cotton.They made her to lie down forcibly.Respondent No. 2 by his both hands pressed her mouth and put his leg on her neck.He pressed her breast.Respondent No. 1 removed her inner pant by lifting Maxi.Respondent No. 1 also removed his inner pant and he committed forcible intercourse with her, She suffered severe pain.Respondent No. 1 threatened her for not telling about the incident to anybody, He also threatened her saying that if she tells about the incident to anybody, it would not be good.There was bleeding.According to her, respondent No. 1 had committed rape on her by penetrating his penis into her vagina.Because of this, she had suffered severe pain.It is alleged that there were stains of blood and semen on her Maxi & inner pant.She went to her house weeping along with her dog.Her elder sister Manda, PW-8 was there.She narrated the incident to her on her questioning as to why she was weeping.Thereafter her mother who had gone to 'Tikkewali' field and her father who had gone to Motala, were called.It is alleged that, at the relevant time i.e. while committing the offence, respondent No. 1 was wearing Manila, full-pant and inner pant and respondent No. 2 was wearing full-shirt and trou-ser.Her aunt Sou.Kasturabai PW-6 came there.The incident was narrated to her also.After reaching of the father of the prosecutrix PW-5 Ku.Savita, they went to Police Patil PW-7 Ganpat Mahajan.He was apprised about the incident and thereafter they i.e. prosecutrix Ku.Savita, her father, her aunt Sou.Kasturabai and Police Patil started going to police Station.On the way, Police Patil PW-7" Ganpat Mahajan asked PW-6 Kasturabai to verify the fact of rape and whether there were any signs of rape on the person or on the clothes of the prosecutrix Ku.They went in the field by name 'Mala'.PW-6 Kasutrabai verified that her inner pant & Maxi had blood stains and white semen stains.Then they went to Police Station Borakhedi.3. Prosecutrix PW-5 Ku.The offence under Sections 376, 354 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the respondents.PW-10 PSI Bhimrao Wankhede conducted the investigation.The prosecutrix was referred for medical examination.He had also collected the samples of vaginal smear, pubic hairs.He also seized the clothes of the prosecutrix.Upon x-ray examination, he had issued the certificate to the Investigating Officer, Exh. 23, opining that the age of the prosecutrix at the relevant time was 16-18 years 13 years.It may be stated that during the course of investigation, after arrest, both the respondents were also referred for medical examination.No semen stains noted.No foreign body seen on hairs or in private part.Vulva and Vag.orifis stained with blood & hairs around vulva matted.On P/S, no injuries seen over cervix vaginal walls, blood oozing through OS' + P/v at AV AF NS Ex clear chetle intact, hymens ruptured.No recent sign.Rupture of hymen, blood present in vagina & around the vulval orifis.(6) Pubic hairs matted with blood & stains trimned are collected for chemical analysis.(7) Swab from labia minora and vagina with post Fx taken on glassed slides, fixed & sealed for Chemical analysis (8) Blood sample taken for grouping & Ph. typing and sealed.(9) Pieces of clothes from Parkar & underpant are taken in bottle, sealed for Chemical analysis.He also stated that she was wearing Manila and blouse of white colour.JUDGMENT S.R. Dongaonkar, J.Challenge of the appellant State in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Buldana, in Criminal Appeal No. 9/1990, by which he allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents who were held guilty by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Buldana, for the offences punishable under Section 376 and 354 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, each of them being sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default R.I. for 6 months, in Sessions Case No. 61/1988, and acquitted them of the charge.The prosecution case in nutshell is that, prosecutrix PW-5 Ku.The clothes of the prosecutrix Ku.Savita were also seized as per Seizure Panchnama Exh. 34 in his presence.After due investigation and on receipt of C.A. Report Exh. 24, the respondents were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences.The respondents pleaded not guilty.The prosecution has examined the aforesaid witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused/respondents, besides PW-3 Headmaster, Maroti Ingle, who had produced the school leaving certificate of the prosecutrix to prove her date of birth as per Exh. 30 and PW-4, HC Rane, who had carried out some part of investigation.The respondents abjured the guilt and examined 4 witnesses in defence.Their defence mainly is that in the said village there is habit of lodging false reports of "rape".Police Patil is also facing a case of rape and he is instrumental to lodge some such false reports.It is also their defence that due to inimical terms between the prosecution witnesses and the respondents & their relatives, a false case has been reported against the respondents.DW-1 Prakash Khiste has been examined to prove the blood group of Respondent- No. 1 Rameshwar.DW-2 Watsalabai Bundhe has been examined to show that she had also filed a criminal case against Raghunath Suradkar and Pundlik Mandar about the rape and that was a false case.DW-3 Ramdas Haramkar has been examined to show the bad terms between the prosecution witnesses and the respondents' relatives.DW-4 Retd.ASI Keshaorao Patil has been examined to prove the report lodged by the prosecutrix Ku.Savita, mainly to prove that he had written the report as per her say.The learned trial Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that prosecutrix Ku.Savita has led trustworthy evidence and she is an artless village woman whose testimony inspires confidence and she cannot make out a false charge of rape against the respondents.He, therefore, held respondents guilty of the offences charged and convicted & sentenced them, however, he did not award any separate sentence against the respondents for the offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code.The respondents challenged this judgment of conviction and sentence in the Court of Sessions Judge, Buldana.He also considered the fact that there was total discrepant version as regards Maxi, Parkar (Petticoat) and the uniform of the prosecutrix.There was clear doubt as to which clothes she was wearing at the time of incident.Accordingly, he allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondents.In fact, the Police Patil PW-7 Ganpat Mahajan is himself facing a rape charge and therefore, the evidence of prosecutrix Ku.Savita should not be considered as trustworthy, more so because it is riddled with so many improbabilities and also because the medical evidence is contrary to what she has stated about the incident.DW-2 Watsalabai had also deposed about the habit of lodging false report and in fact she stated that Police Patil informed her to make a false allegations against Raghunath Suradkar and Pundlik Mandar about committing rape on her.She has also stated that her husband had advised her that they are required to reside in the village, therefore, she had filed false rape case against them.What is more she has stated is that Police Patil had informed her to break her bangles and a lantern and thereafter her saree was taken away and brought the same after containing some stains of semen and thereafter she, Police Patil and other villagers had gone to the police station and she was required to put thumb print on her complaint, if such is the evidence led by a woman of the village, it is rather must to find out whether the prosecutrix Savita is reliable or not and whether her evidence is corroborated from some independent source.This takes us to consider the medical evidence on record.(10) X-ray of wris St. AP both hands, elbow are advised for conformation of age.Report regarding age of Pt.will be given after examination.It is rather surprising and shocking that in the said certificate he has not mentioned as to whether there were signs of any recent intercourse.But the fact remains that the injuries stated by him are abrasion on dorsal aspect of the hands.He has specifically stated that there were no injuries or scratches seen on thigh, breast, back and private parts.The case of the prosecution is that she was dragged first by Respondent No. 1 Rameshwar and then by both respondents in the field of cotton crops.She was made to lie down, respondent No. 2 pressed her mouth and respondent No. 1 committed forcible intercourse with her after removing her inner wear and also his own and all the time she was resisting.She is a girl of about 16 to 18 years.She is from village.It is difficult to believe that had she resisted, she would have suffered only two small injuries that too of a very little dimensions on the dorsal sides of her arms.Savita, there was complete sexual intercourse with emission.But then the CAs Report does not show the existence of semen in the vaginal smear and the clothes.It is clear that had there been complete intercourse as alleged by the prosecutrix Ku.Savita, some semen & spermatozoa would have been found on these slides.Therefore, the medical evidence as well as the report of C.A. runs contrary to the evidence of the prosecutrix.The learned appellate Judge has pointed out several discrepancies in the evidence of prosecutrix Ku.Savita and other witnesses including Police Patil.It is rather difficult to say that all these observations made by him are incorrect or perverse, though to some of them we are unable to concur.But fact remains that this is not a case of 'no corroboration' to the evidence of the prosecutrix, but it is a case of medical evidence being contrary to her story.The learned A.P.P. is unable to explain as to how such evidence can be reconciled with the theory of the prosecutrix that there was forcible complete intercourse despite her resistance in a field of cotton crops without resulting into any injuries on her rest of the body.In the instant case, we had called for the clothes of the prosecutrix Ku.There is lot of difference between the clothes; Maxi and the petticoat.Savita in her evidence has stated that at the time of incident, she had a Maxi on her person and there were stains of blood & semen on her Maxi and the inner pant.It is also pertinent to note that the clothes on her person were taken by the Medical Officer, PW-1 Dr. Dilip Kulkarni.He has stated that she was wearing petticoat.He also stated that she was wearing inner pant of greenish colour with strip, which was soaked with blood stains and other stains, the same was preserved for analysis.Savita, on the contrary that evidence tend to cast doubt on the prosecution version.

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 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 Vandana was daughter of oneIndrabai w/o Baburao Misal resident of Bhakarwadi, Tq.Badnapur, District Jalna who is residing in Milindnagar,Osmanpura, Peer Bazar at Aurangabad since long.Deceasedwas married to one Balu Gajile of Nipani about 6 yearsback.She begot a son from said Balu.Said Balu marriedanother woman and deceased continued to live with hermother.Allthe accused were residing jointly in the house in theiragriculture land at village Waregaon.Accused were doingthe business brick kiln at the time of incident.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::accused No.1 and residing in the joint family of theaccused on 17/11/2007 at about 6.00 a.m. in the abovesaid house of accused she sustained 86% burn injuries.One Sominath Ramchandra Shejwal (husband of the defencewitness No.1 Meena) and accused No. 3 immediatelyadmitted the deceased in injured condition in the Ghatihospital at Aurangabad in the ward No. 22/23 of theburnt patients.The information of admitting thedeceased in the injured condition in the hospital wasgiven to the Police station, Phulambri, DistrictAurangabad on the same day i.e. on 17/11/2007 at 8.15p.m.and accordingly MLC No. 42 of 2007 was registered.Then Police Inspector Alsatwar (PW-8) of the said PoliceStation directed API Bagul (PW-10) to visit the spot ofincident and to prepare panchanama.Accordingly APIBagul visited the spot of incident i.e. house of theaccused and prepared panchanama of spot with map as perExhibit 75 and some articles like burnt pieces ofclothes, match stick and drops of kerosene etc. were ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 5 ) criappl221.14.odtseized from the spot of incident under the samepanchnama.So also, stick was seized from the house ofaccused.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::(C) On the same day i.e. on 17/11/2007 PHC Pise(PW-3) went to Ghati hospital with letter Exhibit 37addressed to the Medical Officer of the said hospital,informing the Medical Officer that he has to recordstatement of deceased and requested the Medical Officerto examine the deceased who was admitted in injuredcondition and to state whether she was in a position togive statement.Thereupon, PHC Pise recorded dyingdeclaration Exhibit 38 after 1.45 p.m. on 17/11/2007stating that the deceased performed Gandharva marriage ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 6 ) criappl221.14.odtprior to one and half months of the incident with theaccused No. 1 and since the marriage all the accusedwere harassing her and saying her to bring Rs.10,000/-from her parents for brick kiln.Thereupon the deceasedwas saying them that her parents are poor and from wherethey would bring such amount and she was convincingthem.But all the accused were harassing her byassaulting her.When she was going to her parents at thetime of festival she used to tell them about saidharassment to her by the accused.But her parents weresending her to her in-laws house after convincing her.It is stated that on 16/11/2007 in the night all theaccused beat her by fist and kick blows and stick sayingher that she did not bring money for brick kiln.On17/11/2007 at about 6.00 a.m. her father-in-law andmother-in-law caught hold her and her husband pouredkerosene on her person and set her on fire by lightingthe match stick and thus attempted to commit her murder.It is stated that she sustained burns to her hands,stomach and face and her entire body is burnt.It is ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 7 ) criappl221.14.odtstated that her mother-in-law and one Sominath Shejwalhave admitted her in the hospital and that action betaken against all the accused.The said dyingdeclaration Exhibit 38 was sent to Police Station,Phulambri and crime No. 148 of 2007 was registered on17/11/2007 against the accused for the offencespunishable under Sections 307, 498-A and 323 read withSection 34 of the IPC and the PHC Pise gave letterExhibit 39 to Tahasildar, Aurangabad to record dyingdeclaration of the deceased.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::(D) After receiving the letter Exhibit 39Tahasildar, Aurangabad asked Naib Tahasildar Nikam (PW-(D) After receiving the letter Exhibit 394) from Phulambri to record dying declaration of thedeceased.Naib Tahasildar Nikam accordingly went toGhati hospital, Aurangabad at about 4.00 p.m. on17/11/2007 and no doctor was present.He recorded dyingdeclaration Exhibit 43 of the deceased between 4.25 p.m.to 5.20 p.m. stating that she performed second Gandharvamarriage with accused No.1 in the fifth month.She hadno menstruation and therefore, her husband suspected ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 8 ) criappl221.14.odther.All the accused said her to bring Rs. 10,000/- fromher parental house, she said that her parents could notgive that amount as they are doing soil work.Therefore,they started harassing her.On 16/11/2007 she wasassaulted in the night.On 17/11/2007 in the morning hermother-in-law and father-in-law caught hold her handsand legs and her husband poured kerosene on her personand then lighted the match stick and therefore, shesustained burns.She made shouts as she was burnt, butnobody came to her help as their house is isolated.However one Sominath who was labour on brick kiln pouredwater on her person and her mother-in-law admitted herin Ghati hospital at about 8.00 a.m.(E) While the deceased was admitted in Ghatihospital on 17/11/2007 her brother Charandas (PW-1), hersister Tulsabai Gautam Shejwal (PW-2) and Gautam SampatShejwal (PW-5) husband of PW-2 went in the Ghatihospital after knowing that the deceased suffered burnsand that she is admitted in the hospital, they met herand the deceased disclosed to them about involvement of ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 9 ) criappl221.14.odtthe accused in sustaining burns to her as alleged by theprosecution.Their statements were recorded duringinvestigation by PI Alsatwar (PW-8).He was informed at about 9.00 a.m. by a boyfrom their lane that deceased got burnt.Therefore, hewent to Ghati Hospital at Aurangabad."498-A.....Explanation- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 58 ) criappl221.14.odt failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::The evidence of PW-1 brotherof the deceased is that deceased resided at the house ofaccused for about one month after marriage and thenaccused No. 1 reached her to their house for Nagpanchamifestival.Accused No. 1 did not come back to take thedeceased.Accused No. 2 father-in-law of deceasedwent to Jategaon and took the deceased with him to hishouse before two days of the incident.PW-1 has furtherdeposed that on the day of incident when the deceasedwas admitted in injured condition in the hospital shedisclosed to him that accused No.1 was denying that shewas pregnant from him as she had no menstruation andthat an amount of Rs.10,000/- was demanded by the ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 59 ) criappl221.14.odtaccused for brick kiln.In the cross-examination hedenied that the deceased did not disclose to him asabove.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::The evidence of PW-2 Tulsabai who is admittedlysister of the deceased is that after marriage deceasedresided at her house for about one month.After aboutthree months of marriage of deceased, marriage of herdaughter (daughter of witness) was performed at Jategaonand at that time deceased and her mother came toJategaon to attend said marriage.After 15 days of thesaid marriage accused No.2 came to her house to take thedeceased.Deceased had informed her that accused No.1used to beat to her.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::referred to as the accused Nos. 1 to 3 have challengedthe judgment and order dated 20/03/2014 passed by theSessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 82 of2008 thereby convicting and sentencing each of them tosuffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay afine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorousimprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishableunder Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IndianPenal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) andfurther convicting and sentencing each of them to sufferimprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, indefault to suffer simple imprisonment for one month forthe offence punishable under Section 302 read withSection 34 of the IPC.The sentences of imprisonmentwere directed to run concurrently.Muddemal propertybeing valueless was ordered to be destroyed after theappeal period is over.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::( 3 ) criappl221.14.odt3. Facts leading to this appeal as revealed fromthe case papers are as under:-While the deceasedwas taking treatment in the hospital she scummed toinjuries on 23/11/2007 in the night.Accordingly, PIAlsatwar prepared inquest panchanama.After her deathoffence under Section 302 of the IPC was added in thecrime registered against the accused.All accused werearrested on 17/11/2007 immediately after the crime wasregistered against them and they were released on bail.The investigating officer recorded statements of otherwitnesses.He also sent articles seized from the spot ofincident to the Chemical Analyzer and collected reportof the Chemical Analyzer.After completion of theinvestigation charge-sheet was submitted in the Court ofJMFC, Phulambri, who committed the case to the SessionsCourt at Aurangabad for trial.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::(F) The learned Additional Sessions Judge,Aurangabad framed charge against the accused for theoffences punishable under Section 302 and 498-A read ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 10 ) criappl221.14.odtwith Section 34 of the IPC.Accused pleaded not guiltyto the charge and claimed to be tried.Their defence isthat death of the deceased is accidental.Theprosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses.Accusedhave examined one witness Meena Shejul (DW-1) indefence.After considering the evidence adduced by theprosecution and the defence the learned Sessions Judgeheld all the accused guilty for the offences punishableunder Sections 302 and 498-A read with Section 34 of theIPC and accordingly sentenced them for the said offencesas said earlier by the impugned judgment and order andtherefore this appeal.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::(G) Accused No. 1 is in jail and accused No. 3 anddeceased accused No. 2 were released on bail.Mr. Kulkarni, learned advocate for theappellants/accused Nos. 1 and 3 submitted that tosupport the conviction of the accused the prosecutionhas relied upon two written dying declarations i.e.Exhibit 38 recorded by PHC Pise (PW-3) in presence of ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 11 ) criappl221.14.odtthe Medical Officer Bhushan Ubhale (PW-9) on 17/11/2007and Exhibit 43 recorded by Naib Tahasildar Subhash Nikam(PW-4) on the same day between 4.25 p.m. to 5.20 p.m.There was no endorsement on both the dying declarationsthat the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make thestatement at the time of recording both the dyingdeclarations.Admittedly Exhibit 43 dying declarationwas not recorded in presence of any doctor.Therefore,according to learned advocate when both these dyingdeclarations were recorded the deceased was not in aposition to make statement due to 86% burns suffered byher as admitted by Dr. Sharad Kuchewar (PW-7) and 90%burns as stated by Medical officer Bhushan Ubhale (PW-::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::9).State ofMaharashtra, 2008(4), Mh.L.J. (Cri.)474, in the saidcase as observed in paragraph No. 7 following twoquestions arose for determination and they are as under:::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::"(i) Whether presumption under section 80 of Indian Evidence Act can be drawn in respect of a dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate without proof as to the cause of death of the dying person or as to in all the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death and particularly in respect of the name or description of/and act of the accused/offender in committing the offence of murder?declaration to depose before the trial Court about the name and act of the accused which resulted into the murder, in the words spoken up by the dying man?"::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::Having gone through the evidence on record, we find that the prosecution has relied upon only one piece of evidence to prove the charge against the appellants and the same is dying declaration (Exh.23) of deceased Sunita Bhanse.There is no other evidence relied on by the prosecution in support of its case.In his substantive evidence before the Court, Wasudeo (P.W.4) deposed that after getting deceased Sunita examined from the medical officer he was satisfied that she was physically and mentally fit to give the statement, he recorded her dying declaration.Thereafter he read over the said dying declaration to the patient who admitted the same to be correctly written as per her say.Accordingly he made an endorsement and again requested the medical officer to examine the patient about her mental and physical condition.It is noteworthy that in his substantive evidence before the Court he did not depose a single word as to who were the offenders who had poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire and in what manner.The witness is blissfully silent about the same and the prosecution preferred to rely upon the document of dying declaration which was exhibited.We have held by answering both the questions in this judgment, that the document of ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 14 ) criappl221.14.odt dying declaration cannot be presumed to be correct under section 80 of Evidence Act, unless proved according to law.This is particularly so because no presumption under section 80 is available in respect of the dying declaration.Since Wasudeo (P.W.4) did not depose a word about the name and the role of the appellants as told to him by the deceased Sunita, in view of the statement of law recorded by us in the foregoing part of the judgment, we hold that the prosecution failed to prove its case and did not discharge the initial burden of proof required to be discharged in a criminal case.For this reason therefore we reject the sole piece of evidence in the form of dying declaration (Ex.23) relied upon by the prosecution.There is no other evidence and consequently the finding of the trial Court about conviction on the basis of dying declaration will have to be reversed.Thus Criminal Appeal No. 103/03 will have to be allowed."::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::The above said decision dated 30/06/2008 waschallenged before the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.Mr. Kulkarni, learned advocate for the accusedfurther submitted that there is no endorsement on dyingdeclaration Exhibit 43 that the said dying declaration ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 15 ) criappl221.14.odtwas read over to the deceased by PW-4 and that sheadmitted the same to be correct and therefore, accordingto learned advocate the said dying declaration cannot besaid to be voluntary statement of the deceased.State of Maharashtra, 2002(2) Mh.L.J.3, wherein it was held that prosecution has to bring onrecord that the deceased had heard the statementrecorded by the Executive Magistrate and she admitted itto be correct.This is not a mere formality but anessential part while recording the dying declaration.A dyingdeclaration cannot be rejected merely because same isnot read over to declarant who admitted that same hasbeen correctly recorded.However, it can be one of the ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 16 ) criappl221.14.odtfactors if it assumes significance in facts andcircumstances of case.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::Mr. Kulkarni, learned advocate for the accusedsubmitted that the contents of both written dyingdeclarations Exhibit 38 and 43 were not put to theaccused in their statements under Section 313 of theCriminal Procedure Code and therefore, as theincriminating material/circumstances in both the writtendying declarations were not put to the accused in theexamination under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Codea serious prejudice has been caused to the accused andno opportunity was given to them to explain theincriminating circumstances appearing against them inthese two written dying declarations and hence both thedying declarations cannot be taken into consideration toconvict the accused.The State of Maharashtra, 2011 ALL MR (Cri)3536 (F.B.) the learned advocate submitted that if theaccused succeeds in showing prejudice caused to him dueto omission to put any particular circumstances toaccused under Section 313, the appellate Court canafford an opportunity to the prosecution to make up thelapse and avoid miscarriage of justice.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::Mr. Kulkarni, learned advocate for the accusedsubmitted that dying declarations Exhibit 38 and 43 arenot consistent.Therefore, in all the abovecircumstances they are not voluntary statements of thedeceased and they are not truthful and therefore they ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 18 ) criappl221.14.odtcannot be considered to convict the accused and theyhave to be excluded from consideration.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::Mr. Kulkarni, learned advocate submitted thatallegedly while the deceased was admitted in injuredcondition in the Ghati hospital on 17/11/2007 she madeoral dying declarations to her brother (PW-1), hersister (PW-2) and PW-5 her brother-in-law and husband ofPW-2 regarding involvement of all the accused.Accordingto learned advocate there is no material to show thatwhen the deceased made oral dying declaration to thesewitnesses and there is no material to show that at therelevant time deceased was in a fit state of mind tomake statement to these witnesses.Therefore and asthere is no consistency in the evidence of these threewitnesses regarding oral dying declaration made to themby the deceased, according to learned advocate theevidence of these interested witnesses is not believableand therefore, oral dying declarations made to thesethree witnesses who are close relatives of the deceasedcannot be made basis to convict the accused when there ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 19 ) criappl221.14.odtis no evidence to show presence of the accused at thespot of incident and when the prosecution has notexamined Sominath Shejwal who had put off the fire ofdeceased by pouring water on her person and admitted herin the hospital.It is submitted that the accused havebrought on record the possibility of accidental death ofthe deceased through the evidence of DW-1 Meena who iswife of Sominath Shejwal.Thus, learned advocate has prayed to setaside the impugned conviction and sentence recordedagainst the appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 3 by allowingthe appeal.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::( 20 ) criappl221.14.odtMrs. Choudhary, learned APP, on the other handsubmitted that prosecution case is based on two writtendying declarations Exhibits 38 and 43 and oral dyingdeclarations made to PWs-1, 2 and 5 and there is noreason to reject written as well as oral dyingdeclarations.State by ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 21 ) criappl221.14.odtInspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, 2005 AIR(SC) 1473 ,learned APP submitted that there is no material to showthat dying declarations are result of product ofimagination, tutoring or prompting.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::Learned APP further submitted that questionNos. 14, 15, 24, 25, 26, 39, 40, 41 were put to theaccused about oral dying declarations made to PWs 1, 2and 5, question Nos.43 to 48 about written dyingdeclaration Exhibit 38 and question Nos. 57 to 62regarding dying declaration Exhibit 43 were put to theaccused at the time of their examination under Section313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and therefore, noprejudice has been caused to the accused as submitted bythe learned advocate appearing for the accused.It issubmitted that therefore, decisions relied upon by thelearned advocate appearing for the accused are notapplicable to the present case.Learned APP thussubmitting that conviction and sentence recorded againstthe accused is proper claimed to dismiss the appeal.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::( 22 ) criappl221.14.odtWe have carefully considered the submissionsmade by the learned advocate appearing for theappellants/accused and learned APP for therespondent/State.With their assistance we have perusedthe evidence adduced by the prosecution and the accusedand we have gone through the impugned judgment andorder.There is no dispute that the deceased Vandanaperformed Gandharva marriage with accused No.1 fivemonths before the incident on 17/11/2007 and on the saiddate at 6.00 a.m. in the house of accused she sustained86% burn injuries.Thereafter, Sominath Shejwal andaccused No. 3 admitted her in Ghati hospital atAurangabad at about 8.15 a.m. and while taking treatmentshe scummed to injuries on 23/11/007 at 14.45 hours inthe hospital.As per evidence of Dr. Sharad Kuchewar(PW-7) who conducted postmortem examination and issuedpostmortem report Exhibit 63 cause of the death of thedeceased was, "Septicemic Shock due to Burns".Thus, it ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 23 ) criappl221.14.odtis clear that death of the deceased is not natural.Therefore, looking to the defence of the accused andcase of the prosecution it is to be seen whether deathof the deceased is homicidal, suicidal or accidental andif the death of the deceased is homicidal whether theaccused are responsible for causing burns to thedeceased and to her death.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::For proving that death of the deceased ishomicidal, the accused are responsible to cause burns toher and responsible to her death the prosecution hasrelied upon the following circumstances/ evidence:(i) Written dying declaration Exhibit 38 recordedby PHC Pise (PW-3) in presence of Medical OfficerBhushan Ubhale (PW-9).(ii) Written dying declaration Exhibit 43 recordedby Naib Tahasildar- Subhash Nikam (PW-4).::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::Phulambri Police Station, in presence of Bhushan Ubhale(PW-9), on 17/11/2007 after 12 noon.According to PHCPise on the said date MLC report about deceased Vandanawas received in police station.Entry of that report wastaken and he was asked to enquire into that matter.Hestated that he went to Ghati Hospital at Aurangabad onthat day and gave letter Exhibit 37 to the MedicalOfficer to opine whether injured Vandana was in aposition to give statement.The Medical Officer examinedher and gave endorsement on Exhibit 37-letter that shewas in a fit condition to give statement.Thereafter, healso enquired with her and she was able to speak.Further he deposed that he asked her as to how she got ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 25 ) criappl221.14.odtburnt.She gave the details of the incident in which shewas burnt.He reduced the same into writing.He readover the contents thereof to her.In thecross-examination he denied that Vandana was not in aposition to speak as she was given medicines through IV.He also denied that Medical Officer gave endorsementabout condition of deceased on letter Exhibit 37 in hiscabin without examining the deceased.Further he deniedthat he prepared dying declaration/statement Exhibit 38as per narration of sister of deceased and that he isdeposing false.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::He went to burnt patient Vandanaat 1.15 to 1.45 p.m. He checked pulse, blood pressure ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 26 ) criappl221.14.odtand consciousness level of burnt patient Vandana andfound that she was in a fit state of mind to givestatement and accordingly he gave endorsement Exhibit 73on letter Exhibit 37 addressed to the Medical Officer ofthe hospital.He also stated that he was present tillthe completion of recording of statement of Vandana.Inthe cross-examination he has denied that deceasedVandana was not in a fit state of mind to give statementas she had 90% burns and that he is deposing false.Headmitted that there is no endorsement on dyingdeclaration Exhibit 38 that he was present at the timeof recording the said dying declaration.Thus, nothingis found in favour of the accused in the cross-examination of Medical Officer Bhushan Ubhale.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::On the basis of evidence of PHC Pise (PW 3) andBhushan Ubhale (PW 9) an inference can be drawn thatwhen PHC Pise recorded dying declaration Exhibit 38deceased was in a position to make statement.This factis also clear from Exhibit 73 endorsement made onExhibit 37 letter addressed to the Medical Officer, ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 27 ) criappl221.14.odtGhati Hospital.Of course, there is no endorsement madeon dying declaration Exhibit 38 that deceased Vanandawas in a fit state of mind to give statement, but whensuch endorsement is made on letter Exhibit 37 and whenboth Pws-3 and 9 have stated that the deceased was in afit state of mind to make statement at the time of dyingdeclaration Exhibit 38 mere absence of endorsement ondying declaration Exhibit 38 of the Medical Officerabout the condition of the deceased is not sufficient tostate that she was not in a fit condition to makestatement.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::The second dying declaration is Exhibit 43recorded by Naib Tahasildar Subhash Nikam (PW-4) on17/11/2007 between 4.25 p.m. to 5.20 p.m. He has statedthat on 17/11/2007 he was working as a Naib Tahasildarin Tahasil office of Phulambri.Police had given letterExhibit 42 to the Tahasildar, Phulambri on 17/11/2007 torecord dying declaration of deceased who was admitted inGhati Hospital at Aurangabad.After receiving said ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 28 ) criappl221.14.odtletter he went to said government hospital on the sameday at about 4.00 p.m. and went to the ward of burntpatient where deceased Vandana was admitted.The doctorwas not present there.He waited for doctor for about 10to 15 minutes, however doctor did not come.He askedquestions to deceased Vandana with reference to her nameand address.She gave answers to those questions.Heensured himself that she was in a condition to givestatement.Then he asked her how she was burnt and shegave details of incident in which she was burnt.Hereduced that narration into writing.He read overcontents thereof to her.She admitted correctnessthereof.He obtained her right hand thumb impression onthe statement and he also counter singed the saidstatement.Said statement/dying declaration Exhibit 43is as per her narration.He stated that ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 29 ) criappl221.14.odtdeceased Vandana was extensionally burnt, but deniedthat she was not in a position to speak.He also deniedthat he prepared dying declaration Exhibit 43 as per thenarration of relatives of deceased and that he isdeposing false.The second dying declaration is Exhibit 43::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::There appears no dispute that dying declarationExhibit 43 as per the case of the prosecution wasrecorded between 4.25 p.m. to 5.20 p.m. on 17/11/2007.From the above referred evidence of PW-4 Naib TahasildarNikam it is clear that when he recorded dyingdeclaration the deceased was not examined by the Medicalofficer to know about the condition of the deceased tomake statement.According to Naib Tahasildar Nikam toensure that deceased was in a condition to givestatement.He asked some questions to deceased withreference to her name and address and she answered tothose questions.But he has not stated about the exactquestions asked by him to the deceased and about theanswers given by the deceased to those questions.In ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 30 ) criappl221.14.odtfact, he should have stated about all those questionsand the answers given by the deceased.There is nodispute that the deceased sustained 86% burns in themorning on 17/11/2007 at about 6.00 a.m. at the house ofaccused and then she was admitted in the Ghati Hospitalat Aurangabad which is about 25 k.m. from Phulambri.Considering the percentage and nature of burns sustainedby the deceased in the morning on 17/11/2007 and thefact that the second dying declaration was recordedbetween 4.25 to 5.20 p.m. on that day it was necessaryfor Naib Tahasildar Nikam to seek opinion of doctorabout the condition of the deceased at the time ofrecording said dying declaration.So also, theprosecution should have produced on record the casepapers showing the nature of treatment which was beinggiven to the deceased on that day and her condition atthe time of recording second dying declaration, but theprosecution has not produced case papers about thetreatment of the deceased.It is true that as referredearlier Naib Tahasildar Nikam asked some questions to ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 31 ) criappl221.14.odtensure that the deceased was in a condition to givestatement, but as mentioned earlier he has not statedabout the questions asked to her and the answers givenby her.The process of bloodpoisoning may start within five minutes or within onehour once the patient sustained 90% burn injuries.Soalso, he stated that blood poisoning may start withinone hour in case of 90% burns and normal understandingof 90% burnt patient may disappear.So also, he hasstated that within 1 or 2 hours mental condition of 90%burnt patient may change.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::Now it is to be seen whether the prosecutionhas proved the contents of written dying declarationsExhibits 38 and 43 and that these dying declarations arevoluntary, truthful and reliable.As referred earlierPHC Pise (PW-3) who recorded dying declaration Exhibit38 and Naib Tahasildar Nikam (PW-4) who recorded dyingdeclaration Exhibit 43 have simply stated that thedeceased had given the details of incident in which shewas burnt and they had reduced those details intowriting.They have further stated that these dyingdeclarations were read over to the deceased and sheadmitted that the contents thereof were correct.Butboth PWs-3 and 4 have not stated about the contents ofdying declarations Exhibits 38 and 43 respectivelyrecorded by them.In fact, they should have stated about ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 33 ) criappl221.14.odtthe contents of respective dying declarations recordedby them.In the case of Deorao s/o Sonbaji Bhalerao andanother (Supra), the Division Bench of this Court hasheld that mere production of dying declaration and thestatement that its contents are correct, would not provedying declaration and the witness who has recorded thedying declaration has to depose as to the contents ofdying declaration.Admittedly this has not been done inthe present case.Therefore, both the dying declarationsExhibits 38 and 43 have not been proved in accordancewith the law laid down by this Court in Deorao's case(Supra) which decision has been confirmed by the Hon'bleApex Court as per order dated 01/09/2015 in CriminalAppeal No(s).126/2011 as the appeal against decision inDeorao's case was dismissed, and therefore, dyingdeclarations Exhibits 38 and 43 have to be excluded fromconsideration.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::On perusal of the statements under Section313 of the Criminal Procedure Code of all the accused itappears that question Nos. 46, 47 and 48 who were askedto the accused on the dying declaration Exhibit 38recorded by PHC Pise (PW-3) and question No. 62 wasasked to the accused on dying declaration Exhibit 43recorded by Naib Tahasildar Nikam (PW-4).Thequestion Nos. 46, 47, 48, 62 and 79 with answers are asunder:-::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::"Q.46 It has further come in his evidence that he made inquiry with Vandana and she was able to speak and he recorded statement of Vandana.What you have to say about it?::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::he asked Vandana about burn injuries and she gave details of incident as to how she sustained burn injuries.What you have to say about it?Vandana into writing and thereafter read over the contents thereof to Vandana and she admitted correctness of the said statement and thereafter he obtained her right hand thumb mark on the said statement and also put his own signature on the said statement and said statement is at Exh. 38 and contents of the said statement are true and correct as stated by Vandana.What you have to say about it?he asked Vandana as to how she sustained burn injuries and she gave details of the incident in which she sustained burn injuries and said information was reduced into writing and it was read over to Vandana and she admitted correctness thereof and thereafter he obtained right hand thumb mark of Vandana on the said statement and also his own signature and the said statement is at Exh. 43 and it was recorded correctly as per the say of Vandana.What you have to say about it?::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::What you have to say about it?From the perusal of the above referred questionNos. 46, 47, 48, 62 and 79 and answers given by theaccused to the said questions it is clear that theaccused have stated that the dying declarations Exhibits38 and 43 are false.Thus,it is clear from question Nos. 48 and 62 referred toabove that contents of dying declarations Exhibits 38and 43 were not specifically put to the accused in thestatement under Section 313 of the Criminal ProcedureCode and as such no opportunity was given to the accusedto explain the circumstances appearing against them inboth these dying declarations.However, the learnedSessions Judge has used the contents of both the dyingdeclarations Exhibits 38 and 43 against the accused forholding the accused guilty for the offences alleged ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 37 ) criappl221.14.odtagainst them as observed in paragraph Nos. 21, 22, 23and 24 of the judgment.But when the contents of dyingdeclarations Exhibits 38 and 43 and the circumstancesappearing in the said dying declarations against theaccused were not put to them to give explanation boththese dying declarations cannot be taken intoconsideration in view of the law laid down by the ApexCourt in the case of Raj Kumar Singh alias Raju AliasBatya (Supra).Therefore, we hold that both the dyingdeclarations cannot be used against the accused and theyhave to be excluded from consideration.As a result, wehold that the prosecution has not proved that both thedying declarations are voluntary, reliable andtrustworthy statements of the deceased.Therefore, thedying declarations Exhibits 38 and 43 are of no help tothe prosecution to connect the accused with the offencesalleged against them.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::Now coming to the oral dying declarations,allegedly made by the deceased to PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5,the evidence of Charandas Baburao Misal (PW-1) brother ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 38 ) criappl221.14.odtof the deceased about oral dying declaration is that onthe day of incident he was on his work at Chhawani,Aurangabad.He reached in theburns ward at about 10.00 a.m. He saw that Vandana hadgot burnt.He asked her how she got burnt.She informedhim that accused Nos. 2 and 3 tied her hands and legs,while accused No.1 poured kerosene on her person and sether on fire.Vandana was pregnant at that time.She alsoinformed that accused No. 1 was denying that she waspregnant from him as she had no menstruation.Shefurther informed that the amount of Rs.10,000/- wasdemanded by the accused for brick kiln.In the cross-examination he had denied that he was not allowed to goinside the burns ward after he went to Ghati Hospital at10.00 a.m. He also denied that deceased Vandana was notin a position to talk at all.He denied that deceasedVandana did not at all inform him that on the day ofincident accused Nos. 2 and 3 tied her hands and legs ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 39 ) criappl221.14.odtand accused No.1 poured kerosene on her person and sether on fire.So also, he denied that Vandana did nottell him that the accused were demanding Rs.10,000/- andthat accused No. 1 was denying the paternity of thefeatus in her womb.So also, he deposed that, he statedbefore police that deceased had told him that accusedNos.2 and 3 tied her hands and legs and that she waspregnant on the day of incident and accused No. 1 deniedsaid pregnancy from him.These omissions in hisstatement before police have been proved by PW-8 PIAlsatwar the Investigating Officer.Therefore, theseomissions being material omissions in the statementbefore police of PW-1 and as PW-1 is brother of thedeceased his evidence that the deceased informed himthat accused Nos. 2 and 3 tied her hands and legs, thedeceased told him that she was pregnant at the time ofincident and accused No. 1 denied that said pregnancyfrom him is not believable and therefore, it is doubtfulwhether accused Nos. 2 and 3 were really involved in theincident and they had played role as deposed by this ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 40 ) criappl221.14.odtwitness in causing burns to the deceased.However,considering the evidence of PW-1 that he went tohospital at 10.00 a.m. and denial of the suggestion byhim that the deceased was not in a position to talk atall an inference can be drawn on the basis of evidenceof PW-1 that the deceased was in a position to talk whenhe met her and she disclosed to him in the hospital thataccused No. 1 poured kerosene on her person and set heron fire.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::The second witness to whom oral dyingdeclaration was made by the deceased is Tulsabai GautamShejwal (PW-2) married sister of the deceased.Herevidence on oral dying declaration is that after about 3days of the departure of Vandana from her house, herbrother-in-law informed on phone that Vandana wasadmitted in Ghati hospital at Aurangabad.She thereforewent to Ghati hospital at Aurangabad.Vandana wasadmitted there.She had sustained burns.On being askedby her Vandana told that accused Nos. 2 and 3 caughthold of her hands and legs, while accused No. 1 poured ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 41 ) criappl221.14.odtkerosene on her person and set her on fire.According toher Vandana informed that accused were taking suspicionagainst her.In the cross-examination she denied she wasnot allowed to go to meet Vandana in the ward in whichshe was admitted.She denied that the deceased Vandanawas not in a position to talk.She admitted that it wasnot possible to understand as to what she was talking.She has denied that Vandanda did not tell her thataccused Nos. 2 and 3 caught hold of her hands and legs,while accused No. 1 poured kerosene on her person andset her on fire.She denied that deceased Vandana caughtfire accidentally when she was cooking and that she isdeposing false to harass the accused on the say of herbrother.This witness has not specifically stated as towhen she went to Ghati hospital i.e. either in themorning or in the evening.It has come in the evidenceof PW-1 brother of this witness that this witness (PW-2)and her husband (PW-5) had come to the Ghati hospital onthe day of incident in the evening.Thus, it appearsthat this witness went to Ghati hospital in the evening.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::( 42 ) criappl221.14.odtAs observed earlier she denied that deceased Vandana wasnot in a position to talk.However, she admitted that itwas not possible to understand as to what she wastalking.As mentioned earlier case papers regardingtreatment of the deceased on 17/11/2007 and showing hercondition in the evening are not produced byprosecution.In fact, the said papers were required tobe produced by the prosecution to show that the deceasedwas in a position to talk.In the absence of said paperswhen this witness (PW-2) had admitted that it was notpossible to understand as to what she (deceased) wastalking, shows that the deceased was not in a positionto talk.So also, as referred earlier it has come in theevidence of PW-4 Naib Tahasildar who recorded dyingdeclaration Exhibit 43 on 17/11/2007 between 4.25 to5.20 p.m. that there was no doctor in the hospital.Therefore and when PW-2 has not specifically stated thatdeceased was in a condition to speak and stated that itwas difficult to understand what deceased was talking itis doubtful whether deceased was in a position to make ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 43 ) criappl221.14.odtstatement to this witness.Therefore, and as there isinconsistency in the evidence of oral dying declarationmade to this witness and her brother (PW-1) as regardsthe role played by accused Nos. 2 and 3 because PW-1states that deceased had informed him that accused Nos.2 and 3 tied her hands and legs whereas this witnesssays that accused Nos. 2 and 3 had caught hold her handsand legs the evidence of this witness is not sufficientto infer that really deceased made oral dyingdeclaration to this witness about the role played by theaccused referred to above.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::According to himdeceased was his sister-in-law.As regards the oraldying declaration in paragraph No. 3 of his depositionhe deposed that the mother of deceased Vandana, hisfather, his wife and he went to Ghati hospital,Aurangabad to see Vandana.She was admitted in the burnsward.On being asked by them, Vandana informed them thataccused Nos. 2 and 3 caught hold of her person while ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 44 ) criappl221.14.odtaccused No.1 set her on fire.She further informed thatthe accused were raising suspicion against her as shedid not get menstruation.In the cross-examination hehas denied that deceased Vanadna did not inform themthat she was caught hold by accused Nos. 2 and 3 and wasset on fire by accused No.1 and further denied that shedid not inform them that the accused were raisingsuspicion against her as she had no menstruation.Hehas denied that deceased Vandana was not able to speakdue to burn injuries.As referred earlier PW-2 wife ofthis witness with whom this witness had gone in theCivil Hospital admitted that it was not possible tounderstand as to what she (deceased) was talking.When therewas no doctor as deposed by PW-4 Naib Tahasildar andwhen admittedly no papers regarding treatment of thedeceased at the relevant time are produced and when theevidence of this witness regarding role attributed to ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 45 ) criappl221.14.odtaccused Nos. 2 and 3 is not consistent with the evidenceof PWs-1 and 2 and when he has not stated consistentlywith the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 that the deceased toldhim that the accused No.1 poured kerosene and then sether on fire his evidence about oral dying declarationmade to him by the deceased is not sufficient to statethat really at the relevant time deceased was in aposition to make statement and she disclosed to him thataccused Nos. 2 and 3 caught hold the deceased andaccused No. 1 set her on fire.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::Ithas referred the inconsistencies referred earlierbetween the oral dying declarations made to PWs-1, 2 andSo also, the learned Sessions Judge has referredomissions the statement before police of PWs 1, 2 and 5.But according to learned Sessions Judge due to saidinconsistencies at the most it can be said that theabove witnesses have deposed for the first time before ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 46 ) criappl221.14.odtthe Court about the omissions and their evidence cannotbe totally discarded and disbelieved only for thereasons that they have deposed in the Court some factswhich they did not state to the police.The learned SessionsJudge has not considered the aspect as to when thedeceased made oral dying declarations to these witnessesand whether the deceased was in a fit condition to makestatement them, and in fact the said aspect was requiredto be considered.It appears that PW-1 brother of thedeceased went in the hospital in the morning at about 10a.m. and PWs 2 and 5 went in the hospital in the eveningto meet the deceased and as referred earlier PW-2admitted in her cross-examination that it was notpossible to understand as to what she (deceased) was ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 47 ) criappl221.14.odttalking.All these inconsistencies in theevidence of PWs 1, 2 and 5 assume importance as they areclose relatives of the deceased.Therefore, onconsidering all these inconsistencies in their evidence ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 48 ) criappl221.14.odtit is doubtful whether the deceased made oral dyingdeclaration to these three witnesses implicating all theaccused and that the oral dying declarations made tothese witnesses are truthful and reliable.At the mostas observed earlier oral dying declaration made by thedeceased to her brother PW-1 attributing role to accusedNo.1 that he poured kerosene on her person and set heron fire is believable.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::Now coming to the circumstantial evidence, asregards the spot panchnama Exhibit 75 PW-10 API Bagulhas proved this panchanama.As per his evidence thehouse of the accused consists of four rooms, ota andchapper.Chapper is admeasuring 26½ x 8', one of therooms is admeasuring 13 x 14', two rooms are admeasuring13 x 9' each and they are adjacent to each other.Seenof offence is inside the chapper which is to thesouthern side.His evidence further shows that there aretwo rooms between chapper and western side room.Therewere two fire places (chool) in the said chapper.He ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 49 ) criappl221.14.odtalso admitted that plastic can was in the western sidefirst room of the farm house.It has come in hisevidence that they found kerosene spots in the easternside room.Thus,on considering the evidence of the Investigating OfficerAPI Bagul and the contents of panchnama with map Exhibit75 it is clear that behind the four rooms of house ofaccused there was a chapper of size mentioned earlierand in the said chapper the incident took place.Thepanchnama shows that at the time of panchnama theInvestigating Officer and panchas found red and pinkcolour designs saree in burnt condition and they weresticked to each other.So also, they found nylon sareein burnt condition in the chapper and said sarees weresmelling of kerosene.They also found that faint pinkcolour, petticoat sticked to the said sarees.They hadalso seen burnt pieces of red colour blouse and brokenneckless of black beads and said articles were seized ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 50 ) criappl221.14.odtunder said panchnama.All these circumstances noticed bythe Investigating Officer and the panchas in the chappershow that the incident took place in the chapper andkerosene was found on the above mentioned clothes of thedeceased.These circumstances thus corroborate theevidence of PW-1 that the deceased disclosed to him whenshe was admitted in the hospital, that on the date ofincident accused No. 1 poured kerosene on her person andset her on fire.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::The above referred clothes found on the spot ofincident i.e. in the chapper where the incident tookplace were seized by API Bagul (PW-10) and they weresent to the Chemical Analyzer with letter Exhibit 67 tothe Chemical Analyzer for analysis as deposed by PW-8 PIAlsatwar, for analysis and report.This letter Exhibit67 shows that above referred seized burnt clothes wereon the person of the complainant/deceased.Exhibit 68report of the Chemical Analyzer shows that the ChemicalAnalyzer in his analysis of Exhibit 1 partially burnt ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 51 ) criappl221.14.odtpink coloured petticoat, Exhibit 2 partially burntreddish and pink coloured saree sticked to each other,Exhibit 3 partially burnt reddish clothes pieces statedto be of blouse, Exhibit 4 a stained cotton swab andExhibit 5 an empty blue coloured plastic can of kerosenethe tests for the detection of kerosene residues on thesaid five Exhibits are positive.Therefore, it can besaid on the basis of report of Chemical Analyzer thatkerosene residues were found on all above five Exhibits/articles which were seized from the spot of incidenti.e. chapper behind the house of the accused where theincident had taken place.The finding of the keroseneresidues on clothes shows that kerosene was poured onthe person of the deceased when said clothes were on herperson.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::( 52 ) criappl221.14.odtAs referred earlier learned advocate for theaccused has submitted that the prosecution has notexamined Sominath Shejwal who had come to the spot ofincident immediately and put off the fire of thedeceased and admitted her in the hospital and therefore,as the prosecution has suppressed evidence of saidmaterial witness the evidence adduced by the prosecutionin the form of written and oral dying declarations isnot believable.Exhibit 66-MLC report which was given bythe hospital to the Phulambri Police Station immediatelyafter the deceased was admitted in injured condition inthe hospital on 17/11/2007 shows that Sominath Shejwaland accused No.3 mother-in-law of deceased had admittedthe deceased in injured condition in the hospital.Inthe said MLC the deceased alleged that all the accusedcaused burn injuries to her by pouring kerosene on herperson.So, it is not the case in the MLC that noallegation is made against the accused by deceased.Therefore, merely because the prosecution has notexamined Sominath Shejwal it cannot be said that the ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 53 ) criappl221.14.odtentire prosecution case is false or that it is notbelievable as argued by the learned advocate for theaccused.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::Defence of the accused is that death of thedeceased is accidental.They have examined MeenaSominath Shejul.Her evidence is that since 7 yearsprior to the incident she and her husband were workingin the brick kiln of the accused.They were residing atsome distance from the house of accused.Deceased wasstaying at Jategaon.She had come to house of accused 6days prior to the incident.About the incident shedeposed that incident took place at 6.00 a.m. Deceasedwas cooking food on fire place.She caught fire and cameto her.She proceeded alongwith her children to herhusband.Her husband poured water on the person ofdeceased.They removed saree on the person of thedeceased and put blanket on her person and she wasbrought in the hospital by auto rickshaw.She was in thehospital upto 6.00 p.m. Relatives of deceased came.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::( 54 ) criappl221.14.odtDeceased did not talk to anybody.She then went to herhouse at 6.00 p.m. In the cross-examination she admittedthat once she came outside the house after hearing hueand cry, all the accused were present there and shefurther admitted that her husband took the injured inthe hospital.She further admitted that father-in-lawand husband of the injured had not come to the hospitalwith them.She denied that she deposed false as per thesay of accused.There is nothing on record to show thatthis witness accompanied the deceased when the deceasedwas brought in hospital.MLC Exhibit 66 also shows thatonly husband of this witness and accused No. 3 mother-in-law the deceased had brought the deceased in thehospital.There is no suggestion to the witnessesexamined on behalf of the prosecution that they had seenthis witness in the hospital on 17/11/2007 with thedeceased.As observed earlier kerosene residues werefound on the burnt clothes of the deceased.So also,this witness was not in the house or chapper of theaccused when the incident took place and this witness ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 55 ) criappl221.14.odtclaims that after the deceased caught fire deceased cameto her.If thedeceased would have caught fire accidentally no kerosenewould have found on the clothes on her person.So also,the husband and father-in-law of the deceased who werepresent when allegedly this witness had gone to thehouse of the accused, would have accompanied thedeceased to admit her in the hospital, but they did notcome to the hospital with the deceased and only accusedNo.3 and husband of the defence witness had brought thedeceased in the hospital.From the evidence of this witness presence of accused atthe house at the material time is proved.The trialCourt has rightly not accepted the evidence of defencewitness.Thus, we do not accept the defence of theaccused.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::( 56 ) criappl221.14.odtFor the reasons discussed above on the basis ofevidence of PW-1 brother of the deceased to whom thedeceased made oral dying declaration on 17/11/2007 at 10a.m. in the Ghati Hospital immediately after theincident and circumstantial evidence i.e. panchnama ofspot Exhibit 75 and report of the Chemical AnalyzerExhibit 68 an inference can be drawn that the accusedNo.1 husband of the deceased poured kerosene on herperson and set her on fire and therefore, she sustained86% burns and as a result she died on 23/11/2007 at14.45 hours.Therefore, accused No.1 is responsible forcausing burn injuries to the deceased and ultimately tocause her death and his act of pouring kerosene on theperson of the deceased and setting her on fire amountsto culpable homicide amounting to murder.But theevidence adduced by the prosecution and referred toabove is not sufficient to state that accused in-laws ofthe deceased participated in the incident of sustainingburns to the deceased as alleged by the prosecution.Thus, we hold that death of the deceased is homicidal ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 57 ) criappl221.14.odtand accused No. 1 is responsible for her death.Therefore, the finding of the trial Court that theprosecution has proved offence under Section 302 of theIPC against accused Nos. 2 and 3 father-in-law andmother-in-law of deceased is not correct andsustainable.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::As regards the offence under Section 498-A ofthe IPC the prosecution has to prove that the accused infurtherance of their common intention caused crueltywithin the meaning of cruelty given under explanation Aand B of Section 498-A of the IPC which is as under:-Accused No. 2 informed them thatdeceased would be treated properly.She further deposed aboutoral dying declaration made to her by the deceased.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::The evidence of PW-5 Gautam Sampat Shejwal whois husband of PW-2 is that deceased resided at the houseof accused about one month after marriage.Thereafter,she resided at her maternal home for about 15 days.Thereafter she came to his house as there was marriageof his daughter, namely, Rekha.She resided at his housefor about 8 days after the marriage of Rekha.Thereafter, she went to her maternal home.Then afterabout 2-3 days deceased and her mother came to hishouse.The mother of the deceased informed him that theyshould go to the house of accused to reach deceased.Accordingly, he went to the house of accused withdeceased and her mother.Accused No. 1 refused to allowdeceased to reside at his house.He asked them toperform operation of deceased for appendix and thenbring her back to his house.They wanted to go to PoliceStation, Phulambri to lodge report against accused.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::( 61 ) criappl221.14.odtHowever, on the way the brother of the accused No.1,namely, Bhausaheb met them and requested them not to goto the police station.Therefore, they went to theirvillage.He also stated that alongwith his wife and hisfather he went to hospital where deceased was admittedafter the incident and deceased disclosed him thataccused were raising suspicion against her as she had nomenstruation.The omissions inhis statement before police in respect of the fact thataccused No. 2 had come to his house to take deceased,that the deceased was telling them that accused No. 1used to beat her and that the accused No.2 assured themthat the deceased would not be beaten and therefore,they sent deceased with him are proved by theInvestigating Officer PW-8 Police Inspector Alsatwar.Therefore, the evidence of this witness that the accusedNo.2 had come to his house to take deceased, that thedeceased was telling that accused No.1 used to beat herand that the accused No.2 assured that the deceased ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 62 ) criappl221.14.odtwould not be beaten is improvement while deposing beforethe Court and amounts to material omission in hisstatement before police and therefore said evidence isnot believable.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::On careful consideration of above referredevidence of PWs-1, 2 and 5, PWs 2 and 5 have not statedregarding demand of Rs.10,000/- by the accused from thedeceased for brick kiln.Their evidence regarding stayof deceased at her parental house and at the house ofPWs 2 and 5 for some days is not at all sufficient toinfer that they caused cruelty to the deceased in anymanner.As mentioned above there are material omissionsin the statements before police of PWs 2 and 5 that thedeceased told them that accused No. 1 beat her and thatthe accused No. 2 had taken the deceased with him at thehouse of accused on giving assurance that she would notbe beaten.Therefore, the above referred evidence of PWs1, 2 and 5 is not at all sufficient to infer that theaccused in furtherance of their common intention caused ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 63 ) criappl221.14.odtcruelty to the deceased punishable under Section 498-Aread with Section 34 of the IPC.Thus, we hold that thefinding recorded by the trial Court that the prosecutionhas proved offence under Section 498-A read with Section34 of the IPC against the accused is not correct andsustainable.We therefore, hold that prosecution hasfailed to prove said offence against the accused.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::For the foregoing reasons, we hold that theprosecution has proved offence under Section 302 of theIPC only against accused No. 1 and it has failed toprove said offence against accused No. 3 and offenceunder Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPCagainst all the accused.Therefore, conviction andsentence recorded against accused No. 3 for the offenceunder Section 302 read Section 34 of the IPC and againstaccused Nos. 1 and 3 for offence under Section 498-Aread with Section 34 of the IPC are liable to be setaside and they are entitled to be acquitted of the saidoffences by allowing the appeal partly.Thus, conviction ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 64 ) criappl221.14.odtand sentence recorded against the appellant/accused No.1for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC needs to beconfirmed.Therefore, in the result following order ispassed.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::(i) Appeal is partly allowed.(ii) The conviction and sentence recorded against theaccused No. 1 Dadarao Shripat Thorat for the offencepunishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 ofthe IPC and against accused No. 3 Yamunabai ShripatThorat for the offences punishable under Sections 498-Aand 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC as per thejudgment and order dated 20/03/2014 passed by theSessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 82/2008are hereby quashed and set aside.(iii) Accused No. 1 Dadaro Thorat is acquitted of theoffence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of theIPC and accused No. 3 Yamunabai is acquitted of theoffences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 readwith Section 34 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::( 65 ) criappl221.14.odt(iv) Fine, if paid, by accused Nos. 1 and 3 for theaforesaid offences as per the impugned judgment shall berefunded to them.Accused No. 3 Yamunabai shall furnishpersonal bond and surety bond of Rs.15,000/- before theSessions Judge as per Section 437-A of the CriminalProcedure Code within two weeks from today.(ix) Record and proceedings with copy of judgment besent to the trial Court for necessary compliance.[S.M. GAVHANE, J.] [T. V. NALAWADE, J.]ssp/Dec.19/criappl221.14.odt ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::

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

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

By this petition the petitioner, a M.C.D. contractor, who is one of the accused in Sessions Case No. 75/97, FIR No. 340/96, P.S.Okhla Industri-al Area, under sections 364/302/201/216/411/120B/ 34, IPC seeks bail.The accusation against the petitioner is that he along with his associates, namely, Kamal Singh @ Shaily, Vibhor Singh @ Lovi, Vijay Mohan Sharma @ Minto, Dr. Hemant Kalra, Viney Kumar @ Vinu, Ravi Prakash @ Ravi @ Shard Gupta/Agarwal, Kamal Kumar @ Pinki and Jaindender Kumar Tyagi @ JK, were involved in the macabre crime in which three persons were murdered.The victims were Dr. Sunil Kaul, proprietor of Personal Point, and his two employees Sujata Saha and Deepa Sharma.As per information gathered during the investigation, several criminal cases are pending against him.Prosecution has also brought to the fore the accusation of alleged ill will between Vijay Prakash and one Zile Singh contractor.There was a murderous attack on him for which case F.I.R. No. 298/95 was registered.The involvement of Ravi Prakash and petitioner Subhash Gupta was suspected in the incident.Subhash Gupta in the year 1995 joined Personal Point and was allegedly attracted towards Sujata Saha.Sujata Saha spurned the advances of Subhash Gupta.Subhash Gupta suspected Sujata Saha to be involved with Dr. Kaul and this, according to the counsel for respondent, led to the showing of the seeds of conspiracy resulting in the murders.In the evening of June 6, Dr. Sunil Kaul, Sujata Saha and Deepa Sharma visited the office of accused Subhash Gupta, located at M.C.D. Office, Okhla, as Dr. Kaul wanted to expand his business and for this purpose was expecting loan from him.It is from this place that three of them were kidnapped by the accused and before doing that they were drugged which is indicated by the recovery of empty ampoules of calmpose injections from the office of the petitioner and the statement of one Madan Lal recorded under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure according to which three of them while coming out of the office of the petitioner and walking towards the cars were being supported by the accused.There was a third car, Maruti 800, which had a U.P. number.In the BMW car, driven by Subhash Gupta, besides him and the above said two ladies, accused Vijay Mohan Sharma @ Minto and Kamal Kumar @ Pinki were also seated.Maruti 1000 was driven by accused No. 2 Kamal Singh @ shaily, and besides him and Dr. Kaul, accused Ravi Prakash and accused Dr. Hemant Kalra were also seated, Maruti 800 was driven by accused Vibhor Singh @ Lovi.All the three cars left the office of the petitioner one after the other.On the night intervening 6th and 7th June 1996, Nitin Gupta, son of the petitioner Subhash Gupta, lodged an F.I.R. No. 340 of 1996 under section 365 I.P.C. at P.S. Okhla as the latter had not returned home.He along with the F.I.R. produced a driving licence of Dr. Kaul which was found by him in the office of Subhash Gupta.The police registered the FIR and visited the office of Subhash Gupta where torn cheques of Rs. 6 lacs each were seized along with the broken ampoules of calmpose and torn pieces of ransom note in the handwriting of Subhash Gupta were found.The ransom note was pieced together which conveyed that the petitioner had been kidnapped and the kidnappers were demanding a ransom of Rs. 50 lacs.On 7th June 1996 the car of Dr. Kaul was found abandoned at Hodal.On the same day at about 3.30 P.M. dead body of Dr. Kaul was found in a field at Hodal.The body bore two bullet injuries.On 9th June 1996 dead bodies of Sujata Saha and Deepa Sharma were recovered in a highly decomposed state at Bhind, Moraha M.P. On 10th June 1996 a call was received at the house of Subhash Gupta that he was in Bombay in Hotel Leela.On receipt of this information, a police party under the charge of Inspector Balwinder Singh was sent to Bombay.The petitioner and his BMW car were found by the police party at the above said hotel.The BMW car of the petitioner was inspected at Bombay.As per the report of the CFSL expert at Bombay, blood stains on the mat of the car were found."If you not become mine I murdered you and same time I made to suicide myself."As per the opinion of the hand writing expert the diary is written in the handwriting of the petitioner.It was allegedly written by the petitioner during the time Sujata Saha had gone to South India on tour along with her parents.The obsession of the petitioner for Sujata Saha is evident from the fact that he along with his younger brother Anil Gupta and Arvind Malik, a Junior Engineer in the M.C.D., followed her to South India in his Toyota Car.In April 1996 Sujata Saha along with a friend and her husband Ajay Nagpal, whose statements were recorded by the Investigating Agency under section 161 Cr.P.C., went to Shirdi for pilgrimage.Subhash Gupta sent accused Ravi Prakash and Dr. Hemant Kalra to Bombay by air.The duo from Bombay proceeded to Shirdi by car and stayed at Hotels Sharan and Guraia under assumed names.The hotel records were seized by the Investigating Agency.The apathy of Sujata Saha towards the petitioner is apparent from the fact that the petitioner had presented air tickets to her and her family for undertaking the trip to the South India but the same were not utilised by her and on the contrary the tickets were torn to pieces which were recovered from her drawer during investigation.From 2nd May 1996 to 4th May 1996, accused Ravi Prakash, Pinky, Shaily were staying in Mohan Hotel, Ashok Vihar Delhi.Thereafter they shifted to Centaur Hotel, Delhi, where they were joined by accused Deepak Das and witness Saurav Bhatt.As per the respondent the record of the cellular phone of the petitioner, which was seized, shows that during this period the petitioner was in touch with the above said accused persons.Statement of one Balbir Singh, contractor, was recorder under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. in which it has come that huge money was handed over by the petitioner to Shaily during this period.Besides, he is also stated to have seen the arrival of Dr. Kaul, Sujata Saha and Deepa Gupta to the office of Subhash Gupta.Even mithlesh was sent to Lajpat Nagar to get apples and packets of fruit juice.When he returned he was again sent to run another errand.This time he was asked to get bottles of Bisleri.On his return he found the office to be empty.Mithlesh also speaks about the fact that earlier Subhash Gupta had given him instructions not to let Gyan Bir enter his office after he brings sweets from Haldiram.According to him he acted on the instructions of Subhash Gupta and took the sweets from Gyan Bir had brought the sweets and left the office for his house, Mithlesh was sent to Lajpat Nagar.ORDER Anil Dev Singh, J.The expert opined that the stains found in the car were of human blood.From the dicky of the car, fibres were recovered and as per the report of the CFSL at Bombay the fibres were from the bed sheet in which Sujata Saha's body was wrapped.The investigation mounted by the Investigating Agency culminated in the filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner and nine others accused, namely, Kamal Singh @ Shaily, Vibhor Singh @ Lovi, Vijay Mohan Sharma @ Minto, Dr. Hemant Kalra, Viney Kumar @ Vinu, Ravi Prakash @ Ravi @ shard Gupta/Agarwal, Kamal Kumar @ Pinki and Jaindender Kumar Tyagi @ JK.All the accused are standing their trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge.It may be pointed out that this application was filed on the ground that he was suffering from depression and his condition warranted his release from jail.Having failed to secure the bail from the trial court the petitioner has moved the instant petition seeking bail.Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his bail application argued that the petitioner himself was victim of kidnapping by Ravi Prakash and his associates and was not in any manner involved in the murders.It was pointed out that pieces of ransom note and two torn cheques of Rs. 6 lacs each were found from the office of Subhash Gupta by the police.He further submitted that the kidnapping of the petitioner along with the three deceased is also proved from the fact that when he was examined on 11th June 1996 at Bombay he was having the following injuries:-Radish Blue bruise with swelling measuring 8 cm x 3 cm on the back of chest situated on centre.2. Radish blue bruises with swelling and pain measuring 8 cm x 3 cm on the back of the right chest - present vertically.3. Injection prick mark present over both elbows.He submitted that as per the opinion of the doctor the injuries were of a duration of more than 48 hours and hat the injuries 1 and 2 were caused with blunt force and injury No. 3 was caused by an injection prick.Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner was in love with Sujata Saha and there was no reason for him to kill her.He further pointed out that he had already advanced money to Dr. Kaul for which he was getting good return and this being so, there was no reason to get rid of Dr. Kaul.He further canvassed that torn pieces of ransom note were deliberately left by the petitioner to give evidence to his story that he was also kidnapped along with the deceased persons.Learned counsel invited my attention to the material on record to support the prosecution story.It has also been revealed during investigation that on May 1, 1996 the petitioner withdrew a sum of Rs. 5 lacs in cash from Oriental Bank of Commerce at Paharganj.Investigation shows that on 5/6th June 1996 accused Ravi Prakash, Shaily and Pinki stayed in Mohan Hotel, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi, for the second time.According to Ashok Maniktala, whose statement was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., the boy was 6' 3" and on the information given by the petitioner was studying for his I.A.S. He also stated that on enquiry he came to know that the boy was related to some officer in the M.C.D. The prosecution claims that reference in the above statements is obviously to Ravi Prakash.Maniktala has also stated that he will be able to recognise the person who was staying in the house of the petitioner.Statement of one Gyan Bir, who was employed as Beldar by the petitioner, was recorded by the Investigating Agency during investigation.Gyan Bir, in his statement under section 161 if Cr.P.C., alluded to the fact that on the evening of 6th June 1996 he was asked by the petitioner to bring sweets from the shop of Haldiram located at Badarpur even though he had suggested to the petitioner that he could get the sweets from nereby Chawla Sweets.As per the suggestion of the prosocution, Gyan Bir was sent to the far off shop of Haldiram so that he does not see as to what was taking place at the petitioner's office between the accused on the one hand and Dr. Kaul, Sujata Saha and Deepa Gupta on the other.The respondent suggests that the conduct of Subhash Gupta a shows that he did not want his chowkidar and Beldar to be witnesses to what was taking place in his office between the accused persons and the deceased.One Madan Lal, Kabari, who was passing by the office of Subhash Gupta and another person.He stated that the two ladies were made to sit in a grey coloured car.He also saw that similarly another person was brought out from the office of Subhash Gupta with the help and assistance of two persons and was made to sit in the back seat of a white coloured Maruti car.He also refers to the fact that the cars left on after the other.As per him the grey car was being driven by Subhash Gupta.A strong submission was made on behalf of the respondent that the theory that Subhash Gupta was also kidnaped with Dr. Kaul, Sujata Saha and Deepa Sharma as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner during arguments is totally discounted by the statement of Madan Lal.According to Ashwini Saini, he is known to Ravi Prakash who had told him that he was a sales tax inspector in Delhi.On arrival, Ravi Prakash Introduced Subhash Gupta at his officer to Saini and one of the ladies who was in jeans as the wife of Subhash Gupta: Saini was told that one of their cars had broken down and that they would rest in his house by the time their car was repaired.As per Saini, he left his house for his work and told Ravi Prakash that in case he was not back by the time they left, the key of the house should be given to the neighbour.Saini is stated to have returned at 7.30 in the evening and found that Ravi Prakash and his associates were ready to leave.He, however, did not find the two ladies and enquired about them.He was told by Ravi Prakash that they had already left in the other car and that the accused would be meeting them at the petrol pump.Saini also stated that after a few days he read about the murder of the two ladies and also saw their photographs in a newspaper.He also read the news relating to the murder of Dr. Kaul.In order to find out the details he is stated to have gone to Baroda and met accused Deepak Das, who was known to him and also to Ravi Prakash.Deepak Das gave the address of Ravi Prakash, Kamal Kumar and two other associates who were staying in Hotel Sweet Dream.Saini refers to the fact that Ravi Prakash on seeing him felt ashamed for having betrayed his confidence and stated that he had murdered the two ladies at the behest of the petitioner.Blood stains were found in the BMW car of the petitioner and as per the opinion of the expert of the C.F.S.L. Bombay, the mats of the car were stained with human blood.Some fibres were also found from the boot of the car and as per the report of the C.F.S.L. the fibres were from the same bad sheet in which Sujata Saha's body was wrapped.Saini in his statement confirmed that after the accused left he found one bed sheet to be missing.The torn pieces of the bed sheet in which Sujata Saha's body was found was identified by Saini as the one found missing from his house.As Per the prosecution, another clinching factor which proves the complicity of the petitioner in the crime is that he had employed one Vikram Singh, Managing Director of a detective agency, to tail Sujata Saha.Vikram Singh in his statement has pointed out that the petitioner had specifically told him on 5th June 1996 as she was to remain in her office till 6 P.M. on that day and was to meet him thereafter.Learned counsel for the respondent made a strong plea that calling off the surveillance for 6th June 1996 when the deceased were kidnapped is crucial.In case the surveillance was not called of it would have been difficult to implement the plan.Having regard to the above material, ex facie the petitioner cannot claim that he along with the deceased was kidnapped by the other accused persons and was not privy to the crime.

['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

A.No.02/16 by which conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court in Case FIR No.890/2015 registered under Section 356/379/411 IPC at Police Station Saket were upheld.The petitioner was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three years for commission of offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and Simple Imprisonment for one year under Section 356 IPC.Both the sentences were directed to run consecutively i.e. one after the other.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.The incident of mobile snatching took place on 27.7.2015 at around 11.00 p.m. The Investigating Officer on receipt of the complaint Crl.Rev.318/2016 Page 1 of 3 (Ex.PW-1/A) lodged the FIR on the same day.In the complaint, the complainant Shilpi Singh disclosed that while she was crossing the road at Select City Walk Mall, her mobile phone was snatched by the petitioner.On her raising alarm, he was arrested near the spot and the mobile was recovered from his possession.Instant Revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner to impugn a judgment dated 29.2.2016 of learned District and Sessions Judge in Crl.During investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for commission of the aforesaid offences.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined four witnesses.In his 313 statement, the petitioner denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication.The trial resulted in conviction, as aforesaid.The appeal preferred by the petitioner resulted in its dismissal.Rev.318/2016 Page 1 of 3In her court statement as PW-1, the complainant proved the version given to the police at first instance without major variations.She identified the petitioner to be the assailant who had snatched the mobile phone on 27.7.2015 at around 11.00 p.m., when she had come out of Select City Mall and was crossing the road.The petitioner was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.PW-1/D).P1 is the mobile snatched from her.She was cross- examined at length.However, despite searching cross-examination, nothing material could be extracted to disbelieve her statement.No ulterior motive was assigned to the complainant for implicating the petitioner in a false case.The complainant was not acquainted with the petitioner prior to the incident.She had no ill-will or animosity to falsely rope him in the case.The complainant being a victim must be interested to bring the real culprit to book.In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the petitioner admitted his apprehension at the spot.He also admitted that the mobile was recovered from his Crl.Rev.318/2016 Page 2 of 3 possession.However, he took the defence that someone else has snatched the mobile phone and had thrown it on the ground.When it was lifted by him innocently, he was falsely implicated in this case.This defence does not inspire confidence; it deserves outright rejection.The defence pleaded is contrary to the suggestions put to the complainant in the cross-examination.As per PW-3's (ASI Lav Kumar) testimony, the mobile was recovered from the petitioner's pocket.Rev.318/2016 Page 2 of 3The petitioner, however, cannot be held guilty under two offences i.e. one under Section 379 IPC and the other under Section 356 IPC simultaneously.The offence proved would fall either under Section 379 IPC or 356 IPC.For a single transaction i.e. snatching of mobile from the complainant, the petitioner cannot be held liable for two distinct offences.He cannot be awarded different sentences in both the offences and that too to run consecutively i.e. one after the other.The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms.Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with copy of the order.Intimation be sent to Superintendent Jail.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE APRIL 21, 2017/sa Crl.Rev.318/2016 Page 3 of 3Rev.318/2016 Page 3 of 3

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

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

5 12:31:51 +05'30'

['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Hon'ble Akhtar Husain Khan,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Akhtar Husain Khan,J.) Present two Appeals; Appeal No.5054 of 2005 (Shakeel Ahmad Vs.State of U.P.) and Appeal No. 146 of 2006 (Jamil Ahmad Vs.State of U.P.) have been filed against same judgement and order, therefore, both Appeals are taken up together and decided by this common judgement.According to F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 in brief, version of prosecution is that on 10.5.1998 at about 9.30 P.M. in night complainant Nasim Anwar and his father Abdul Gani were going back to their house from their hata situated in Mohalla Pura Rani alongwith Abu Talha son of Mohd Sami resident of Pura Rani and Anwar Ahmad son of Amanatullah resident of Hyderabad.. Abdul Gani father of complainant was talking with Abu Talha and Anwar Ahmad.Complainant Nasim Anwar was going behind them, when they reached near hata of Hazi Masood and house of Abdul Salam, accused appellantds Jamil Ahmad and Shakeel Ahmad who are resident of same mohalla of complainant, came suddenly from west side and accused appellant Shakeel Ahmad exhorted accused appellant Jamil Ahmad, whereupon accused appellant Jamil Ahmad fired at the back of Abdul Gani; father of complainant Nasim Anwar with close point.Having received injury Abdul Gani father of complainant Nasim Anwar fell down.Complainant Nasim Anwar and above persons accompanying father of complainant raised alarm and tried to catch accused appellant Jamil.Whereupon accused appellant Shakeel pointed out katta towards complainant and persons accompanying him and threatened that if anyone come forward he shall also be killed.Complainant Nasim Anwar and above persons accompanying him could not chase accused for a long distance due to fear.Both the accused appellants ran towards east intimidating complainant and persons accompanying him.According to F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 complainant Nasim Anwar and above persons accompanying him saw the occurrence in the light of torch and electricity and identified accused appellants Jamil and Shakeel very well.According to F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 when complainant Nasim Anwar after having chased accused appellants for a short distance came back to his father, his father succumbed to injuries on spot.According to F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 a quarrel had taken place between Abdul Gani father of complainant and accused appellant Jamil regarding fish and tenant of ahata of complainant Nasim Anwar about a week earlier to present occurrence and at that time accused Jamil had threatened to see the father of complainant very soon.According to F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 leaving the dead body of his father on spot complainant went to his house and get report Ext.Ka.-1 written by Nausad and presented the same in P.S. Mubarakpur with his signature.P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh has stated in his statement on oath that on 11.5.1998 at 3.45 p.m. he conducted post mortem of deceased Haji Abdul Gani son of Rahmatulla resident of Mohalla Pura Rani P.S. Mubarakpur.The dead body was brought in sealed cover by Constable No.CP 458 Patru Ram and Constable No.C.P. Amit Kumar Misra and was identified by said two constables.P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh has proved post mortem report of deceased Haji Abdul Gani Ext.He has stated that the death of deceased Abdul Gani may occur on 10.5.1998 at 9.30 to 10.00 P.m.. He has further stated in his statement that the ante mortem injury found on the dead body of deceased Abdul Gani was sufficient to cause death immediately.P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh has stated in his statement that the ante mortem injury found on the dead body of deceased may be caused by katta also.P.W.-6 S.I. Omkar Singh is the Investigating Officer.He has stated in his statement that on 10.5.1998 he was posted in P.S. Mubarakpur.On that day at 22.30 P.M. Crime No.295 of 1998 under Section 302.504,506 I.P.C. was registered in his presence at P.S. Mubarakpur.He took investigation into his hands and made copy of chik F.I.R. and G.D. relating to registration of crime in case diary.Thereafter, on 11.5.1998 he recorded statement of complainant Nasim Anwar under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and inspected torch of complainant Nasim Anwar in the light of which he has seen occurrence.Thereafter he entrusted the torch in his supurdagi.P.W.-6 S.I. Omkar Singh has proved Memo of torch Ext.He has stated in his statement that he made inspection of spot at the pointing out of complainant.He took blood stained earth and plain earth from the place of occurrence and prepared memo.He has further stated that he recovered bullet (frontal part of bullet) also from the place of occurrence and prepared recovery memo.P.W.-6 S.I. Omkar Singh has proved in his statement Memo of blood stained earth and plain earth Ext.Ka.-7, recovery memo of bullet Ext.Ka-8 and site plan Ext.Ka.-9 in accordance with law.P.W.-7 S.I. Swami Nath Shukla has stated in his statement that on 10.5.1998 he was posted as Sub-inspector in police chauki Mubarakpur.On that day murder of Haji Abdul Gani was committed in town Mubarakpur for which crime was registered in P.S. Mubarakpur.Having received information he went to spot.In his statement he has proved inquest report Ext.Ka.-10, letter to R.I. for post mortem Ext.Ka-11, letter to C.M.S. for post mortem Ext.Ka.-12, photo nash Ext.Ka.-13 and challan nash Ext.He has stated in cross examination made by defence on page 5 (page 47 of paper book) that section 504, 506 I.P.C. escaped from writing on Ext.Ka-10, Ext.Ka-11 and Ext.Ka-12, report to C.M.S. Ext.Ka-11, report to R.I. Ext.Ka-10, , photo nash Ext.Ka-13 and challan nash Ext.Ka-14 and section 504 and 506 I.P.C. were subsequently added in report to C.M.S. Ext.Ka-11, report to R.I. Ext.Ka-10, photo nash Ext.Ka-13 and challan nash Ext.Thus, it is apparent that complainant had old enmity with said Imtiyaz and his family members but complainant has not named said Imtiyaz or his family members in the murder of his father.Therefore, false implication of accused appellants due to animosity is not acceptable.P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has stated in his statement on oath that when they reached near house of Abdul Salam both accused appellants came from gali of west and accused Jamil fired at his father from his back.In F.I.R. Ext.Out of which injury No.1 is wound of entry and the injury no.2 is wound of exit.Said wound of entry is on left side of back, 15 cm.below shoulder border and 2 cm.left from midline.Tattooing and blackening were found on this injury.Thus, post mortem report Ext.Time of death is also corroborated by post mortem report Ext.Above two appeals have been filed by accused Shakeel Ahmad and Jamil Ahmad respectively under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against judgement and order dated 11.11.2005 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.5, Azamgarh in Session Trial No. 76 of 1999, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh has convicted accused appellant Jamil Ahmad for offences punishable under Sections 302 I.P.C. and 506(2) I.P.C. and accused appellant Shakeel Ahmad for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and 506(2) I.P.C..Learned Additional Session Judge has sentenced vide his impugned judgement and order dated 11.11.2005 to accused appellant Jamil Ahmad for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. to imprisonment for life and fine of Rupees one thousand and for offence punishable under Section 506(2) I.P.C. to imprisonment for six months and to accused appellant Shakeel Ahmad for offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. to imprisonment for life and fine of Rupees one thousand and for offence punishable under Section 506(2) I.P.C. to imprisonment for six months.Learned Additional Session Judge has ordered each accused appellants to undergo imprisonment for three months in default of payment of fine.Learned Additional Session Judge further ordered that all sentences awarded to each appellants accused shall run concurrently.Sri Rajesh Pratap Singh, Advocate and Sri Rajul Bhargava, Advocate, learned counsel appeared for accused appellants and Sri Narendra Kumar Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. appeared for State respondent.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused records.On the basis of above First Information Report Ext.Ka-1 Crime No.295 of 1998 under Sections 302,504,506 I.P.C. was registered in P.S. Mubarakpur, District Azamgarh against accused appellants Jamil Ahmad and Shakeel Ahmad and investigation was started by police.Inquest report of deceased Abdul Gani was prepared by police and after having completed necessary formalities dead body of Abdul Gani, father of complainant was sent for post mortem in sealed cover.During investigation at the pointing out of accused appellant Jamil recovery of 303 bore katta allegedly used in the murder of deceased Abdul Gani is reported to have been made alongwith one fired cartridge and three live cartridge and recovery memo Ext.Ka.-15 has been prepared.Thereafter, investigation has been completed by police in accordance with law and after having completed investigation police submitted charge sheet against accused appellants Jamil Ahmad and Shakeel Ahmad under Sections 302,504 and 506 I.P.C., whereupon concerned Magistrate took cognizance and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the court of session for trial of both accused appellants.Thereafter, Session Trial No. 76 of 1999, State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.Jamil and another under Sections 302,504,506 I.P.C. was registered in the Session court of district Azamgarh.Later on, said Session trial was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Azamgarh who framed charges against accused Jamil Ahmand for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506(2) I.P.C. and against accused Shakeel Ahmad for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 506 (2)( I.P.C.. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Prosecution examined P.W.-1 Abu Talha, P.W.-2 Anwar Ahmad, P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar, P.W.-4 Head Moharrir Uday Pratap Pandey, P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh, P.W.-6 S.I. Omkar Singh, Investigating Officer, P.W.-7 S.I. Swami Nath Shukla and P.W.-8 S.S.I. Ramakant Pandey, Investigating Officer.After evidence of prosecution statements of both accused appellants were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. Both of them stated that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity.D.W.-1 Jagdamba Prasad Dubey, Junior Engineer, Electricity department was examined on behalf of accused appellants in defence.Learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.5, Azamgarh heard the arguments of both the parties and passed impugned judgement and order, whereby he has convicted and sentenced accused appellants as mentioned above.Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that accused appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated.Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that F.I.R. is anti time and prosecution case is false and concocted.Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that prosecution has examined three witnesses of occurrence.Out of which P.W.-1 Abu Talha and P.W.-2 Anwar Ahmad have not supported version of prosecution and they have been declared hostile.Only P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has supported version of prosecution but Nasim Anwar is neither injured nor blood stains were found on his body or cloths.Therefore, there is no guarantee of his presence at the time of occurrence.Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar is full of contradiction also and it is quite unsafe to place reliance upon his solitary statement.Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that prosecution has failed to prove the source of light.He further contended that I.O. has not shown electric bulb in site plan and D.W.-1 Jagdamba Prasad Dubey, Junior Engineer has stated on oath that at the time of occurrence there was no supply of electricity.Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that prosecution has failed to prove motive of occurrence also.Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that investigation is defective.I.O. has not shown in site plan place of witnesses from where they have seen occurrence.Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has stated in cross examination that police took the dead body of his father to police station in the night of occurrence at about 11 or 11.30 P.M., while the inquest report Ext. Ka-12 shows that it has been prepared on spot on 11.5.1998 between 5.15 A.M. to 6.30 A.M.. This also leads to adverse inference against truthfulness of prosecution version.Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that occurrence has taken place in dark night by unknown person and the accused appellants have been falsely implicated due to enmity.Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that in view of above contentions, the evidence on record is not sufficient to convict accused appellants, therefore, the conviction recorded by trial court is against evidence as well as law.Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that accused appellant Jamil was juvenile at the time of occurrence.Therefore, whole trial is vitiated.Learned counsel for accused appellants prayed that both the appeals should be allowed and both accused appellants should be acquitted.Learned counsel for accused appellants placed reliance on following pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court:-1- Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) Vs.2- Marudanal Augusti Vs.Learned A.G.A. contended that F.I.R. is prompt and P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar is the son of deceased and is a natural witness.His solitary statement is sufficient to convict accused appellants.Learned A.G.A. contended that the statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar is corroborated by medical evidence as well as statement of I.O. and site plan.Learned A.G.A. contended that accused appellant Jamil has not pressed plea of juvenility before trial court.Learned A.G.A. contended that the conviction recorded by trial court is in accordance with law and sentences awarded by trial court are not excessive, therefore, there is no sufficient ground for interference in the impugned judgement and order.Learned A.G.A. prayed that the appeal should be dismissed.We have considered the submissions made by the parties.Out of 8 witnesses examined by prosecution P.W.-1 Abu Talha, P.W.-2 Anwar Ahmad and P.W.-3 Nasim Anwar are witnesses of fact and occurrence but P.W.-1 Abu Talha and P.W.-2 Anwar Ahmad have turned hostile and they have not supported version of prosecution in their statements.He has stated in his statement on oath that after occurrence he came to his house and got written F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 by his cousin brother Naushad Ahmad and signed it.Thereafter, he went to police station with this report and presented the same in police station.P.W.-4 Head Moharrir Uday Pratap Pandey has stated in his statement that on 10.5.1998 he was posted in police station Mubarakpur on the post of Head Moharrir.He made entry of registration of the crime at the same time in G.D at Rapat No.32.. He has proved the said chik report Ext.Ka-2 and G.D. relating to registration of crime Ext.P.W.-4 Head Moharrir Uday Pratap Pandey has stated that on the same day on 10.5.1998 he sent special report of crime at 23.30 P.M. through Constable Ram Belash to higher officer.Copy of which he is filing.Trial court has markted Ext.Ka-4 on said copy.P.W.-7 S.I. Swami Nath Shukla has stated in his statement that the dead body was kept in sealed cover and specimen seal was prepared by him.P.W.-7 S.I. Swami Nath Shukla has stated in his statement that on 17.5.1998 accused Shakeel and Jamil were arrested at 4.00 A.M. in the morning.P.W.-7 S.I. Swami Nath Shukla has further stated in his statement that on the pointing out of accused Jamil Ahmad one country made katta of 303 bore one fired cartridge and three live cartridges of 303 bore were recovered from the bush situated in Saiyadwara.He has proved recovery memo of katta and said cartridges Ext.Ka-15 in his statement.P.W.-8 S.S.I. Ramakant Pandey is the Investigating Officer.He has stated in his statement that on 14.5.1998 he was posted as S.O. at police station Mubarakpur and took over investigation of this crime.He has stated in his statement that on 17.5.1998 he arrested accused Shakeel and Jamil at 4.00 A.M. in the morning.He has stated that on the pointing out of accused Jamil Ahmad one country made katta of 303 bore, one fired cartridge and three live cartridges of 303 bore were recovered from the bush.He has stated that the recovery memo of said katta and cartridges were prepared by S.I. Swami Nath Shukla P.W.-7 on spot.He has also proved recovery memo of said katta and cartridges Ext.He has stated that he also signed said recovery memo of katta and cartridges Ext.P.W.-8 S.S.I. Ramakant Pandey has stated in his statement that he has sent one fired cartridge and three live cartridges to Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala, Lucknow.P.W.-8 S.S.I. Ramakant Pandey has stated that site plan of place of recovery was prepared by S.I. Swami Nath Shukla P.W.-7 on his direction which is Ext.He has proved charge sheet Ext.Ka-17 by identifying writing and signature of S.I. Umesh Chand Jaiswal.D.W.-1 Jagdamba Prasad Dubey, Junior Engineer, Electricity department has been examined on behalf of accused in defence.D.W.-1 Jagdamba Prasad Dubey has stated that in intervening night of 10/11-5-1998 supply of electricity was curtailed from 19.15 p.m. to 22.15 p.m.. He has proved in his statement copy of log book Ext.Kha-1 also.We have examined the evidence adduced by the parties carefully.First and most important point for determination in this appeal is as to whether F.I.R. is anti time.Learned counsel for accused appellants has tried to show that F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 is anti time on following grounds:-1- That in inquest report Ext.Ka-12 Crime no.295 of 1998 under section 302 I.P.C. has been written while said Crime no. 295 of 1998 has been registered in P.S. Mubarakpur under section 302,504,506 I.P.C..2- That the papers prepared at the time of inquest report i.e. report to R.I. Ext.Ka-10, report to C.M.S. Ext.Ka-11, photo nash Ext.Ka-13 and challan nash Ext.Ka-14 show that in these papers also Crime no.295 of 1998 under section 302 I.P.C. was written initially and later on section 504 and 506 have been added.3- That neither section 157 Cr.P.C. nor clause 101 or 101-A of Police Regulation regarding special report has been complied with.Ka-12, report to C.M.S. Ext.Ka-11, report to R.I. Ext.Ka-10, photo nash Ext.Ka-13 and challan nash Ext.Learned counsel for accused appellants has contended that delay in dispatch of F.I.R. to Magistrate as well as special report also shows that F.I.R. was not in existence at the time alleged by prosecution.P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has stated in his statement on oath that after occurrence he came to his house and dictated First Information Report to his cousin brother Nausad, who wrote report Ext.Thereafter, he signed said report and went to police station with First Information Report Ext.P.W.-4 Head Moharrir Uday Pratap Pandey has stated in his statement on oath that on 10.5.1998 at 22.30 P.M. he registered Crime no. 295 of 1998 under Section 302,504,506 I.P.C. on the basis of written report of complainant and chik F.I.R. Ext.Ka-2 was written by him at the same time.He has further stated that at the same time he made entry of registration of crime in G.D.. He has proved said G.D. Ext.Ka.-3 also.Ka-3 which have been prepared by P.W.-4 Head Moharrir Uday Pratap Pandey in discharge of his official duty have been regularly prepared.P.W.-7 S.I. Swami Nath Shukla has stated in his statement on oath that inquest report Ext.Ka-12, report to C.M.S. Ext.Ka-11, report to R.I. Ext.Ka-10, photo nash Ext.Ka-13 and challan nash Ext.Ka-14 have been written by him.Ka-14, it shall not be presumed that F.I.R. was not in existence at the time of preparation of these papers.P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has stated in cross examination by defence on page 7 and 8 ( page 27 and 28 of paper book) that police of Chauki came on spot within 15 minutes after occurrence.He has stated that 3 or 4 Constables and Darogaji came and at the same time Darogaji prepared inquest report.P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has stated in his cross examination on page 11 (page 31 of paper book) that perhaps police took away dead body of his father in the same night at 11-11.30 P.M. He has further stated in continuation of his above statement that firstly dead body was carried to police station on cot, thereafter next day in the morning at 6-7 A.M. dead body was sent to Azamgarh.They reached Azamgarh at 8.00 A.M..P.W.-7 S.I. Swami Nath Shukla has stated in cross examination at page 5 (page 47 of paper book) that date 10.5.1998 and time 23.50 mentioned in inquest report is the date and time of his arrival on the place of occurrence.The inquest report was prepared by him on 11.5.1998 after 5.00 A.M..P.W.-7 S.I. Swami Nath Shukla has stated in cross examination at page 4 (page 46 of paper book) that the police chauki on which he was posted at the time of occurrence is situated at a distance of 250 Meters from the place of occurrence.He has stated that on place of occurrence he reached after two hours of occurrence.At the time of occurrence he was not present at the chauki.In Column-I of inquest report Ext.Ka-12 following entries have been made:-10.5.98 - 22.30 10.5.98 - 23.50 eksgYyk iqjk jkuh izkjEHk iapk;rukek 11.5.98 - 5.15 A.M.The above statement of P.W.-7 S.I. Swami Nath Shukla, who has prepared inquest report Ext.Ka-12 shows that on 10.5.1998, 23.50 P.M. mentioned in the inquest report is the time of his arrival at the place of occurrence.Thus, it is apparent from the statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar as well as P.W.-7 S.I. Swami Nath Shukla that police reached on spot in night, therefore, the statement made by P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar that police took away the dead body of his father to police station on cot at about 11-11.30 P.M. in the same night is truth and it shows that how police acts in dealing with even heinous crimes. "10.5.1998, 23.50" written in inquest report Ext.Ka-12 shows that the preparation of inquest report was started at 23.50 P.M. in night but was not completed at that time.It shows laxity on the part of S.I. Swami Nath Shukla and it shall not cause adverse effect on prosecution case.In view of above, we are of the view that non-mentioning of section 504 and 506 I.P.C. on inquest report Ext.Ka-12, report to C.M.S. Ext.Ka-11, report to R.I. Ext.Ka-10, phot nash Ext.Ka-13, challan nash Ext.Ka-14 and addition of section 504 and 506 subsequently on said Exhibits Ka-10, Ka-11, Ka-13 and Ka-14 is the result of casual slip or mistake as well as laxity of P.W.-7 S.I. Swami Nath Shukla and no adverse presumption should be drawn against prosecution on this ground.P.W.-4 Head Moharrir Uday Pratap Pandey has stated in his statement on oath that on 10.5.1998 at 23.30 P.M. he sent special report of this crime to superior officers through Constable Bilal.In his statement on oath he has proved special report Ext.Thus, it is apparent from statement of P.W.-4 Head Moharrir Uday Pratap Pandey that special report was sent to superior officers in compliance of Clause 101 of Police Regulation.Learned counsel for accused appellants contended before us that special report has not been produced and proved before court.Ka-4 is copy of G.D. relating to dispatch of special report.Perusal of Ext.Ka-4 shows that it is copy of G.D. relating to special report.Copy of special report is not on record.But perusal of statement of P.W.-4 Head Moharrir Uday Pratap Pandey shows that defence has not cross-examined him about ext.Ka-4 and has not drawn his attention to the fact that document produced by him as Ext.Ka-4 is not special report but G.D. of special report.Defence has not challenged the sending of special report or contents of special report in cross-examination of P.W.-4 Head Moharrir Uday Pratap Pandey.Thus, it is apparent that defence has not challenged sending of special report by police.In view of above, we are of view that contention of learned counsel for accused appellants is not acceptable regarding special report.P.W.-4 Head Moharrir Uday Pratap Pandey has stated in his cross examination made by defence on page 2(page 34 of paper book) that he sent the chik F.I.R. next day by dock.Thus, it is apparent that Section 157 Cr.P.C. has also been complied with.Perusal of inquest report Ext.Ka-12 shows that copy of chik F.I.R. Ext.Ka-2 had been annexed with it.Post mortem report of deceased Haji Abdul Gani Ext.Ka-5 as well as statement of P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh, shows that post mortem of deceased Abdul Gani was conducted on 11.5.1998 at 3.45 P.M. by P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh.Post mortem report Ext.Ka-5 shows that seven enclosures were returned after post mortem.Defence has not cross examined P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh as to whether copy of chik F.I.R. was received to him alongwith inquest report or not.In view of discussions made above, we are of the view that the trial court has rightly held that there is no sufficient ground to believe that F.I.R. is anti time.Now we shall examine source of light.In F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 complainant Nasim Anwar has mentioned that he and witnesses named in F.I.R. saw accused appellants Jamil and Shakeel in the light of torch and electricity and identified them very well.P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has stated in his statement on oath that he saw the accused appellants in the light of torch and bulb and identified them very well.In site plan Ext.Ka-7, I.O. has not shown the place where bulb was lighting.P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has stated in cross examination at Page-7 (Page-27 of paper book) that only one bulb was lighting under railing of house of Abdul Salam.In site plan Ext.Ka-7 house of Abdul Salam has been shown by I.O. adjacent to place of occurrence, therefore, light of bulb fixed under the railing of house of Abdul Salam may easily reach to the place of occurrence.Defence has examined D.W.-1 Jagdamba Prasad Dubey, Junior Engineer of Electricity department who has proved log book Ext.Kha-1 and has stated that at the time of occurrence there was no electric supply in the locality of place of occurrence.Defence has not suggested in cross examination to P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar that there was no bulb in the house of Abdul Salam.Contrary to it, defence has tried to prove that there was no electric supply at the time of occurrence.In such circumstances, we are of the view that there is no ground to disbelieve the statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar regarding bulb at the house of Abdul Salam.I.O. has not shown bulb in site plan, merely on this ground statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar in this respect may not be disbelieved.It is relevant to mention that now-a-days bulbs are used to light with aid of Inverter and Battery as well as electricity produced by Generator during break down period of electricity..P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has mentioned in F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 as well as in his statement on oath that he had torch also.He has proved Memo of torch Ext.Ka-6 in his statement.P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has stated in his statement on oath that in the light of torch and bulb, he has identified accused appellants very well.P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has produced his torch before trial court at the time of his statement.Having considered the statements of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar and P.W.-6 S.I. Omkar Singh as well as Memo of torch Ext.Ka-6 and torch material Ext.-1, we are of the view that source of light has been proved at the time of occurrence.In absence of electric supply, bulb may be lighted with Battery and Inverter or electricity product by generator and there is nothing on record to show that the house in which bulb is alleged to have lighting, had no Inverter or Battery or generator at the time of occurrence.Now we shall examine motive of occurrence.In F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 complainant Nasim Anwar has mentioned that about one week earlier to occurrence there had taken place a quarrel between Abdul Gani father of complainant and accused appellant Jamil regarding fish and tenant of ahata of complainant Nasim Anwar.Complainant Nasim Anwar has stated in his statement on oath also that before this occurrence there had taken place a quarrel between accused appellants and tenant of hata in which father of complainant forbade accused appellants to quarrel in his ahata.Because of this accused appellants felt annoyed with his father also.Cause/motive of occurrence alleged in F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 has been proved by P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar.P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has stated in cross examination at Page-4(Page-24 of paper book) that in presence of him, there did never take place any quarrel between his father and accused appellants.This statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar shows that the quarrel between father of complainant and accused appellants alleged in F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 as well as in statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar did not take place in presence of complainant and complainant has only hearsay knowledge about said quarrel.In view of hearsay evidence of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar, the alleged quarrel between father of complainant and accused appellants cannot be said to have been proved in the eyes of law but in the case of Brahm Swaroop and another Vs.State of U.P. A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 280, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that," If the evidence of eyes witnesses is trustworthy and believed by the court, the question of motive becomes totally irrelevant."In site plan Ext.Ka-7 I.O. has not shown place from where witnesses have seen the occurrence.On this ground learned counsel for accused appellants has contended that investigation is defective.In similar situation different persons show different behavior.In sad demise of dear and near some people weep, some people keep mum.Some people do not dare to see deceased.Therefore, considering variation of human conduct it is not necessary that every son shall fell down on his deceased or seriously injured father.In view of above, blood stains on clothes or body is not a criteria to judge presence of witness.Therefore, presence of P.W.-3 Nasim Anwar may not be denied on the ground that no blood stain was found on his clothes or body.According to F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 at the time of occurrence complainant Nasim Anwar and his father Haji Abdul Gani were going from their ahata to their house alongwith P.W.-1 Abu Talha and P.W.-2 Anwar Ahmad.The place of occurrence lies in between ahata and house of complainant.There is no reasonable ground to disbelieve that deceased and his son complainant Nasim Anwar were not going together.It appears natural that in night for taking meal, they shall go to their house from their hata.Therefore, presence of complainant Nasim Anwar alongwith his father deceased Abdul Gani at the time of occurrence may not be said to be unnatural and unreliable.As discussed above, time of occurrence is 9.30 P.M. and F.I.R. has been lodged in police station Mubarakpur at 22.30 P.M. on the same day within one hour of occurrence; and conclusion drawn above shows that there is no sufficient ground to presume F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 anti time.Thus, there is sufficient ground to believe that F.I.R. is prompt.Certainly promptness of F.I.R. adds reliability to prosecution version and removes chance of concoction.Ka-1 he has mentioned that accused Jamil fired at back of his father with close range.Statement of P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh as well as post mortem report of deceased Abdul Gani Ext.Ka-5 shows that deceased Abdul Gani have two fire arm injuries.Ka-5 as well as statement of P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh corroborates the fact that deceased Abdul Gani has been caused injury by fire arm from the back side and with close range.Ka-1 as well as statement of P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh.Thus, we find that statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar is corroborated by medical evidence i.e. statement of P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh and post mortem report Ext.P.W.-6 S.I. Omkar Singh has stated in his statement that he recovered a bullet from the place of occurrence and prepared Fard of it Ext.Memo of bullet Ext.Ka-9 also shows that a fired bullet has been found on the spot.Site plan Ext.Ka-7 shows that in the wall of hata of Haji Masood a whole of bullet was also found by Investigating Officer P.W.-6 S.I. Omkar Singh which has been shown by him in site plan with letter 'B'.Blood was also found on the place of occurrence by P.W.-6 S.I. Omkar Singh.He has taken blood stained earth and plain earth from the place of occurrence and has prepared Memo of blood stained earth and plain earth Ext.Thus, place of occurrence alleged in F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 as well as in statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar is fully corroborated by site plan and I.O. P.W.-6 S.I. Omkar Singh.Complainant Nasim Anwar is the son of deceased Abdul Gani, therefore, he shall not spare real culprit and falsely implicate accused persons.As concluded above, there is no reason also for false implication.Learned counsel for accused appellants drawn our attention to the fact that P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has stated in his statement that accused Shakeel and Jamil came from west side and ran away towards east but according to site plan Ext.Ka-7, the gali on which occurrence took place is south to north and there is no passage or gali leading to east or west.We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant.Perusal of site plan shows that near place of occurrence there is open land in west of the passage through which complainant and his father was going ahata to their house.Site plan Ext.Ka-7 also shows that from the place of occurrence easily one may go towards east as there are space between houses.We have gone through entire statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar.His statement is fully in consonance with F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 and there is no contradiction in his statement.Learned counsel for accused appellants has drawn our attention to the statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar made in cross-examination by defence on Page-5 (Page 25 of Paper book) and contended that P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has shifted place of occurrence by this statement.We have given our anxious thought to the submission of learned counsel for accused appellants.In aforesaid statement P.W.-3 Nasim Anwar has stated that this occurrence took place towards south from house of Ram Nath Koyri.Firing was done from south before reaching house of Ram Nath Koyri.At that time his father was towards south from house of Faizul Hasan.In site plan Ext.Ka-7 I.O. has shown house of Faizul Hasan and place of occurrence has been shown towards south from his house.There is no contradiction in statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar and site plan Ext.Ka-7 regarding place of occurrence.Statements of P.W.-7 S.I. Swami Nath Shukla, P.W.-8 S.I. Ramakant Pandey as well as recovery memo of katta and cartridges Ext.Ka-15 shows that on 17.5.1998 on the pointing out of accused Jamil one country made katta of 303 bore, one fired cartridge of 303 bore and three live cartridges of 303 bore were recovered on the pointing out of accused Jamil but bullet recovered from the place of occurrence has not been sent alongwith katta recovered on the pointing out of accused Jamil for ballistic expert opinion and in absence of ballistic expert opinion it cannot be said that the katta allegedly recovered on the pointing out of accused appellant Jamil was used in the murder of deceased Abdul Gani.But report of ballistic expert regarding bullet recovered from spot has only effect of corroborative evidence.Prosecution story as well as statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar may not be discarded merely on the ground of failure of I.O. to send bullet for ballistic examination.In the case of Brahm Swaroop and another Vs.Ka-5 and statement of P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh as well as by site plan Ext.Ka-7 and statement of P.W.-6 S.I. Omkar Singh.Thereafter learned trial court proceeded further in accordance with law.Since accused appellant Jamil did not press aforesaid application 62-B and relinquished claim of juvenility, therefore no enquiry regarding juvenility of accused appellant was required by trial court.Learned trial court has recorded finding that accused appellant Jamil Ahmad was not juvenile at the time of occurrence.Accused appellant Jamil Ahmad has again moved application before this court claiming him to be juvenile on the date of occurrence alongwith affidavit.Copies of family register and birth register have been annexed with affidavit as proof of age of accused appellant Jamil.The copy of birth register shows that date of birth of accused appellant Jamil has been entered 17.6.1982 in birth register vide order dated 4.3.2010 passed by Up Ziladhikari.The copy of family register relates to the year 2010 and age of accused appellant Jamil has been shown in pursuance of birth certificate in which his date of birth has been written vide order dated 4.3.2010 passed by Up Ziladhikari.Therefore, this date of birth of accused appellant Jamil is not acceptable.At present accused appellant Jamil is above thirty years.Now it is difficult to ascertain his age at the time of occurrence on the basis of ossification test.In view of above, we are of the view that there is no material on record to show that accused appellant Jamil was juvenile at the time of occurrence.Accused appellant Jamil himself has not pressed his application regarding claim of juvenility before trial court, therefore, raising plea of juvenility again before this Court is barred by principle of res judicata as well as principle of stoppel also.In view of above, we are of the view that learned trial court has not committed error in passing impugned judgement and order.In view of conclusion drawn above, it is apparent that solitary evidence of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar is sufficient to convict accused appellant Jamil.According to F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 as well as statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar, accused appellants Jamil and Shakeel came together at the place of occurrence and each of them were armed with kattas.According to F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 as well as statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar, accused appellant Shakeel gave exhortation, whereupon accused appellant Jamil fired at the father of complainant.It is apparent from F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 as well as statement of P.W.-3 Nasim Anwar that when complainant and persons present with him tried to catch accused appellant Jamil Ahmad, accused Shakeel Ahmad pointed out katta at them and thereafter both accused appellants ran away together.Post mortem report Ext.Ka-5 as well as statement of P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh shows that ante mortem injury found on the dead body of deceased Haji Abdul Gani was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course at once.After having gone through entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as whole evidence on record, we are of the view that the evidence on record is sufficient to hold accused appellant Jamil guilty for offences punishable under section 302 and 506(2) I.P.C. and to accused appellant Shakeel for offences punishable under section 302/34 and 506(2)Perusal of impugned judgement and order shows that learned trial court has gone through entire evidence on record as well as facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial court has considered all relevant points in its impugned judgement.The findings recorded by trial court is based on judicious analysis of evidence as well as law.In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that the trial court has rightly convicted accused appellant Jamil for offences punishable under section 302 and 506(2) I.P.C. and accused appellant Shakeel for offences punishable under section 302/34 and 506(2)Sentences awarded by trial court are not excessive and no appeal has been filed by State of U.P. for enhancement of sentence.Therefore, we are of the view that there is no sufficient ground for interference in the impugned judgement and order passed by learned trial court.In view of above, we are of the view that both appeals have no merit and are liable to be dismissed.Both appeals are dismissed accordingly.Accused appellant Shakeel Ahmad is on bail.He shall surrender before trial court within 30 days from the date of this judgement for serving sentence awarded to him, failing which trial court shall ensure his arrest and shall send him to jail for serving sentence.Accused appellant Jamil is in jail.Learned trial court shall prepare conviction warrant in accordance with law.Let a copy of this judgement be sent to trial court for securing compliance.Send back records of trial court immediately.Order Date :-24.09.2014 LJ/-

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard, Case-diary perused.This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.443/2017, registered at Police Station Tejaji Nagar, Indore, District Indore, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(K) and 354-D of IPC and under Section 67-A of I.T. Act.As per prosecution case, the prosecutrix lodged a report on 16.12.2017 at Police Station Tejaji Nagar, Indore, District Indore alleging that she works in Ashiba Foos Private Limited.During working days she came in contact with co-accused Satish, who also works with her in the same company as House Keeping Supervisor.Two years back, co-accused Satish asked her to meet at Rajwada and from there on the pretext of some conversation prosecutrix was taken to Krishna Avenue, Limbodi where co-accused Satish committed rape upon her and also prepared a video.Prosecutrix asked him to delete the said video but he has not deleted the same and she was left at Rajwada.Before HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.2329/2018 (Madhur V/s.State of M.P.) 3 nine months of lodging the FIR, applicant came to her and told that he has a video wherein she had physical relationship with Satish and also asked her to talk to him else her video will be viral.It is also alleged that applicant forwarded her video to one Lakhan and thereafter prosecutrix disclosed the whole incident to her brother, family members and police also.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence.There is no allegation against the applicant regarding rape.Police neither seized the mobile phone of Lakhan nor recorded his statement, therefore, no evidence is available against the applicant to connect him with the present crime.Conclusion of trial will take time, therefore, the applicant be released on bail.Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail, hence the application filed by the applicant be dismissed.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed.The HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.2329/2018 (Madhur V/s.(S.K.Awasthi) Judge ns Neeraj Sarvate 2018.01.25 13:39:31 +05'30'

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

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

Heard on admission.On perusal of the statement of witnesses, this appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.Thereafter, this period has been further extended by this Court.He has never misused the liberty.List the matter for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge pnm Digitally signed by POONAM LONDHE Date: 2019.09.24 10:49:44 +05'30'

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

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

Case diary perused.This is first application under section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with the Crime no.253/2017 registered at police station - Rajgarh, Dist - Dhar for commission of the offence punishable under sections 376(1), 450, 506-II of IPC.As per the prosecution story, on 08/12/2017 at about 15.00 pm the applicant came to the house of the prosecutrix and caused beating with the prosecutrix.After that, he committed rape upon the prosecutrix.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present matter due to election rivalry.From the statement of the prosecutrix, it appears that there was some altercation between the applicant and the prosecutrix, in which, she sustained some injuries.To prove grave offence, the prosecutrix made false allegation of committing rape against the applicant.The applicant is in custody since 09/12/2017 without any specific reason.Investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed.Conclusion of the trial will take time.In these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Page no 2 On the other hand, learned public prosecutor for the respondent / State submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail, hence the application filed by the applicant be dismissed.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed.The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- ( Rupees Fifty Thousand ) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. AWASTHI) JUDGE AMOL N MAHANAG 2018.01.10 15:39:46 +05'30'

['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 11.9.2013 in connection with Chapra P.S. Case No. 422 of 2013 dated 14.7.2013 under Sections 341/325/379/50634 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Ayub Biswas & Ors.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) (Tofique Uddin, J.)

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

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

The applicants have filed first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicants are apprehending their arrest in the case bearing Criminal Complaint No.429/13 pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia under Sections 294, 341, 323, 506-B of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of S.C.S.T.(Prevention of Atrocities)Heard the arguments of both the parties.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on the basis of false and fabricated facts a private complaint was filed before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia whereby the cognizance under Sections 294, 323, 506 Part-II of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of S.C.S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was taken vide order dated 16.4.13 and order for warrant of arrest for securing the presence of the applicants was passed against them.Learned counsel further Suraj Singh Yadav vs. State of M.P. and anr.2 M.Cr.State of M.P., 2012(1)MPHT, 237 has submitted that as alleged by the complainant in the complaint mere saying Chamra, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of S.C.S.T. Act is not made out.Learned counsel further pleads that on the aforesaid allegations a report was lodged to the police station Pandokhar and the case was registered against the applicants as well as two other co-accused Mahendra and Jaswant.After investigation final report(Khatma Report) was filed against the applicants No. 1 and 2 However, the charge sheet was filed against the remaining co-accused and they were acquitted vide judgment dated 21.12.12 which indicates that allegations made against the applicants are totally baseless.Learned counsel further contends that there was no need to issue warrant of arrest against the applicants by the trial court whereas the cognizance was not taken under the heinous offences on the basis of private complaint filed by the Suraj Singh Yadav vs. State of M.P. and anr.3 M.Cr.On these grounds learned counsel has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed the submissions and prayed for rejection of the bail application.During the course of argument, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted that Special Case S.T.No.88/11 instituted against co-accused Mahendra and Jaswant has already been decided vide judgment dated 21.12.12 and the co-accused of this alleged incident have already been acquitted.

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 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.A.Naik, Adv.It appears that the applicant is facing Criminal Complaint instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.The facts, briefly stated, are as under :The respondent (Original complainant) was in need of money and hence, he wanted to sell the immovable property i.e. Block No.1 of House No.595/17, City Survey No.2066/11, Sheet No.32 at Jaripatka, Nagpur.The accused had expressed his wish to purchase the property.The complainant was ready ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 ::: 3 to sell the said property for a consideration of Rs.9,50,000/-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 :::plus the amount of capital gains tax which the complainant would be liable to pay after registration of sale deed.In the meanwhile, it is alleged that the accused had, without consent of the complainant, got the city survey record altered with ulterior motive.The complainant, therefore, was not ready to execute sale deed in favour of the accused.Thus, the dispute arose between the complainant and the accused.One Mr.N.K.Ghagarkar had mediated in the dispute.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 :::1. Heard Shri.for the Applicant, Shri.Pankaj Navlani, Adv.for Respondent No.1 and Shri.D.B.Yengal, A.P.P.By this application u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed for to quash and set aside the order issuing process against the applicant dated 21st December, 2009 and for dismissal of Summary Criminal Complaint Case No.16576/09 pending on the file of 22nd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur.There was an agreement between the complainant and the accused dt.29.6.1996 whereby the accused was to pay consideration within the stipulated period and to get the sale deed registered on payment of full consideration within the stipulated time.The accused had agreed that if he fails to pay the full consideration within the agreed period and to get the sale deed executed, he shall pay an interest @ 18 % p.a.for the delay.The accused failed to pay the consideration as agreed and to get the sale deed executed from the complainant.After about nine years gap, the accused asked the complainant for execution and registration of sale deed in his favour.Thus, the accused agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,76,000/- and insisted for execution of sale deed.The complainant wanted ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 ::: 4 immediate payment, but the accused expressed his inability to pay immediate cash.The accused, however, agreed to give an undertaking and acknowledged his liability to the extent of Rs.2,76,000/- on the Stamp paper and gave two Cheques bearing Cheque No.101442, dt.31.3.2009 of Rs.1,56,000/- and another bearing Cheque No.101443, dt.30.6.2009 of Rs.1,20,000/-.Both the cheques were drawn in favour of Mr.According to the complainant, Mr.Ghagarkar was to return those Cheques when the accused pay cash amount in lieu of those Cheques.The Cheques were drawn upon Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd. by Mr.Ghagarkar on behalf of the complainant and if the cheques are dishonored, the complainant was to exercise legal right against the accused.Thus, after delivery of those two Cheques, the complainant requested the accused to pay the cash amount in lieu of those cheques and to take back the Cheques from Mr. Ghagarkar.But the accused, though promised to make payment in cash, had no bona fide intention ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 ::: 5 to pay the amount.However, with mala fide intention and fradulent motive, he got the sale deed registered in his favour.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 :::It is the case of the complainant that, under instructions from Mr.Ghagarkar, he deposited the two Cheques in the Central Bank of India, Main Branch, S.P.Patel Marg, Nagpur on 29.9.2009; but the Cheque No.101443, dt.30.6.2009 for Rs.1,20,000/- was dishonored and returned unpaid on account of the remark "payment stopped by the drawer/insufficient funds", while in respect of Cheque no.101442, which was dt.,31.3.2009 for a sum of Rs.1,56,000/-, the said Cheque was dishonored for the reason the "Cheque was outdated".Thus, the complainant alleged that the accused did not pay any heed for to clear his liability towards the complainant.The accused had approached the complainant and instructed him to redeposit the Cheque No.101443, dt. 30.6.2009 for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- assuring payment, but same was returned with remarks "stop payment/insufficient funds".Thus, the complaint was filed for an offence punishable u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act r/w.Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 :::The learned 22nd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur, who perused the complaint, documents and after hearing the learned Advocate for the complainant, was pleased to issue process u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Issuance of process was challenged by the accused by filing Criminal Revision Application No.523 of 2010 which was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 30.11.2010 by judgment and order in the said case.The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that, in the averments in the complaint, the complainant has stated indicating that the cheques in question were issued in favour of Mr.Ghagarkar by way of security for payment of cash amount assured by the accused.But Mr.Ghagarkar is not the complainant before the Court.According to him, the complainant in this case cannot be considered as a holder in due course since, according to the definition of the term "Holder in due course" u/s. 9 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, "Holder in due course" means any person who for consideration became the possessor of a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque if payable to bearer, or the payee or endorsee thereof, if payable to order, before the amount mentioned in it became payable and without having sufficient cause to believe that any defect existed in the title of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 ::: 7 person from whom he derived his title.. Thus, it is necessary for a person to be a holder of due course that he is in possession of the negotiable instrument.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 :::and Ors.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 :::JUDGE jaiswal ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 :::

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.105/2016 registered by Police Station Thatipur, District Gwalior for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506/34 of IPC as well as the Criminal Case No.2396/2016 pending before the Court of JMFC, Gwalior.During the pendency of this application, an application under Section 320 (1) & (2) of CrPC has been filed on the ground that the parties have compromised their dispute, therefore, the criminal case may be quashed.

['Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']

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

1 .6.2019 p.b.CRR 3340 of 2018 CRAN 3210 of 2018 In re: Manju Devi Agarwal @ Manju Agarwal & Ors.Mr. Saurav Chatterjee, Mr. Soumya Nag......for the petitioner.Mr. Arijit Bhushan Bagchi......for the O.P.In this revisional application, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the proceeding being G.R. Case No.907 of 2005 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Alipurduar arising out of Jaigaon Police Station Case No.85 of 2005 dated 29th November, 2005 under Sections 147/148/149/447/379/325/506 /120B of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner no.1 was married to Suresh Kumar Agarwal who is the brother of the opposite party no.2 of the instant case.However, on some matrimonial misunderstandings, the deceased father of the petitioner no.1 had instituted a case being Jaigaon Police Station Case No.69 of 2005 dated 29th September, 2005 under Sections 498A/325/34 of the IPC against the opposite party no.2 and others.The Investigating Agency has submitted a charge sheet being Charge Sheet No.4 of 2006 dated 25th January, 2006 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.It is submitted that on the intervention of friends, associates and well wishers, the disputes and discord by and between the petitioner no.1 and the brother of the opposite party no.2 have been resolved amicably and a compromise has been arrived at by and between the parties.As a 2 result, both the parties have resolved their differences once and for all and both the parties have decided to withdraw and/or amicably settle the disputes as well as other criminal proceedings.I have heard learned counsel for both the parties.(Shivakant Prasad, J.)

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A 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 Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 21/08/2019 in connection with Sabang P.S. Case No. 327 of 2019 dated 29/07/2019 under Sections 448/325/307/354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Shyamal Sasmal ....petitioner.Mr. M. Chatterjee, Mr. B. Hutait ...for the petitioner.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Jay Sengupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

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

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

Subsequently, an application was moved by informant with this contention that assailants gave indiscriminate firing over brother of informant and one of them was identified to be Pravendra @ Rahul, others may be identified if produced before informant and as there was previous enmity, hence, whole family was implicated by the informant.In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant 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.(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.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 :- 9.7.2020 S.K.

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

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

Rejected md.CRM No. 5713 of 2016 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 19.7.2016 in connection with Panchla Police Station Case No.197/2015 dated 05.06.2015 under Sections 448 / 427 /325 /326/ 307/354B /380 /379/436/120B of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of:-Therefore, this application is rejected and dismissed.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.(Patherya,J.) (Debi Prosad Dey,J.) 2

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Challenge is to an order dated 19.09.2018 passed by Special Judge, Gwalior (M.P.); whereby, charges under Sections 420, 467 and 406 of IPC are levelled against the petitioner on the allegation that while not holding the post as the President of the Society, the petitioner posing himself to be a President inducted 19 members in the society and executed sale-deeds between the period from 24.01.2003 to 17.11.2004 in favour of these 19 persons and embezzled Rs.2,88,500/-.To substantiate the contention, the petitioner led us through the documents filed along with the charge-sheet.On these contentions, petitioner seeks quashment of FIR.The respondents, on their turn, have repelled the contentions.

['Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

By this revision, the revision applicant questions legality, propriety and correctness of the Judgment and order dated 29.03.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Akola in Criminal Appeal no 18 of 2009 dismissing the appeal which arose from the conviction of the applicant for the offence punishable under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code in Summary Criminal Case No. 9602 of 2006 decided by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola.The facts, stated in brief, are as under :-That the first informant Ku.Swati Mhaisne lodged a report on 14.02.2006 at about 9 a.m. that she had gone to Shivam General Stores at Vardhman Nagar Kaulkhed, Akola to buy refill for the Pen.The applicant who was the shopkeeper was present in the shop.She gave Rs. 1/- to the applicant and asked for the refill.The applicant asked her name and called her inside and outraged her modesty by putting his hand on her cheek and also put his hand inside her petticoat, touching her ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:38:46 ::: 3 private part.The girl frightened by the incident went to her house and narrated the incident to her aunt and to her uncle.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:38:46 :::The prosecution had examined five witnesses.The applicant, in defence, examined himself and one witness.The trial Magistrate found the applicant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs300/- and in default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.I have heard the submissions canvassed by the learned Advocates for the respective parties at length and perused the record and proceedings.In the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:38:46 ::: 4 present case, the learned Advocate for the Applicant submitted that there was delay of about two days to lodge FIR and it is not explained by the prosecution.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:38:46 :::According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the evidence of the PW 1, 3 and 4 was of hearsay nature and could not have been relied upon by the Courts below as corroborating evidence.The learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for leniency and supporting the impugned Judgments delivered by the courts below, submitted that the conviction ought to be confirmed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:38:46 :::A careful approach has to be adopted by the court while dealing with a case alleging outrage of modesty.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:38:46 :::The revision application lacks merits and stands dismissed.

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE tarunShri K.K Verma, learned counsel for the Objector.

['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

2 Cri.The prosecution's story, in short, is that on 23.9.1994 at about 12 O'clock in the night the complainant Jamni Bai (PW-1) was sleeping in her house situated at Village Bandharwar (Police Station Badamalhara District Chhattarpur).While sleeping she heard a sound of firing, and therefore she woke up.She saw the appellants standing in front of her.They had already entered into the house of the complainant.The appellant Chhotelal gave a cartridge to the appellant Jivanlal and directed him to fire.On firing by the appellant Jivanlal, Darua (PW-3) husband of the complainant sustained some injuries.Thereafter the appellant Chhotelal loaded the gun and fired upon the complainant Jamni Bai due to which she sustained a gun shot injury in her right thigh.Thereafter one more fire was done by the appellant Jivanlal.Two persons were standing in front of the house.They shouted for the appellants to come back and thereafter the appellants ran away.The complainant Jamni Bai lodged an FIR Ex.P-1 at Police Station Badamalhara in the same night at about 4:35 AM.The injured persons were sent for their medico legal examination and treatment.Dr. P.K.Jain (PW-10) at the Primary Health Centre, Badamalhara examined the victim Jamni Bai and gave his report Ex.He found three injuries to the victim Jamni Bai over her right parietal 3 Cri.A. No.1579/1996 region, near the left eye and right thigh caused by pellets.Those injuries were found simple in nature.Similarly, he examined the victim Darua and gave his report Ex.So many wounds of pin type pellets were found at four places of his body.Such wounds were found on the left shoulder, back of the right shoulder, near the left ear and left side of the head.The katta and cartridge which were alleged to be seized were not sent to the Reserved Inspector for their examination.Jamni Bai (PW-1) and Darua (PW-3) have stated that some persons entered into their house.Initially Jamni Bai heard a sound of fire and she sustained no injury from first fire.Thereafter she woke up and saw the appellants.6 Cri.A. No.1579/1996 Both the appellants had firearms of 12 bore.One more person was present with the appellants having a katta with him.The appellant Chhotelal assaulted by firing from a katta on the head of the victim Jamni Bai.He also assaulted by firing from katta to the victim Darua causing him injury on his left scapular region.(Delivered on the 21st day of December, 2012) This criminal appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10/9/1996 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur in ST No.1/1995, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:-He referred the victim Darua for his X-ray examination.In the X-ray, no bony injury was found.The police arrested the appellants and on interrogation the appellant Jivanlal gave an intimation about two cartridges and those two cartridges were recovered from his field.Similarly, the appellant Chhotelal gave an intimation about the handmade pistol and the handmade pistol of 12 bore was recovered from him.After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the JMFC Bijawar, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Chhattarpur and ultimately it was transferred to the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur.3 Cri.The appellants-accused abjured their guilt.They took a specific plea that they were falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity.In defence, Jhallu Raja (DW-1) and Balmukund Tiwari (DW-2) were examined.The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted the appellants for commission of offence punishable under 4 Cri.A. No.1579/1996 Sections 458, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and sentenced as mentioned above.4 Cri.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.That property was sent to the FSL, but no FSL report was submitted in the trial, and therefore it was not proved that the appellants had any firearm with them or they used such firearm.The appellants could not be convicted for any offence including the offence under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. In the alternate, it is submitted that the appellants remained in the custody for more than three months and they have faced the trial and 5 Cri.A. No.1579/1996 appeal for last 17 years, and therefore they may not be sent to the jail again.5 Cri.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that the conviction as well as the sentence directed by the trial Court appears to be correct and there is no basis by which any interference may be done in the appeal.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be considered as to whether the appeal of the appellants can be accepted? And whether the sentence directed by the trial Court against the appellants can be reduced?So far as the offence under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act is concerned, the appellants could be convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, if it is established that they had firearm at the time of the incident and they used the same.Whereas the appellants could be convicted for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, if they had firearm with them at the time of the incident or any firearm or ammunition was recovered from them.First of all the factual position relating to the incident may be considered.On shouting of the victims, some persons came to the spot, who saved the victims.The complainant Jamni Bai lodged an FIR Ex.P-1 at Police Station Badamalhara after 4 hours, whereas the police station was 12 kms away from the spot.The FIR lodged by the victim Jamni Bai was lodged with a delay of at least two hours.The victims were injured and after the incident they were taken to the Police Station.6 Cri.In the present case, the most important fact was that the victim Jamni Bai and her husband Darua identified the culprits in a dark night.It is established in the statements of the complainant Jamni Bai and her husband Darua that they had an enmity with the appellants.The enmity is a double edged weapon, that means due to enmity the appellants could assault the victims or due to that enmity the appellants could be falsely implicated by the victims, if the victims could not know about the actual culprits.In the present case a spot map Ex.P-2 was produced by the police, which was prepared by the Inspector M.K.Pathak (PW-9).In that spot map Inspector M.K. Pathak could not give any description relating to the 7 Cri.A. No.1579/1996 source of light.Also the complainant Jamni Bai and her husband Darua did not say anything about the source of light.Darua (PW-3) has admitted that Jhallu Raja was the first person, who came to his house and participated in taking the victims to the police station by a jeep.Jhallu Raja (DW-1) was not examined by the prosecution, but he was examined by the defence.He has stated that neither Jamni Bai nor Darua could identify the actual culprits and they were talking with each other that they could lodge the report against the enemies on the basis of suspicion.7 Cri.The appellants examined two defence witnesses Jhallu Raja (DW-1) because of the fact that a real story was told by the victims to Jhallu Raja (DW-1) soon after the incident and one Balmukund Tiwari (DW-2) was examined to prove the alibi of the appellant Jivanlal that at the time of incident, Jivanlal was working in a Panchayat held at Village Bandhawar.So far as the testimony of Balmukund Tiwari (DW-2) is concerned, it is strange that a meeting of the Panchayat took place at 2:00 AM in the night.No proceeding of such meeting was produced by the witness Balmukund Tiwari (DW-2) at the time of his statement, and therefore the testimony of Balmukund Tiwari cannot be relied upon.Therefore, the alibi relating to the appellant Jivanlal is not established.It is true that Jhallu Raja (DW-1) was the person, who took the victims to the police station, and therefore his testimony can be believed.But there is a 8 Cri.A. No.1579/1996 possibility that he was won over by the accused persons, and hence by his statement, the entire prosecution evidence cannot be thrown.But it is also possible that he was telling a truth before the trial Court.Under such a situation, the evidence given by the victim Jamni Bai (PW-1) and her husband Darua (PW-3) should be examined with great caution.8 Cri.In support of the evidence given by the victims Jamni Bai and her husband Darua, the FIR can be read as a corroborative piece of evidence which was lodged by the complainant Jamni Bai after 4 hours of the incident.Similarly, the testimony of the various doctors like Dr. Mahendra Khare (PW-2) and Dr. P.K.Jain (PW-10) may be considered.It is proved beyond doubt that both the victims sustained various injuries due to gun shot.Hence it is proved beyond doubt that someone assaulted the victims by firing from a gun, and therefore the offence under Sections 307, 458 of IPC was done by the culprits.But the entire testimony of the complainant and her husband is to be considered for the identification of the culprits.As discussed above, the complainant and her husband could not prove any source of light at the time of the incident.Evidently, they were sleeping in their house and nobody chased the culprits.No independent witness saw the actual culprit soon after the incident when they were running from the spot.Jhallu Raja and other witnesses 9 Cri.A. No.1579/1996 came very late so that they could not see the culprits on their own.The prosecution has examined Narayan (PW-5) son of the victims to say that he was an eye-witness in the case and he could identify the culprits.However, looking to his case diary statement, it would be apparent that he did not claim before the police that he could identify the culprits; therefore it appears that Narayan (PW-5) was sleeping at the time of incident and he could not see the culprits of the incident.No reason has been shown about the delay in recording the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the victim Darua.Therefore, it appears that a false case is created against the appellants on the basis of suspicion.9 Cri.There is a lot of contradiction between the statements given by the victims Jamni Bai (PW-1) and Darua (PW-3) with the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the victim Jamni Bai.In the FIR the victim Jamni Bai has clearly stated that there was only one firearm amongst all the four culprits and initially it was fired by the appellant Jivanlal, then appellant Chhotelal provided a cartridge to the Jivanlal and again he fired.Thereafter appellant Chhotelal took that katta from the appellant Jivanlal and he fired from the katta.Looking at the entire story mentioned in the FIR, it is duly 10 Cri.A. No.1579/1996 established that there was only one katta amongst the culprits, and therefore the police seized only katta in the case.But the victims Jamni Bai and Darua have stated before the trial Court that the appellants Chhotelal and Jivanlal had separate firearms with them and one more person had a firearm.This is a material contradiction between the statements of the victims and the version mentioned in the FIR.There is a lot of contradiction between the statements given by the victims Jamni Bai and Darua about the various fires done by the appellants Jivanlal or Chhotelal.Jamni Bai (PW-1) states that first fire was done while they were sleeping and thereafter appellant Chhotelal fired from a gun causing injury on the left shoulder of the victim Jamni Bai, whereas Jivanlal fired from the gun causing an injury in her thigh.Again Chhotelal fired three times causing injury on her head, whereas Jivanlal fired upon her husband causing injury on the shoulder of her husband, whereas Darua has stated that he sustained injury on his left shoulder caused by Chhotelal by firing.This is a material contradiction between the evidence given by the complainant Jamni Bai and her husband Darua.Jamni Bai says that it was Jivanlal who fired upon the victim Darua whereas Darua says that it was Chhotelal who fired upon him on his left scapular region.Such type of contradiction can arise if the victims could not see the actual culprits.The victims could not tell about the source 11 Cri.A. No.1579/1996 of light, and therefore there was no possibility that they could see the actual culprits.If there was a source of light available, then the culprits could fire upon the victims on their vital parts and both the victims could sustain some injuries on the chest or on some vital part of the body.Looking at the injuries of the victims, it appears that there was no source of light, and therefore the culprits could not have aimed upon the vital part of the body of these two victims.Under such circumstances, the testimony of the witness Jhallu Raja can be accepted that the victims could not see the actual culprits, and therefore they decided to allege the entire incident against the appellants due to enmity.10 Cri.11 Cri.It is true that the evidence of witness Jhallu Raja cannot be accepted beyond doubt, as he has created a doubt that there was no source of light at the spot and the victim could not see the actual culprits.In this connection the statement of one Harcharan Yadav (PW-4) may also be considered, who was examined as a prosecution witness.He has stated in his examination-in-chief that he was also present when the victims were taken to the police station.They were injured and they were taken to the police station Badamalhara.He has also accepted that the victim Darua had told him that he had an enmity with the appellant Chhotelal, and therefore it would be proper to mention the name of Chhotelal and he had shown his suspicion against 12 Cri.A. No.1579/1996 the appellants to the witness Harcharan Yadav (PW-4).Though Harcharan Yadav was examined as a prosecution witness, but he was not declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor, and therefore being a prosecution witness, his testimony is binding on the prosecution.Under such circumstances, looking at the testimony of the witness Harcharan Yadav, it is proved beyond doubt that the victims Darua and Jamni Bai could not see the actual culprits and they named the appellants in the FIR on the basis of enmity.Looking at the statement of Harcharan Yadav, a strong doubt is created in the prosecution story and if a doubt is created, then benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused persons.It is not proved beyond doubt that the appellants were the persons who assaulted the victims by firing from various firearms or they entered into the house of the victims.Then the appellants could not be convicted for the offence under Sections 458 and 307 of IPC either directly or with the help of Section 34 of IPC.Similarly, the appellants could not be convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.12 Cri.They could not be convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act for that period.Inspector Pathak (PW-9) has stated that on interrogation the 13 Cri.A. No.1579/1996 appellant Jivanlal told about the cartridge which was recovered from him and the appellant Chhotelal told about handmade pistol and it was recovered.Out of these witnesses, Ramsanjivan (PW-7) was examined and he turned hostile, whereas the witness Narayandas was not examined.Looking at the evidence of witness Ramsanjivan, it appears that he was not an independent witness of the locality.He was resident of village Bamni, which was 25 kms away from Village Bandha, and therefore it would be clear that the Inspector Shri Pathak took a patent witness in the case and still those witnesses turned hostile.Therefore, the testimony of the Inspector Pathak cannot be believed beyond doubt and it is not proved beyond doubt that any cartridge was seized from the appellant Jivanlal or any handmade pistol was seized from the appellant Chhotelal.13 Cri.It is very strange that neither the firearm nor the cartridge was not sent for its examination to the Reserved Inspector so that such articles could be examined by the competent Armer.No such report has been filed with the charge sheet.Such article was sent to the FSL but no FSL report is ever exhibited in the case, and therefore it is not proved beyond doubt that the seized property was either a firearm or ammunition.Under such circumstances, the 14 Cri.P-17 given by the then DM Shri Julaniya does not appear to be given according to the law.In the order Ex.P-17, the entire discussion and opinion relating to the sanction was already mentioned in a cyclostyle format.Name of the accused persons with the seized property were filled up in cyclostyle manner in the format prepared in general, and therefore it cannot be said that Shri Julariya exercised his judicial discretion in grant of prosecution sanction, and therefore it was not a valid prosecution sanction in the eye of law.In absence of valid prosecution sanction, the appellants could not be tried or convicted for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellants were the culprits who assaulted the victims by firing from a gun or they had any firearm or ammunition.The appellants cannot be convicted for any offence though they were convicted by the trial Court.Hence the appeal filed by the appellants can be accepted.The 15 Cri.A. No.1579/1996 appellants are acquitted from all the charges appended against them by giving the benefit of doubt.

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

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

When they had reached near the house of the appellant, the appellant who was sleeping outside his house woke up on the barking of a dog.Perhaps, he was irritated by this and consequently, snatched the vidnu (pointed instrument for tapping toddy) from Somla.Thereafter, he and the acquitted accused Pravin Dhodi caught Somla and the appellant pierced the vidnu on the left side of his stomach, as a consequence of which Somla fell down.Thereafter, the appellant and Pravin Dhodi ran away.JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.Through the appeal the appellant challenges the Judgment and order dated 7.9.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji camping at Daman, in Sessions Case No. 89 of 1987 convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for an offence under Section 302 of IPC.In short, the prosecution case runs as under:On 2.8.87, at about 1 p.m. the informant Bhula Bhagwan P.W. 1 Pemla Chagan and Magan Barsa were on their way to tap toddy.Immediately, behind the informant was Somla.The informant went to the house of Dhiru Sarpanch, P.W. 5 and informed him about the incident and when he returned to the place, of the incident thereafter, he found that Somla was dead.The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by the informant Bhula Bhagwan P.W. 1 on 2.8.87 at about 2 p.m. at police station Daman.On its basis, PSI E.J. Rassrio P.W. 10 registered an offence under Section 302 of IPC.The autopay on the corpse of Somla was conducted on 3.8.87' between 1 and 1.15 p.m. by Dr. Jog Atmararn P.W. 6 who found that the deceased had sustained a penetrating clear cut wound 1.5 cm on left 6th inter costal space which was accompanied by a penetrating injury to the left lung and heart.In the opinion of Dr. Atmaram the said injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and could be caused by the vidnu which was shown to him during his deposition.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner.There the appellant and co-accused Pravin Dhodi were charged for an offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.During the trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses.and Magan Barsa P.W. 3 were examined as eye witnesses.In defence, no witness was examined.The learned trial Judge believed the evidence vis-a-vis the appellant and convicted and sentenced him in the manner stated in para 1 but, acquitted the co-accused Pravin Dhodi whose acquittal has not being impugned by the State of Maharashtra.Although the appeal has been on the final hearing board since long, the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ramdas Sabban is absent.We feel that the evidence of two eye-witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellant namely the informant Bhula Bhagwan P.W. 1 and Magan Barsa P.W. 3 inspires implicit confidence.The said witnesses have explained their presence on the place of the incident by alleging that on 2.8.87 at about 1 p.m. they had reached the house of the appellant along with the deceased Somla, while on way for tapping toddy.According to them, as a consequence of the barking of a dog, the appellant who was sleeping outside his house, woke up.Thereafter, he snatched the vidnu which Somla was carrying and caught him along with the acquitted co-accused Pravin Dhodi.Thereafter, the appellant inflicted a solitary vidnu blow on left side of the stomach (just below the ribs) of Somla.The said account furnished by these witnesses receives corroboration by the medical evidence.Dr. Atmaram P.W. 6 who performed the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased found that he had sustained a penetrating clear cut wound on the left 6th inter costal space which was accompanied by a penetrating injury to the left lung.In his opinion, the said injury could be caused by the vidnu shown to him.It is pertinent to point out that both these eye witnesses are independent witnesses having no axe to grind against the appellant.In our view, unless the appellant had fatally assaulted the deceased in the manner deposed to by them, they would not have falsely implicated him.Criminal Courts attach great significance to the prompt lodging of an F.I.R. because the same substantially eliminates chances of embellishment in the prosecution story, and that of false implication of the accused named thereunder.For the said reasons, we feel that the learned trial Judge acted correctly in finding the involvement of the appellant in the incident having been established beyond the place of doubt.This leaves us with the question of offence.Although the prosecution alleged motive against the appellant namely there was some enmity between him and the deceased Somla but that motive has not been accepted by the learned trial Judge for plausible reasons.It appears that the appellant who at the time of the incident was sleeping and was woken up by the barking of dog felt irritated and consequently snatched the vidnu which the deceased Somla was carrying and inflicted a solitary blow with the same on Somla's person.On these facts, bearing in mind that the appellant was initially unarmed, his act of inflicting a solitary vidnu injury on the person of Somla on the spur of moment would not fall within any of the four clauses of Section 300 of IPC the breach of which is punishable under Section 302 of IPC but instead would fall within that of the first part of Section 304 of IPC.In the result, this appeal is partly allowed.

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

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

Item No. 58And In the matter of: Sudhangshu Biswas & Anr.- versus -The State of West Bengal .Opposite Party Mr. Dwipanjan Chatterjee Mr. Apalak Basu For the Petitioners Mr. Bidyut Kumar Roy For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Hanskhali Police Station Case No.478 of 2011 dated 16.09.2011 under sections 448/379/427/504/506/34 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 and other relevant material.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. 1 2 (Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J.) 2

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission to withdraw the present application of applicants No.1 Sittal Patel and applicant No.3 Hiralal Patel.Prayer is allowed.The application of applicants No.1 and 3 is dismissed being withdrawn.No common intention of the applicant can be presumed with the co-accused persons.No offence under Section 326 or 324 of IPC is made out against the present applicant either directly or with the help of Section 34 of IPC.Under such circumstances, she prays for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari

['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

It would appear that both the complainant and the petitioner were friends belonging to reasonably affluent families, and in the aftermath of a Crl.M.C. No.3290/2014 Page 1 of 7 get-together at the house of the complainant, the complainant had lodged the said FIR alleging theft of money and certain articles from his house by the petitioner / accused.M.C. No.3290/2014 Page 1 of 7The Investigating Officer is present in Court.The matter is stated to be under investigation and the charge sheet is yet to be filed.M.C. No.3290/2014 Page 7 of 7This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.237/2014 dated 15.06.2014, registered under Sections 380 IPC at police station Greater Kailash, at the instance of second respondent, Sh.The said Settlement Deed has also been annexed to this petition.Issue notice.The petitioner undertakes to this Court to deposit the aforesaid costs within the time granted and file the proof of the same.He has been explained the consequences of breach of this undertaking by his counsel.The petition stands disposed off.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA Judge JULY 31, 2014 dr Crl.M.C. No.3290/2014 Page 7 of 7

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

1. Heard Mr. Atul Kumar Shahi learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State.This second application for bail has been filed by applicant-Smt Mumtaj.seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 378 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Mainpuri, during the pendency of trial.The first Bail application of applicant was rejected vide order dated 19.11.2018, which reads as under:-"Heard Mr. Atul Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today is taken on record.This bail application has been filed by the applicant Smt. Mumtaj, seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 378 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri during the pendency of the trial.After the expiry of a period of one year from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 27.3.2018, in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant died.The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 27.3.2018 itself not on the information of the applicant or any of her family members but on the information given by Shamshad Ali the father of the deceased.In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the cause of death of the deceased was characterized as homicidal.The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 27.3.2018 by the father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 378 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri.In the aforesaid F.I.R., four persons namely, Arif (husband), Anwar (father-in-law), Mumtaz (mother-in-law), Asif (dewar) were nominated as the accused.The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia as a result of strangulation.A ligature mark in the size of 11 cm on the neck of the body of the deceased was found.The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number submitted a charge-sheet dated 3.4.2018 against all the named accused.What has happened subsequent to the submission of the charge sheet dated 3.4.2018, has not been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application nor the same could be disclosed at the time of hearing of the bail application by the learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased.The applicant is a lady and is in jail since 28.3.2018, having no criminal antecedents to her credit except the present one.On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that the applicant being a lady is liable to be enlarged on bail.Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.He submits that the deceased had died just after one year of marriage on account of asphyxia as a result of strangulation.The applicant is a charge sheeted accused.Per contra, the learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.

['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The petitioner is in custody for 177 days.The claim of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his client is standing on the same footing with one of the co-accused, who has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in connection with CRM No. 616 of 2017 on 13.02.2017 and the same has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the State.Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands allowed on parity.Let the petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kandi, Murshidabad upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each, one of whom must be local and on further 2 condition that after release he shall report to the investigating officer of the case thrice in every week until further orders.The application for bail is thus disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Debi Prosad Dey, J.)

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Through: Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with Inspector Veer Singh, SHO, & Sub-Inspector Ombir, Police Station Nand Nagri, Delhi CORAM:The facts giving rise to the present appeal are within that on 25.01.1997 at about 11 AM one Maheshwari, sister of complainant Shishpal was returning alongwith her friend Dulari from School.The accused teased her, to which the complainant objected whereupon the accused slapped the complainant.The complainant alongwith his elder brother Kalyan Singh approached the accused.Complainant slapped the accused and asked him not to repeat his act.Thereafter, at about 1.45 PM, complainant and his brother were unloading wooden phattas from trolly in front of their house.The accused who used to give coaching and resided in their neighborhood came alongwith 10/12 boys.Accused and one other boy climbed the trolly.Accused had a knife in his hand and the other man had a khukri.It is further alleged that the other man started hitting the complainant with khukri but complainant could save himself.On this the accused uttered that complainant had slapped him, defamed him and he would kill the complainant on that day.By saying so, he attacked on the left side of the chest of the complainant.The complainant took a turn and the knife hit on the left armpit of the complainant.Accused again hit on the back side of the left thigh and left hip.Brother of the complainant came to save him.On careful scrutiny of his deposition before the court, it reveals that he stated that on 25.01.1997 at about 10.30 AM his sister Maheshwari came to his house and told that the appellant had given her a slap when she alongwith her friend Dulari were coming back from her Crl.A. No. 770/2001 Page 6 of 16 school and on the way, some students of appellant used filthy language against them and they complained about the same to the appellant.Thereafter, he alongwith his brother Kalyan Singh went to the accused and asked the accused as to why he had given a slap to his sister, on which he used hot words against them and thereupon he slapped him.He further deposed that at that time, accused extended threat that he would see him and left the place.It is further deposed that at about 1 PM when he alongwith his brother Kalyan were unloading the phattas from tractor trolley, accused Kamal alongwith 10/12 boys came there, some were armed with open khukhri and some were having open knives in their hands.When he was on trolley, he was caught hold of by one boy and accused Kamal started stabbing him.When his brother tried to save him, one another boy stopped him on the point of knife.He sustained injury in his armpit and on his left thigh and one stab injury on his left hip.He also sustained two stab injuries on left side below abdomen.It is further deposed that all the injuries were inflicted by the accused.The accused had also said that he would teach him a lesson for his insult.According to the witness, at the time of stabbing incident public persons had gathered, blood oozed out from his wounds and accused Kamal alongwith his associates ran away from the spot after extending threat that today he had escaped from him but he would kill him in the future.He was taken to hospital by police gypsy and got medically examined.According to witness, his statement was recorded in the hospital on the same day after 15/20 minutes of reach in the hospital.In his cross-examination he reiterated that he had received stab injuries twice in the tractor trolley and one Crl.A. No. 770/2001 Page 7 of 16 stab injury on ground.On the trolly one associate of Kamal had caught hold of him and other associates of Kamal were standing on the ground near trolly.He was grappeled by other 10/12 associates and when he jumped from the trolley, accused also jumped behind him.Thereafter he entered through the door of the other's house which was at a distance of one and a half meter from the trolly.He remained in the said house for about 6/7 minutes and blood fell down in the said house.His clothes were also blood smeared.In his cross-examination, he further deposed that after stitching his wounds doctor allowed his family members to meet him and at the time of recording his statement, he was wearing his blood stained clothes.He had stated before court that on the date of incident i.e. on 25.01.1997 at about 11.30 AM when his sister Maheshwari went to take his daughter Jyoti from her school, on the way accused Kamal slapped his sister.When his sister Maheshwari made complaint to him and his younger brother Shashi, they went near the school and asked the accused why he gave slap to his sister.He further deposed that the accused gave reply in hot words whereupon his brother Shashi slapped him.Appellant - Kamal went away from there after extending threat that he would see his brother after a while.At about 2 PM, when Crl.A. No. 770/2001 Page 8 of 16 they were unloading phattas from the tractor trolly, appellant - Kamal alongwith 10/12 of his associates came there.At that time his brother Shishpal was on trolly and he was caught hold of by two boys on ground.The accused alongwith his associates gave beatings to his brother on the trolly.He tried to free himself from those boys and to intervene and save his brother, whereupon one boy having khukhri stopped him on the point of khukhri.He further deposed that he himself saw his brother being stabbed by the accused Kamal and his associates.Thereafter, his brother jumped from the trolly and entered in the house of neighbours to save himself from the clutches of accused and his associates.He further deposed that the accused extended threat that today he had escaped from them but he would kill him in the future and ran away from the spot.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, JAggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 04.10.2001 thereby finding the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 307/506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and order on sentence of the same date, whereby he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two month, further the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 506 Part II of IPC the appellant has preferred the present Crl.A. No. 770/2001 Page 1 of 16 appeal.A. No. 770/2001 Page 1 of 16The other man with khukri stopped brother of the complainant.In the meantime crowd gathered there and the accused alongwith his associate ran away and while running, the accused left a threat that complainant survived on that day but would be killed on some other day.Thereafter, the injured was taken to GTB Hospital by Crl.A. No. 770/2001 Page 2 of 16 PCR van.MLC of the injured was collected and statement of injured was recorded whereupon the present case was registered against the accused.During investigation, the accused was arrested and made his disclosure statement.Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence under Section 307/506 of IPC was registered against the accused, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.A. No. 770/2001 Page 2 of 16To prove the charges against the appellant, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses.They are; Dr. B.D. Singh, (PW-1); Head Constable Ashwani Kumar (PW-2); Head Constable Ombir (PW-3); Kumari Maheshwari (PW-4); Dulari (PW-5); Kalyan Singh (PW-6); Shishpal (PW-7); Constable Sevinder Kumar (PW-8), Sub-Inspector Amar Singh (PW-9); Radhey Shyam (PW-10); Sub-Inspector Yogesh Malhotra (PW-11) and Constable Mahinder Singh (PW-12).Upon considering the facts, evidence led and the material on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty for offence punishable under Sections 307 of IPC by impugned judgment dated 04.10.2001, and vide order on sentence of the same date the appellant was sentenced as indicated above.Hence, the appellant has filed the instant appeal against the judgment and order on sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge.Learned counsel for the appellant while arguing the case of the Crl.A. No. 770/2001 Page 3 of 16 appellant, contended that as per FIR the appellant Kamal climbed the trolly having phattas in it and inflicted knife injuries but subsequently in the court, the witnesses changed the total substratum of the case stating that Sheeshpal was caught hold of by one of the associates of the appellant and then the appellant inflicted injuries at his persons.It is further contended that Dulari (PW-5) stated before police that the appellant had passed sarcastic remarks against her and when the matter was reported to her brothers, they went to the place of the appellant and slapped him but in her statement before court, she had deposed that the students of the institution of the appellant passed certain remarks and the appellant was approached by Dulari and the appellant had not taken any action in the matter and in this way bother Dulari and Kumari Maheshwari had failed to established the incident of the day.With regard to the injuries suffered by the injured, it is contended that as per prosecution case, there was blood on the spot, clothes of Sheeshpal (PW-7) and on the wearing apparels of Kalyan Singh (PW-6) but the testimony has been opposed by the Complainant.Savender Kumar (PW-9) and Yogesh Malhotra (PW-11) Investigating Officer of the case, who had categorically deposed that there was no blood on the spot/either in the trolly or on the roof of the neighbours.Therefore, it is clear that the incident had not taken place at the alleged place and in fact Sheeshpal was stealing the phattas of someone and the incident had taken place and being unknown to the owner, he falsely implicated the appellant because of the morning incident.Attention is also drawn to the deposition of PW-7 where he deposed before Sub-Inspector Yogesh Malhotra that his blood stained Crl.A. No. 770/2001 Page 4 of 16 clothes with cut marks of the knife were lying at his residence but subsequently before the court, he deposed that the clothes had been stolen from the hospital.There is non-production of clothes with blood stain and cut marks, which clearly indicates that the clothes were destroyed and were not produced before the court.It is further urged that Sheeshpal (PW-7) disclosed in his statement that after the incident he had run to the house of a neighbour and the door was bolted by the neighbour and he had a fall on the roof but the prosecution neither examined nor produced the neighbour during the trial.Even the prosecution failed to show in the sketch, the trail of blood from the venue of incident i.e. trolly up to the house of the neighbour and even in the stair case or had seen any blood of the neighbours.So far as the injuries suffered by the injured are concerned, Dr. B.D.Singh (PW-1) had opined the nature of injury as being simple in nature and that too without mentioning the length, depth and breadth of the injury.Therefore, in such a situation the offence under Section 307 of IPC cannot be made out.It is further urged that Sheeshpal (PW-7) has belied his statement whereby he had stated that there were two stabbed injuries on the left side below stomach, but in the MLC, no such injury was found on his person.On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant urged for setting aside of the impugned judgment and order on sentence.A. No. 770/2001 Page 3 of 16A. No. 770/2001 Page 4 of 16A. No. 770/2001 Page 5 of 16Per contra, argument advanced by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State is that the accused/appellant was rightly held guilty under Section 307 of the IPC inasmuch as the complainant remained consistent on his statement regarding narration of the incident before the police as well as before the court and for convicting the accused for the offence under Section 307, the testimony of injured witness is sufficient.Therefore, the prosecution has successfully proven the offence of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and in such circumstances, the impugned judgment and order on sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge do not call for any interference and the same are liable to be upheld.The nominal roll of the appellant has been called for which reflects that the appellant had remained behind bars only for 7 days.I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the State and gone through the petition, impugned judgment and order on sentence and the material available on record.This court finds that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had held the appellant guilty on account of the injured witness, eye-witness.However, the said clothes were stolen from the hospital.A. No. 770/2001 Page 6 of 16A. No. 770/2001 Page 7 of 16From the deposition of the injured witness, it is revealed that at the time of incident, his brother Kalyan Singh (PW-6) was also accompanying him.Let the extracts of his deposition before court be scrutinized to find out any corroboration with the deposition of the injured witness.In his cross-examination he deposed that due to the stab injury the blood was oozing out and his clothes were also blood stained.Police did not take into possession his blood stained clothes and his brother's blood stained clothes were missing from the hospital.A. No. 770/2001 Page 8 of 16The other crucial witness in such cases is the deposition of the doctor and his opinion to know the nature of injuries.Dr. B.D. Singh (PW-1) CMO, GTB Hospital, deposed before court that on 25.01.1997 he had conducted medical examination of the injured Shishpal who was brought in emergency by ASI Lachman Singh vide MLC No. B- 217/97 (Ex. PW-1/A).He deposed that at the time of examination of the injured, the following injuries were found on the person of injured:CLW half inch left axial.A. No. 770/2001 Page 9 of 16CLW one inch on left hip with active bleeding.CLW one inch on left ey with active bleeding.This court has further perused the MLC of the injured, in which the doctor had opined the injuries caused on the victim to be of simple in nature.Another relevant witness for the purpose of proving guilt of the accused is Yogesh Malhotra (PW-11), who was Investigating Officer of the case.He had deposed before the court that on the date of incident he had received information regarding quarrel and when he reached the spot, HC Ombir and Ct.Shivender were already present.The injured was already removed to GTB Hospital by PCR Van.He went to the hospital and collected the MLC of injured Shishpal and also recorded his statement.He also recorded the statement of injured's brother, Kalyan Singh in the hospital.In his cross-examination he had deposed that no person was present at the spot only 10-15 persons were present but he did not inspect the site before going to the hospital.He also did not see the khukri cover at the place of incident before going to the hospital.He had also not inspected the trolly before going to the hospital.He had also not seen any blood lying on the ground before going to the hospital.He further deposed that when he recorded the statement of injured in hospital, he had already changed his clothes.He further deposed that he had not mentioned the place where the empty cover of the khukri was lying in the site plan Ex. PW-11/B.Perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Crl.A. No. 770/2001 Page 10 of 16 Additional Sessions Judge reveals that the appellant has been convicted for 307 read with section 506 of IPC on the basis of statement of injured and eye-witness.He further deposed that the appellant threatened him while leaving the spot that though he was saved on that day but he would not leave him.Not only this, Kalyan Singh (PW-6), the brother of the complainant/injured also corroborated the statement of the injured and has deposed that though he tried to save his brother but some other boy stopped him on the point of Khukhri and he himself had seen the appellant inflicting the stabbed injuries to the complainant/injured.A. No. 770/2001 Page 12 of 16A. No. 770/2001 Page 13 of 16 strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein."A. No. 770/2001 Page 13 of 16More so, the prosecution has not taken the blood stained clothes of the injured and could not send the same for FSL analysis.What is clear from the facts of the present case are that the injured had suffered injuries, appellant had caused injuries with some sharp object, which is not recovered by the prosecution and the injuries were opined by the doctor to be of simple in nature.Identity of the appellant is also established by the complainant as well as his brother Kalyan Singh (PW-6).This court also finds from the evidence and the material placed on record that the presence of the appellant at the spot on the date of incident; recovery of cover of khukhri at the place of incident; and identity of the appellant have been established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts.Accordingly, in the light of the evidence produced on record, as discussed above, this court finds that the Crl.A. No. 770/2001 Page 14 of 16 impugned judgment dated 04.10.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Section 307/506 of IPC, needs to be modified to the extent that the appellant is held guilty for the offence under Section 324 of IPC.It is ordered accordingly.A. No. 770/2001 Page 14 of 16Now on the quantum of sentence, this court observes that the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order on sentence dated 04.10.2001 has awarded a sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 307 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 506 of IPC.In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, considering the fact that the incident is of the year 1997 and the appellant has faced the agony of trial for the last more than 20 years, this court is of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be met if the sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period of two years.It is ordered accordingly.Resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed thereby converting the offence committed by the appellant from Section 307 IPC to Section 324 of IPC and modifying the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.However, the amount of fine shall remain the same and in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months.The appellant is directed to surrender before the trial court concerned within a period of 15 days to serve the remainder of Crl.A. No. 770/2001 Page 15 of 16 sentence of imprisonment.A. No. 770/2001 Page 15 of 16A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court for information and necessary steps.With aforesaid directions, the present appeal is disposed of.(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE JULY 04, 2017 pkb Crl.A. No. 770/2001 Page 16 of 16A. No. 770/2001 Page 16 of 16

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In the complaint it was stated that on 14.9.2001 Saroj, daughter of complainant Nihal Singh died.When his nephew Mangal Singh went to meet Saroj he learnt that she had been killed by her husband Ishwar Singh, brother in law-Bhim Singh and father in law-Lok Ram.Kerosene oil was poured on her and then she was set on fire.Police registered a case relating to offences punishable under Section 304(B) and 498 (A) read with Section 34 IPC.On the basis of the aforesaid report an investigation was started.Stand of the appellant, Lok Ram was that he was serving at a school at the alleged time of incident.J U D G M E N T(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1204 of 2004)ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Leave granted.Appellant who has been directed to be impleaded as an accused in terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') challenges the order passed by learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur.Background facts are as under:Respondent No.1-Nihal Singh's daughters Saroj and Kanta were married to Ishwar Singh and Bhim Singh, both sons of Appellant, Lok Ram.On 2.9.2001, respondent Nihal Singh filed a complaint at the Police Station, Fatehabad (Haryana), alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and moved an application for seizure of articles purported to have been given as dowry.Statements of various persons were recorded.During trial, complainant Nihal Singh moved an application under Section 319 of the Code.By order dated 6.9.2002 learned Sessions Judge rejected the application.On 4.12.2002, trial court convicted Ishwar Singh, Bhim Singh and their mother for commission of offences punishable under Section 304 (B) IPC and each was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.Against the order dated 6.9.2002 a revision petition was filed.The High Court by the impugned judgment directed the trial court to proceed against the appellant by summoning him.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the true scope and ambit of Section 319 of the Code has not been kept in view.The trial had continued to a considerable extent.However, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

['Section 34 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. 68And In the matter of: Jahur Khan & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Kasishwar Ghoshal For the Petitioners Mrs. Sujata Das For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Jhalda Police Station Case No. 05 of 2013 dated 19.1.2013 under sections 376/201/212/313/315/120B of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have also considered the case diary, the statement of the victim as well as the medical reports.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)

['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 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 facts relevant to the decision of this petition succinctly are that Zamir Ahmed, deceased husband of the petitioner, was a motor mechanic and was having his place of work near Inter-State Bus Terminal, Delhi.He used to repair shock absorbers and do other auto jobs in the repairs of motor vehicles etc. and he had kept his goods including shock absorbers, tools and implements in a box at the place of his work.He died on 7th March 1983 under mysterious circumstances as bodies of both Zamir Ahmed and his son Anis Ahmed aged about 19 years were found floating in river Yamuna.On 20th December, 1983, the petitioner lodged a report with the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sadar Circle, Delhi that the respondent, who is younger brother of her deceased husband, had stolen all the articles viz. shock absorbers, tools and implements etc. of her deceased husband by removing the box containing the same from the place of work of the deceased of his own house at 1074, First Floor, Kishanganj (Teliwara).As a result of the house search of the respondent, 170 big sized shock absorbers, 30 small sized shock absorbers, some tools and implements and the box containing the goods etc. were recovered and seized by the Police.The respondent moved an application dt. 26th September 1984 for return of the seized goods to him contending that he was rightful owner thereof and the same had no connection whatsoever with the alleged theft.He also pointed out that there was likelihood of the said goods being damaged in the event of the trial protracting over a long period and he would suffer irreparable loss on that account.The said request was opposed by the complainant-petitioner, who asserted that the goods in question belonged to her deceased husband Zamir Ahmed and had been stolen by the respondent from the place of his work taking advantage of her helplessness.The learned Magistrate vide order dt. 28th November, 1984 rejected the application of the respondent and directed that the articles be released to the complainant - Smt. Anisa Begum on her furnishing Super digamma in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-.Feeling aggrieved the respondent went in revision in the Court of Session.It was heard by an Additional Sessions Judge who vide impugned order dt. 8th February, 1985 set aside the aforesaid order of the Metropolitan Magistrate and directed that the seized articles be returned to the respondent - Masoom Ali.Hence, this revision petition by the complainant - petitioner against the aforesaid order of the Additional Sessions Judge.The controversy between the parties lies in a narrow compass, the crucial question for determination being whether the custody of the seized articles be entrusted to the complainant-petitioner or the accused-respondent pending conclusion of the trial.Revision allowed.

['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ThisFIR shows that the police station was situated very close to the place ofoccurrence, i.e. about 300 yards on the west.PW-8 examined the injuries of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-6 on November 16, 1991 atBihia Block Hospital between 12:30 pm to 1:15 pm.He found all the injuries simple in nature but injuryNo.2 and 3 were penetrating wounds on chest, right side of back and lowerpart of right arm above elbow joint.On PW-3, he found two injuries, onewas incised wound over front portion of head 3” x ½” skin deep and theother was penetrating wound on the right side of abdomen ½” x ¼” x ¾”.Theinjuries were found to be simple.On PW-6, the informant, he found threeinjuries.One was a lacerated wound on the left side of head ¼” x ¼”xscalp deep upto bone, the second injury was also lacerated wound on leftside near middle of head 1” x ¼” x 1/6”.The third injury was a swelling3” x 2” on left buttock.A.K. SIKRI, J.Five appellants, who were tried for offence under Section302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted by thetrial court, have approached this Court after their conviction was upheldby the High Court as well vide impugned judgment dated September 28, 2007.During the pendency of this appeal, one of the accused persons, namelyHiralal Yadav, expired and the appeal qua him stood abated.The validityof the judgment of the High Court in respect of the remaining fourappellants is the subject matter of this appeal.To trace out the prosecution case in brief, it may be mentioned that onNovember 16, 1991, at about 9:00 am, Ajodhaya Yadav, armed with a lathi,and other four appellants armed with bhala, were ploughing a fieldbelonging to the informant while Kashinath Yadav exhorted others to killthe informant Ramji Yadav.Hiralal Yadav caused a bleeding injury on thehead of the informant with a bhala.The informant in order to save hislife shouted on which his uncle Ramayan Yadav (deceased), his fatherDharichhan Yadav (PW-1) and his brother Bir Bahadur Yadav (PW-3), came inorder to save him.Hiralal Yadav then caused a bhala injury on the chestand abdomen of the deceased who fell down and became unconscious.PW-1also fell down as he was assaulted with bhala by Kashinath Yadav and KamtaYadav causing injuries on his abdomen, back of the body and hand.PW-3 wasalso assaulted by Ajodhaya Yadav with lathi and also by Bhim Yadav withbhala on head causing bleeding injury.On the shouts raised by theinformant and his party, Dudhnath Yadav (PW-2) and Jagdish Yadav came andsaved them.Other persons from the village also came and thereafter theaccused persons stopped assaulting and fled away.The reason for theoccurrence was said to be a dispute over the land and litigation in thepast which had resulted in filing of a court case also.The Investigating Officer inspected theplace of occurrence; prepared Inquest Report (Exhibit – 3); sent the bodyfor postmortem examination and obtained postmortem report; recorded thestatement of witnesses, including further statement of the informant; andsubmitted charge-sheet for the offence under Section 302 and otherprovisions of the IPC.After taking cognizance, the Magistrate committedthe case to the Court of Sessions where charges were framed for variousoffences, including Section 302 IPC.The appellants pleaded 'Not Guilty'to the charges.After the trial, accused persons were found guilty by thetrial court for offence under Section 302 IPC and were awarded imprisonmentfor life.The judgments of the Courts below reflect that the prosecution, in order toprove its case, examined nine witnesses.PW-1, Dharichhan Yadav, is thefather of the informant.He also sustained injuries and claimed to be aneye witness to the occurrence, as mentioned in the FIR itself.He hasfully supported the prosecution case.PW-2, Dudhnath Yadav, is the brotherof PW-1, who came on the shouts raised, and has claimed to have seen theoccurrence.PW-3, Bir Bahadur Yadav, is the son of the deceased RamayanYadav.Like PW-1, he is also an injured eye witness to the incident.Hehas fully supported the prosecution case.Sonia Devi (PW-4) and MunesariDevi (PW-5) are mother and wife respectively of the informant.PW-4 hasclaimed to have gone to the place of occurrence on hearing the shouts andalso claimed to have seen the occurrence, whereas PW-5 stated that she wason the roof of her house and from there she saw the entire occurrence asthe place of incident was close to her house.Ramji Yadav (PW-6) is theinformant, who also suffered injuries and as claimed by him in thefardbayan as well as in his deposition in the Court, he saw the entireoccurrence from beginning till end.Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh (PW-7) held theautopsy on the dead body of the deceased.According to him, the postmortemexamination was held on November 17, 1991 at 8:00 am.He found thefollowing eight injuries on the dead body of the deceased:“(i) Incised wound with clean cut edges 1” x 2/10”x whole thickness of thepina of right ear.(ii) Incised wound 1½” x ½” x 2/10” on the upper portion of the right arm.(iii) Incised wound 1” x 2/10” x 2/10” on the back of the scalp left side.(iv) Incised wound 1/10” x 1/10” x 1/10” on the front of right shoulder.(v) Incised wound 1” x 1/2”x abdominal cavity deep on the right side ofabdomen upper portion.(vi) Swelling 2” x 2” on the left side of back of scalp.(vii) Penetrating wound with cut edges 1” x ½x chest cavity deep on theright side of chest.2½” away from midline almost in the middle.(viii) Incised wound ¾” x 1/10”x skin deep on the middle finger of righthand.” In his opinion, all the injuries were ante mortem caused by sharpcutting pointed instruments and the time elapsed since death was within 36hours of postmortem examination.He found the cause of death to be injuryNo.(vii), a penetrating wound 1” x ½” chest cavity deep on the right sideof chest.He has further opined that the injuries could be caused bybhala.However, injury No. (vi) could be caused by lathi also.Thestomach of the deceased contained undigested food material and the bladderwas empty.The injuries were simple.Some of the injurieson PW-1 and PW-3 were by sharp weapons like bhala, but in case of PW-6, thedoctor opined that the injuries were by hard and blunt substance likelathi.The age of injuries in respect of all the three injured was foundto be within six hours.The injury reports of the three injured wereproved by PW-8 as Exhibits – 2, 2/1 and 2/2 respectively.The investigation was done by Surajdeo Ram (PW-9), Investigating Officer,as pointed out earlier.During inspection, he found the place ofoccurrence to be a field belongiong to the informant in which potato crophad already been planted.He found that potato crop marks of three roundsof ploughing were visible.He also seized blood stained earth from theplace of occurrence.He has stated in his cross-examination that report ofthe occurrence was first received by him from Chowkidar and on that basis aStation Diary Entry was made but he did not record the statement ofChowkidar.He has admitted that he has written the Case Diary in asystematic manner, as the events unfolded, and the fardbayan is mentionedin paragraph 1 of the Case Diary.He has also stated that after thefardbayan, further statement of the informant was recorded and the place ofoccurrence was inspected and only thereafter formal FIR was instituted.According to his statement in the cross-examination, in respect of theearlier statements made by PWs 1, 2 and 3 under Section 161 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973, there was virtually no difference in what theyhad stated regarding the occurrence in Court.As far as PW-4 is concerned,she has deposed that she had not told him in clear terms, in her earlierstatement, as to which of the accused persons were having bhala and who wasploughing and that Hiralal had assaulted on head with bhala and thedeceased had received injury on head with bhala.She had also not statedon what part her husband (PW-1) had received injuries by bhala and that theaccused persons fled away on arrival of Jagdish and Dudhnath Yadav.Various contentions were raised before the High Court with an endeavour tofind loopholes in the judgment of the trial court regarding conviction ofthe appellants.It was argued that the time of offence had not been provedby the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt because the Doctor had opined,while conducting the postmortem examination on November 17, 1991 at 8:00am, that the death of the deceased appeared within 36 hours, whereasaccording to the prosecution case, death had taken place within 23 hours.It was also argued that the nature of injuries found on the deceased andinjured persons did not support the prosecution case.Another submissionwas that though the Investigating Officer (PW-9) had admitted in his cross-examination that information of the occurrence was first given by aChowkidar, which was incorporated in his Station Diary Entry as well, FIRwas not registered on the basis of said information and that Chowkidar wasnot even produced as a prosecution witness.All the aforesaid arguments have been rejected by the High Court as withoutany substance.It is not necessary to reproduce the discussion of the HighCourt on these arguments as before us the learned counsel pressed only lastof the aforesaid arguments, in addition to couple of other submissions.In the first instance, the learned counsel drew our attention to the FIRand referred to the following column regarding the place of incident:It was submitted that when the place of incident was 300 sq. yds.away, it was impossible for the witnesses to see the occurrence clearly andidentify the accused persons.fromthe Police Station in West direction.It is nowhere stated that those whowere eye witnesses to the incident had seen the occurrence from a distanceof 300 sq. yds.

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

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

Shortly stated, the prosecution story is as under:-- The accused Natarajan is a resident of South Karasery where he was living with his family.About six months prior to 4-3-1995, his mother-in-law Gomathiammal was residing with the accused.Adjacent to the house of the accused in the village, is the house of PW-1 Madathiammal, who was running a petty shop in the said house and her mother Shanmughavadivu and her daughter Mariammal also were residing in the said house.It is the prosecution's case that the accused had strained relationship with his mother-in-law as his mother-in-law used to nag the accused.There often used to be quarrels between the accused and his mother-in-law as the mother-in-law used to insist the accused for working and earning something for the family.It is the prosecution case that on 4-3-1995 at about 6 O' Clock in the evening, when she was standing in the front side of the house in her petty shop, when her mother Shanmughavadivu and her daughter Mariammal were standing in the courtyard of the back side of the house, she saw the accused chasing his mother-in-law, who was running.The accused was armed with a sickle.Gomathiammal jumped over the mud-wall in between the house of PW-1 Madathiammal and the accused and fell on her face near the courtyard of the house of the witneSections At that time, the accused dealt with sickle blows on his mother-in-law on her back.Seeing this, Shanmughavadivu shouted as to why he was assaulting the mother-in-law.The accused is said to have then assaulted Shanmughavadivu and dealt with sickle blows on her shoulder, below her chest and on her chest.Seeing this, PW-2 Mariammal also shouted as to why the accused was cutting her grand-mother.The accused thereafter came running and dealt with sickle, blows on Mariammal also on her left shoulder, neck, right shoulder and nape.Seeing this, when PW-1 Madathiammal asked the accused as to why he was assaulting her daughter, the accused dealt with sickle blows on Madathiammal on her neck, right shoulder and left forearm.Thereafter, the accused ran away with the sickle.The two ladies viz., Gomathi Ammal and Shanmughavadivu died on the spot.A car was hired by one Lakshmiammal and Arumughathammal and the two injured witnesses viz., Madathiammal and Mariammal were taken to Palayamkottai High Ground Hospital for treatment.On receiving information, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Seithunganallur Police Station came there and recorded a statement of Madathiammal, in which she narrated the whole story.This statement is treated by the prosecution as the First Information Report.The investigation was started on the basis of this First Information Report by the Police.It seems that the Investigating Officer Chinnaiah, who was then on duty as Inspector of Police, Law and Order, in the Central Police Station, Tuticorin, had received this information.He, therefore, came to Seithunganallur Police Station at 11.45 p.m. and after receiving the copy of the First Information Report, which was recorded by PW-14 Thiru, Kandasamy, first went to the Hospital and after interrogating the two injured witnessees and recording their statements, he then proceeded to the spot of occurrence in the same night.The inquest was conducted over the dead bodies of Gomathiammal and Shanmughavadivu.The bodies were then sent for autopsy to the Government Hospital, Srivaikuntam through Constable Sivakumar.The Investigating Offices then recorded the statements of other witnesses.The accused was arrested on 6-3-1995 at about 8.30 a.m. near Kalvoi Road.He was arrested in the presence of Chlthiraj and Ganesan.On his being asked, he agreed to discover the sickle used in committing the crime.The accused then took the Investigating Officer and discovered the sickle which was kept hidden at the western side wall of the terraced roof of Muppidathi Amman koil which is situated on the western side of Karunkulam-Moolakaraipatti road.JUDGMENT V.S. Sirpurkar, J.Referred Trial No. 1 of 1999 is a reference by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, for confirmation under Section 366 of Criminal Procedure Code of the death sentence passed against the accused Natarajan.He has been awarded the sentence of death as the Sessions Judge, Tuticorin has found him guilty of the offences under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code on two counts as also under Section 307, I.P.C. on two counts.Criminal Appeal No. 427 of 1999 has been filed by the accused against the finding of the conviction.The accused was then remanded to the judicial custody.The Investigating Officer later on seized the blood-stained clothes of the eye-witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 and sent all the materials to the Court.He gave a requisition to the Court for sending M.O. 1 to M.O. 18 and 21 to 24 for chemical examination.On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused.Charge was framed against the accused firstly, for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. for having committed the murder of Gomathiammal and on second count, again for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. for having committed the murder of Shanmughavadivu, so also under Section 307, I.P.C. on two counts for having attempted to commit murder of Madathiammal and Mariammal.The accused abjured guilt.Prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of the eye-witnesses, PW-1 Madathiammal, PW-2 Mariammal and PW-3 Sappanimuthu, out of whom PW-3 Sappanimuthu turned hostile, while the other two supported the prosecution PW-4 Lakshmi Ammal is a person, who took the injured in a Car to the Hospital.PW-5 Pechimuthu and PW-6 Chithiraj are the Panchayatdar witnesses on mahazar as well as on the discovery statements.PW-6 Chithiraj has turned hostile.PW-7 Jayakumar and PW-8 Ramasamy are the Doctors.Dr. Jayakumar conducted the postmortem examination on the body of Shanmughavadivu and found four injuries on her person which was ante-mortem injuries, while the body of Gomathiammal had as many as eight incised injuries.The Doctor described the injuries to be sufficient in the ordinary course of time to cause death and also pin-pointed the said injuries.Dr. Ramasamy has proved the Injury Certificates, which he had issued after he had treated PW-1 Madathiammal and PW-2 Mariammal.He found as many as three incised injuries on the person of Madathiammal PW-1 out of which he described Injury No. 1 to be the grievous injury as per X-Ray photographs.He also found four incised injuries on the person of Mariammal and he issued the Injury Certificate where wound Nos. 2 and 3 were grievous in nature as per the X-Ray.Prosecution also relied on the evidence of Dr. Duraipandian, PW-9 who examined the X-Ray photographs to prove the fractures on the persons of Mariammal and Madathiammal.PW-12 Mr. Mayandi, who was formerly Head Clerk in the Judicial Magistrate Court, Srivaikuntam, sent Exm. M. 1 to M. 18 and 21 to 24 for chemical analysis along with Ex. P-20, which was a requisition letter.Ex. P-21 is the report of the Chemical Analyst, while Ex. P-22 is the Serologist's report, PW-14 Kandasamy proved the First Information Report, while PW-15 Chinnayya deposed about the Investigation.The defence of the accused was extremely faulty.It was tried to be suggested that there was some altercation among the Villagers and there was an incident of stone throwing because of which, the two ladies were injured and lost their lives and the two other ladies were injured.The accused went on, however, to accept the guilt at the stage of examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.The learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of the eye-witnesses.He held that their presence at the spot to be absolutely natural.He also held that there was absolutely no reason for the two witnesses PW-1 Madathiammal and PW-2 Mariammal to depose falsely.He also accepted the medical evidence and the other incriminating evidence like the bloodstained articles and convicted the accused treating this to be the rarest of rare case.He has also chosen to award death sentence against the accused.On this factual backdrop, it has to be seen as to whether firstly, the accused can be held guilty for the offences charged with and secondly, whether this is a case where the death sentence awarded to the accused can be confirmed under Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code.There can be no dispute in this case that the death of Gomathiammal and Shanmughavadivu was homicidal.The presence of fatal injuries on the persons of both and the evidence of Dr. Jayakumar (PW-7) would be sufficient to hold that the two ladies, who did not have any injuries prior to the incident, died due to homicidal violence because of the injuries.The death of the two ladies, therefore, can be safely inferred to be homicidal death.The evidence in this case is both ocular and circumstantial in nature.In so far as the evidence of PW-1 Madathiammal and PW-2 Mariammal are concerned, both the witnesses have specifically stated about the active role played by the accused in bringing about the death of the two unfortunate ladies as also in assaulting themselves.The presence of both the witnesses was most natural at the spot as the incident had taken place in the courtyard of their house itself.There is absolutely no cross-examination to any of the witnesses more particularly to these two eye-witnesses as also the Investigating Officer regarding the topography of the scene.Considering the fact that the incident took place at 6 O' Clock in the evening would also go to show that their presence in the house would be natural.Both these witnesses have given a graphic description of the incident.According to both the witnesses, there used to be quarrels between the accused Natarajan and his mother-in-law, who had come to live with the accused since about six months prior to the incident.PW-1 Madathiammal then goes to describe the whole incident to the effect that the accused was quarrelling with his mother-in-law and then the mother-in-law was chased by the accused.At that time, the mother-in-law tried to jump over the small mud-wall, but tripped over the fire-wood and fell down on her face, when accused Natarajan started dealing blows with the sickle on her back.When we see the injuries on the person of Gomathiammal, there is enough corroboration to this version as the injuries on the person of Gomathiammal are mainly on the back side "f her body.Barring these three injuries, all the other five injuries are on the back side of the body.The other injuries are on the left shoulder, left side neck and left forearm.This gives a corroboration to the version of Madathiammal PW-1 as also Mariammal PW-2, PW-2 had also stated that the deceased Gomathiammal fell on her face and the accused dealt with the sickle blows on her back.In fact, there is practically no discrepancy in the evidence of the two eyewitnesses.They have also given a clear account of the assault on the mother of PW-1 Shanmughavadivu and thereafter, the assault firstly on Mariammal (PW-2) and secondly on Madathiammal (PW-1).Both the witnesses have suffered the injuries which have been amply proved by PW-8 Dr. Ramasamy, Considering the depth and nature of all the injuries, which were incised wounds, they were possible by use of sickle.The medical opinion expressed about the same.There can be no doubt that the two eye-witnesses were not only present on the spot, but they had seen the whole incident and their evidence is corroborated by each other as also by the injuries suffered by them.The cross-examination of these two witnesses is absolutely purposeleSections In fact, some portion of the cross-examination is irrelevant and we wonder as to why the learned Sessions Judge allowed such irrelevant questions to be put.It was tried to be established by the defence that one Pechimuthu had come along with the injured persons to the Hospital and the witness PW-1 has accepted this.It is also suggested that the said Pechimuthu, Lakshmi Ammal and Arumughathammal were with the injured persons in the Hospital till 6.00 p.m. in the evening on the next day.One fails to understand any relevancy of this cross-examination.It is tried to be suggested to PW-1 Madathiammal that she and the brother of the accused were competitors in the busineSections Some irrelevant questions regarding the witness and her mother were put to PW-1 which have absolutely no bearing on the present prosecution.A wild suggestion was thrown at her that her brother used to bring illicit liquor and sell the same in the village.Another wild suggestion was thrown at the witness that there was a riot in which the shop and the bench were broken and in that, stones and sticks were thrown and it is because of that, the witness PW-1 and her daughter were injured.In short, nothing could be elucidated from PW-1 in the cross-examination and her evidence remained unshaken.She has graphically supported the version of her mother.In cross-examination also, there is nothing worth the name.The learned Counsel pointed out that while PW-1 stated that she was taken to the Hospital in a Car, this witness had admitted that she went to the Hospital in the Police Jeep.The same theory of riot was suggested by even this witness which was denied by the witness (PW-1).In short, the evidence of this witness also remained totally unshaken.The third witness, who sought to be examined as the eye-witness, is.PW-3 Sappanimuthu.He has turned hostile and, therefore, his evidence cannot be considered.Thus, the evidence of the two eyewitnesses have remained unshaken and their evidence can be safely accepted.As if the evidence of the eye-witnesses is insufficient, there is also the other corroborating evidence which has already been referred to above.The fact that both the witness have also stated that the accused was shouting at her mother-in-law and saying that only if she was finished, there will be tranquillity in his house has also not been demolished.In the cross-examination, which would amply go to prove the intention on the part of the accused and his complicity in the evidence.It was tried to be suggested that PW-1 could not have been seen the occurrence when she was standing in the shop.However, even that cannot be accepted for the simple reason that according to PW-1, she was standing in front of her shop.Again it is not established by cross-examination of any witness that a person who is standing in the shop cannot see the incident in the back courtyard of the house.Some advantage was tried to be taken by the learned Counsel by suggesting that there were some contradictions.However, the said contradictions have not even been proved in the evidence and they are extremely insignificant.The contradiction in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 about the vehicle in which they went to the hospital is also, to say the least, insignificant, because that pertains what happened after the incident.It cannot be again forgotten that in this case, while the incident has taken place at 6 O'Clock in the evening, the First Information Report has been made almost immediately.PW-1, after being injured, was taken to the Hospital and it was there that she gave her statement.Therefore, there is no question of any belated First Information Report.In the First Information Report also, she has given a complete description of the incident.Her evidence is, therefore, corroborated by the First Information Report.The most important factor to be appreciated in respect of the evidence of these two witnesses is that they are the injured witnesses and that they suffered the injuries at the hands of the accused in broad day light.Last but not the least that these two witnesses had no reason whatsoever to speak against the accused.The defence has not been able to establish any enmity between the accused and the witnesses.Though faintly it was suggested that there was business rivalry between the brother of the accused and PW- 1 Madathiammal, it is really not necessary for the witnesses to speak falsely regarding their injuries at the hands of the accused as also the injuries of the mother-in-law and the injuries of Shanmughavadivu.In short, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 alone is sufficient to fix the guilt on the accused for offences punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.the said two ladies have suffered extensive wounds.Both the ladies have suffered grievous wounds as per the evidence of Dr. Ramasamy (PW-8).In his evidence, the Doctor Ramasamy has deposed that the injuries were grievous.They were also placed on the vital parts of the body.There would be, therefore, no question of any other intention in the mind of the accused except to cause the death of the two witnesses.It seems, it is only their providence which saved the two witnesses apart from the fact that they have got immediate medical help.The placement of injuries, the manner in which the injuries were dealt with, the nature of the weapon, would amply go to suggest that the accused had intended the death of the two witnesses also.Under such circumstances, the conviction of the accused for offences under Section 307, I.P.C. would also be suggesting.In short, nothing could be said as against the conviction of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. on two counts and under Section 307, I.P.C. on two counts.The learned Sessions Judge has not bothered to probe into the whole case, the psychology of the accused in the attending circumstances and the other mitigating circumstances while branding this case as the rarest of rare case.The treatment given to this subject is extremely sketchy.The learned Counsel for the appellant brought to our notice that this cannot be said to be a rarest of rare case even if there have been two murders and attempt to murder the two witnesses who were eyer witnesses.It seems from the evidence of these two witnesses that there used to be often quarrels between the mother-in-law who, probably, was an unwanted guest for more than six months in the house of the accused.It is in the evidence of PW-1 that there used to be often quarrels between the mother-in-law and the accused, as the mother-in-law created a hindrance in getting food.Both the witnesses have specifically referred to the prior quarrel between the accused and the deceased Gomathiammal on that day.It has not come on record as to whether the accused refused to go for work on his own.A possibility of not being able to get the work could also not be ruled out.If the accused, who was already burdened with his mother-in-law, found that in his own house, he was being insulted and food being refused to him at the instance of the mother-in-law, it is obvious that the rebukes given by his mother-in-law added insult to injury.He had ample opportunity to finish off his mother-in-law, who was the resident in the same house.When he was on bail, he attacked the family members of the victim in the earlier case.He was armed with axe and his brother was armed with dagger.There should have been more consideration shown to this aspect in his judgment.The sentence passed for the offences under Section 307, I.P.C. on two counts and other directions regarding the same would remain undisturbed.

['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.

Certified copy, as per Rules.Lokayukta has argued before this Court that there is sufficient material against the applicants.He has read out the statement available in the case diary and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.They are attending the Office everyday and recently they have been implicated in the crime.

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

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

DATED :- 29.01.2019 ORAL JUDGMENTBy the present appeal, appellant is challenging judgment and order of conviction dated 22.11.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Akola in Sessions Trial No.114/2016, whereby appellant was found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and under Section 376 (2) (i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).Appellant is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for committing offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and also directed to::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 ::: 2 apeal230.18.odt pay fine amount of Rs.3,000/-, with default clause.Though the appellant was found to be guilty for the offence under Section 376 (2)(i) of the IPC, no separate sentence is awarded for said offence.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::I have heard Mr.In order to buttress his submissions, he relied on various reported cases of this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court.He submitted that conduct of the victim shows that she was a consenting party for sexual relations and if the prosecution fails to prove her age beyond reasonable doubt, benefit of doubt must be extended in favour of appellant.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::prosecution has proved date of birth of victim as 01.07.2001 and therefore on the day of incident, she was a "Child" within the meaning of POCSO Act. He also submitted that there cannot be any doubt about sexual relations in between appellant and victim girl in view of Exh.-66, DNA report which shows that appellant is biological father of baby delivered by victim girl.He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.The prosecution has examined in all 8 witnesses.Saptafula (PW1), mother of victim has lodged oral report Exh.-25 on 21.03.2016 on the basis of which crime was registered at Police Station, Balapur initially for an offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A of the IPC.Dr. Dinesh Naitam (PW4) is a Dentist, who proved the age certificate, Exh.- 34, Dr. Subhash Gujarkar (PW5) examined the victim, Dr.Kanchan Bhuibhar (PW6) has done Sonography and gave Sonography::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 ::: 4 apeal230.18.odt report Exh.-40, Dr. Amol Ravankar (PW7) has examined accused and extracted his blood sample for DNA and Manisha Raut (PW8) is the investigating officer.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::Learned Judge of Court below acquitted the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 363 and 363-A of the IPC.In the present case, in view of DNA report Exh.-66, there cannot be any second opinion about establishment of sexual relations by appellant with victim girl since the victim girl, after full grown pregnancy, delivered a baby and appellant was found to be biological father of the said baby.Appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. This Court in Ravi Anandrao Gurpude .vs.State of Maharashtra, thr.PSO P.S. Bhisi (Coram: B.R. Gavai & V.M. Deshpande, JJ.) reported in 2017 All.M.R.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::5 apeal230.18.odt (Cri.) 1509, found that prosecution is under bounden duty to prove that victim is "Child" and unless the prosecution successfully establishes that the victim is child within the meaning of section 2(d) of the POCOS Act, accused cannot be convicted for the offence.In paragraph 9 of said judgment, this Court recorded its opinion that provisions of the POCSO Act are stringent in nature.It is lodged by Saptafula (PW1), mother of the victim.The oral report is silent about date of birth.Even from witness box, the mother is conspicuously silent regarding date of birth of the victim.Victim (PW2) has stated her date of birth in her examination-in-chief as 01.07.2001, which is seriously challenged in her cross-examination.In addition to that, in her prior statement, the victim does not disclose what is her date of birth.So for the first time from the witness box, the date of birth, which is seriously challenged by the defence was disclosed.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::The prosecution has examined Ravindrakumar Masne (PW3).This witness from 18.03.2017 is working as Head Master at Dr. Babasaheb Chincholkar Vidyalaya, Wadegaon and before his appointment, Ku.Rajeshwari Deshmukh was Head Mistress of the said school.The victim was student of this school.Her evidence would corroborate that she was student of this school.Head Master Masne (PW3) brought with him original school record at the time of his evidence.In the school register, at Sr.In his examination in chief itself, the Head Master has admitted that entry of birth is taken on the basis of the previous transfer certificate of the concerned student and the entry was certified by the previous Head Mistress.According to school record, victim left the school in 9 th standard.Similarly, Head Master Masne (PW3) has proved Exh.-It is the certificate given by this prosecution witness himself in which he has certified that as per entry No.1949 in the admission register, date of birth of the victim is 01.07.2001.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::From the evidence of Head Master Masne (PW3), it is clear that date of birth was noted in the admission register of the school on the basis of transfer certificate issued by the previous school.Anand Purohit;In this authoritative pronouncement, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::Manisha Raut (PW8), the investigating officer, in her evidence has admitted that she has not obtained birth certificate of the victim from the office of Gram Panchayat, Wadegaon nor she personally checked the gram panchayat record.Explanation for that is offered by Manisha (PW8) that mother of the victim did not confirm place of birth of the victim, which is contrary to the evidence of victim (PW1), who in clear terms, has stated that the victim was born at Wadegaon.Exh.-34 is age certificate proved by Dr. Dinesh Naitam (PW4).His::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 ::: 9 apeal230.18.odt evidence would show that he is a Dentist and since all 4 wisdom teeth of the victim were missing, he found that she was less than 18 years.However, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that it was necessary for determination of accurate age to have radiological investigation.He also admitted that in the case at hand, the said radiological investigation was not followed.Thus, Ossification Test was not conducted for determining the age of the victim.Further, by catena of decisions, this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled that there is a possibility of error of 1 or 2 years on both sides even if Ossification test is conducted.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::In the present case, since primary document, on the basis of which entry was taken in admission register Exh.-31 and 32, is not placed on record, entry made in Exhs.-31 and 32 cannot be held to be conclusive one and, therefore, in my view, the prosecution has not proved the age of the girl and/or date of birth of the girl conclusively.Conduct and evidence of the victim girl is suggestive that she voluntarily had relations with the appellant.Since the age is not proved, in my view, the prosecution has brought its case::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 ::: 10 apeal230.18.odt under the cloud of doubts and therefore benefit of doubt has to be granted in favour of the appellant.Consequently, I pass the following order.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::(i) Criminal Appeal No.230/2018 is allowed.(ii) Judgment and order of conviction dated 22.11.2017 in Sessions Trial No.114/2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Akola convicting appellant- Pradip Devidas Dongare, for an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act and Section 376 (2) (i) the Indian Penal Code, is set aside.He shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other crime.JUDGE kahale::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

P.D.DINAKARAN,J.I  Prologue Seldom, criminal trials bring before us persons, who are accused of acts of quivering barbarity.One such act is the offence of rape, which was more in tune with tribal society, and is in existence even now and calls for stringent punishment.This case is even more dreadful as the offence of rape was committed by the accused on his own sister-in-law, and the situation became much more worse, as the sister-in-law of the accused as well as her tiny tot, a thirteen months old girl baby were charred.II  ChargeIII  The case of the prosecutionThe prosecution case, as unfolded from the evidence, runs thus:3.1. P.W.1, Chandrabose is the brother of the deceased.He deposed that the deceased was married to one Thiruselvam and she was living with her in-laws and brother-in-law as a joint family; after one year, the deceased gave birth to a female child; she was tortured to bring money from her parents to take care of her baby; after five/six months, she was tortured to bring money to redeem her jewels which were kept by them for the house expenses and therefore, she went to another brother's house at Yercaud and stayed there for 15 days; the father-in-law took her back assuring that it would not happen in future; two months prior to the date of occurrence, she called him over phone and stated that she was asked by her husband to bring Rs.10,000/- to live separately; she was repeatedly asking for the money since he could not arrange it immediately; on the date of occurrence, at about 2 pm, she called him over phone and enquired about him and asked him to bring money immediately; since she disconnected the phone immediately, he tried to contact her, but he could not; at once, he tried his elder brother and spoke to his sister-in-law P.W.3; he informed P.W.3 about the call by the deceased and asked P.W.3 to visit the place of the deceased and to inform him; at about 3.30 pm, his elder brother called him and informed that the deceased and her baby died due to burn injuries; he went to Yercaud at about 7 pm; he went and lodged a complaint Ex.3.2. P.W.2, Selvi, Noon Meal Assistant, is a neighbour of the deceased.According to her, on the date of occurrence, she returned from the school at about 1.15 pm and was having lunch; around 1.30 pm, the accused called her and asked for little kerosene to clean the machine; since she was having lunch, she gave a 10 litres can containing 6/7 litres of kerosene; after ten minutes, the accused, who was standing at the back side of his house, called her; thinking that he would be returning the kerosene can, she went to his house; she was called inside the house where she noticed the deceased and her child were lying unconscious in the kitchen; when she asked the accused, he informed her that when he embraced the deceased, she did not accept and therefore, he hit on her head with conventional roti roller (for brevity, "poori kattai"), M.O.11 and hence, she fell unconscious and thereafter, he quenched his thirst by having intercourse with her; he wanted to create a scene as if the deceased committed suicide; then, he fisted the child, who was playing, on her face; he laid down the child near her mother; he caught hold of her neck and threatened her not to reveal to anybody, otherwise he would do away with her; he asked her to make call to P.W.1 and to talk like the deceased; he dialled the number and asked her to put her saree pallu on the mouth piece of the receiver; as tutored by the accused, she spoke to P.W.1 like the deceased and enquired him; she stated that she had been tortured for money and asked him to come within one hour, otherwise she would die; thereafter, she immediately disconnected the call; she was again threatened by the accused not to reveal the occurrence to anybody or otherwise, she would be done away in the same manner and her children would become orphans and asked her to leave the place; later, she left the place and returned to the house of the accused around 4pm, when she noticed the deceased and her child burnt and lying in the hall; she was shocked on seeing the deceased and the child burnt by the accused using the kerosene given by her; she was fearing that she may also be done to death in the same manner, she did not reveal anything about the occurrence to Revenue Divisional Officer, P.W.17; however, on 17.8.2003, when P.W.30 enquired, she informed everything; she also informed P.W.31 about the occurrence on 19.8.2003; she gave a statement, Ex.As per the deposition of Mariyayee, P.W.3, sister-in-law of the deceased, there was a dowry demand by the family members of the deceased; after the deceased gave birth to a female child, she was tortured to bring money from her parents to take care of her baby; after five/six months, she was tortured to bring money to redeem her jewels which were kept by them for the house expenses and therefore, she went to another brother's house at Yercaud and stayed there for 15 days; the father-in-law took her back assuring that it would not happen in future; three months thereafter, she came to her house and stated that she was asked by her husband to bring Rs.10,000/- to live separately; the deceased was sent stating that they would arrange money after sometime; 15 days prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased came to her house and informed about the ill-behaviour of the accused towards her and asked her not to reveal the same to her brother; on the date of occurrence, at about 2.30 pm, P.W.1 called from Mettupalayam and informed her that the deceased called him and her family members were torturing her to bring money and asked him to bring money within one hour, otherwise, she would die along with her child; P.W.1 asked her to go to the place of the deceased and to bring her; when she tried the telephone number of the deceased, she was informed that the deceased and her child were dead; immediately on arrival of her husband, she informed him, who, in turn informed P.W.1; P.W.1 informed his brother not to take any action till his arrival; P.W.1 arrived at about 7 pm and thereafter, a complaint was lodged on the file of Yercaud Police Station; two weeks after the date of occurrence, she came to know from the newspaper that the deceased had not committed suicide, but it was a murder; two months thereafter, when she was enquired, she had stated all the details, including the ill-behaviour of the accused with the deceased; at that time only, she informed about the conduct of the accused towards the deceased to the members of the family; she was slapped by her husband for not telling the same earlier, who stated that he would have saved the deceased; that time, P.W.1 raised a doubt as to the voice of the deceased when she called on the date of occurrence.He deposed that he went to the house of the accused at about 1/1.15 pm and asked him to lay the pipeline, which the accused refused stating he had some other work.He then went to Block Development Office and on his return on the next day, he heard the death news of the deceased and her child.Jayaprakash, a building contractor, examined as P.W.5, deposed that on 15.8.2003, at about 2/2.10 pm, when he went along with his brother Dhanapal for ordering Jalli, he saw the accused opening the gate and coming out of his house.3.6. P.W.6, Sathish, who was running Coffee Works at Yercaud, stated that on the date of occurrence, at about 2.10 pm, the accused came to his shop and asked him to drop him at Electrical shop to purchase electrical goods.Accordingly, he dropped the accused at Krishna Electricals.After purchasing some goods, the accused asked him to drop him at Sister Convent.While going, the accused asked him to drive fast.When he enquired as to the urgency, the accused told him that he committed a small mistake and he would tell the same later and he got down at Sister Convent.He was working at Krishna Electricals.He stated that on the date of occurrence, the accused, along with another person, came in a motor cycle between 1.15 and 2.30 pm and purchased three electrical goods for Rs.608/- on credit and left immediately.The carbon copy of the bill with regard to the electrical goods purchased by the accused is marked as Ex.Later he came to know that the accused had murdered his sister-in-law and her child.3.8. P.W.8, Vigneshwaran, was working as Supervisor in St. Annis Convent.On the date of occurrence, at about 9.30 am, both the accused and Thiruselvam came to work.At about 12.45 pm, he asked another Supervisor that he required some electrical goods and left the School.Later, the accused came around 2.45/3.00 pm with electrical goods.After some time, four people came in two wheeler and asked him to send the accused and Thiruselvam.P.W.9, Banumathi, Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Department, Chennai deposed that as per the requisition made by the Court, Ex.P4, she examined M.Os.1 and 4 to 9 and it was detected that the said M.Os. contained Kerosene.The report of the Scientific Officer is Ex.P.W.10, Sivakumar, Scientific Officer issued a report Ex.P6, stating that M.O.10, Kerosene Pump Stove, was not in usable condition.As per Ex.P7, requisition sent by the Court, P.W.11, Kamalatchi Krishnamoorthy, Scientific Officer, examined M.O.15, brief, and detected semen in it as per Ex.P8, Chemical Report and sent the sample blood and salavai to Serological Department.P9 is the Serologist's Report stating that the sample sent was of human origin.P.W.12, Ravi, an LIC Agent, deposed that when he returned home on 15.8.2003, the wife of one Sekar asked him to inform about the death of the deceased and her child to Thiruselvam.As he does not know as to where Thiruselvam was working, he enquired P.W.6 and thereafter went to Annis Convent and brought Thiruselvam and the accused, around 3/3.30 pm.P.W.13 Selvam, a resident of North Street, Periyapudhur, deposed that he, along with one Palanisamy, was present at the time when the accused was giving confession statement to P.W.31, Superintendent of Police to the effect that he would hand over the poori kattai, brief and telephone note book to the police and the admissible portion of his confession statement is Ex.As requested by the Judicial Magistrate V, Salem, in Ex.P13 is the computerised bill for the telephone No.222612 of Yercaud Telephone Exchange.P.W.16, Ettiyappan, Scientific Officer, has deposed that he inspected the scene of occurrence on 16.8.2003 at 7 am.He saw the burnt bodies of the deceased and her child in the hall.P.W.17, Revenue Divisional Officer, on receipt of FIR, conducted inquest over the dead bodies and submitted his report Ex.He sent the body for post mortem through P.W.25, Head Constable.He also sent a report, Ex.P16 to the Judicial Magistrate stating that the death of the deceased and her child was not due to dowry harassment and for further action.The Village Administrative Officer, P.W.18, on hearing that the house of Krishnan caught fire, at about 2.15 pm, went along with one Duraisamy, Village Assistant to the place of occurrence.He peeped inside through the glass window, which seems to be broken due to the heat, and saw the room with full smoke.When he touched the front side door to go inside the house, it opened immediately since it was not latched inside.In the middle portion of the house, he saw two dead bodies in burnt condition and he smelt kerosene odour through out the house.He informed about the occurrence to his higher officials.In his presence, P.W.30, Deputy Superintendent of Police, prepared observation mahazar, rough sketch and recovery mahazar and he had attested his signature in those documents.He also issued Ex.P21 Nativity Certificate with regard to the deceased family.P.W.19, Dr.Ravi Shankar, attached to Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College, Salem deposed that he examined the hyoid bone of the deceased and found no fracture.Vallinayagam, attached to Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College, examined the accused, found a lacerated injury on the left collar bone 0.5 cm and issued Ex.P25, wound certificate.In his evidence, he deposed that the said injury might be caused due to finger nail scratch.As per requisition Ex.P.W.21, Magisterial Clerk, speaks about the receipt of material objects and sending the same for chemical analysis.P27 is the covering letter of the Court and Ex.P28 is the chemical analysis report.As per the requisition Ex.P30 made by P.W.31 through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, P.W.23, Judicial Magistrate VI, Salem recorded statements of P.Ws.3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and others under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Exs.P31 to P43 are the said statements.The Doctor, P.W.24, on receipt of requisitions, Exs.P44 and P45, by P.W.17 for post mortem of the bodies of the deceased and her child, conducted post mortem and issued certificates Exs.P46 and P47 opining that the deceased appears to have died of shock following head injury and shock following burns and her child appears to have died of burns shock.P.W.25, Head Constable, deposed that he took the bodies for post mortem to Government Hospital, Yercaud and entrusted the bodies to their relatives after autopsy.As directed by P.W.31, P.W.26, Photographer, took photos at the scene of occurrence.P48 series are photos and Ex.P49 series are their negatives.P.W.27, Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of information, went to the place of occurrence at 3 pm.P57 is Ex.P.W.30, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, deposed that on receipt of Ex.P50, F.I.R, he went to the place of occurrence, along with Scientific Officer, P.W.16 and obtained his opinion.He prepared an Observation Mahazar, Ex.P18 and a Rough Sketch, Ex.He caused photographs of the dead bodies, Ex.P55 series, through P.W.26, photographer.He recovered M.Os.1, 4 to 10 under Mahazar, Ex.P19, in the presence of P.W.18, Village Administrative Officer and his menial.He also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.After getting opinion from the doctors who conducted autopsy, he altered the charges under Section 302 and 376, IPC and sent the altered FIR, Ex.P60, to the Judicial Magistrate.P.W.31, the Superintendent of Police, Salem, in his evidence, narrated the investigation undertook by him.According to him, he went to the scene of occurrence and examined P.Ws.2 and 4 and the relatives of the deceased orally.He recorded the confession statement given by the accused in the presence of Sellam and Palanisamy in writing and through P.W.29, Police Videographer.On 21.8.2003, at 7.00 a.m. he recovered the wood used for preparing rotis along with poori kattai, M.O.11, full hand white colour shirt, pant and brief on being produced by the accused from kitchen in the presence of witnesses.He also seized indane gas cylinder, regulator, gas tube and double door in the presence of Selvam and Palanisamy.He remanded the accused to police custody.On 22.8.2003, he examined Sukumar, Inspector and recorded his statement.On 23.8.2003, he examined P.W.3 and recorded her statement.On 24.8.2003, he examined P.Ws.6,7, 8 and 12 and others and recorded their statements.On 25.8.2003, he examined the prisoners viz., Krishnan @ Venkatachalam, Sellammal and Thiruselvam, who are father, mother and brother of the accused respectively, and recorded their confession statements.He examined P.W.18 and got residential proof of the deceased family.He examined father, mother and brother of P.W.3 Selvi and recorded their statements.He also examined P.W.2 and recorded her statement through video.On 1.9.2003, he sent the accused to judicial custody.On 2.9.2003, he examined P.W.22, Judicial Magistrate and recorded his statement.On 10.9.2003, he examined P.W.20, Dr.Vallinayagam and recorded his statement.He sent M.O.15 brief to the Court for chemical examination through Ex.P.61 requisition.Thereafter, he sent Ex.P30 requisition for recording statements of the witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On 18.9.2003, he sent the material objects to the Court for subjecting the same to chemical analysis.On 16.10.2003, he examined post-mortem doctors and recorded their statements.He also examined P.W.1, Thangavel, brother of P.W.1 and P.W.3 and recorded their statements.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 is in one voice qua the conduct of the accused towards the deceased to quench the thirst of lust is concerned.In fact, the deceased herself had shared her worries about the ill-behaviour of the accused towards her to P.W.3, during her last visit to the residence of P.W.3, and also requested P.W.3 not to inform to her brother, viz. husband of P.W.3, fearing future consequences.To quench the thirst of lust, the accused had chosen the time when the deceased was alone at the residence, left the school as spoken to by P.W.8, viz., the accused was absent from the School from 12.45 pm to 2.45/3 pm.Apart from proving his absence in the School, the prosecution has also substantiated the presence of the accused in the place of occurrence through the evidence of P.W.4, Councillor of Yercaud Town Panchayat who saw the accused in his house between 1 and 1.15 pm.The next question that arises is whether the prosecution has proved or not the links between the next chain of circumstances, viz. fisting the child on her face and on her becoming unconscious, laying her near the deceased and thereafter, murdering them and threatening P.W.2 with dire consequences and making her to speak to P.W.1 impersonating the deceased in order to make the death of the deceased and her child as a suicide, to substantiate the offence under Section 302, IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?According to P.W.2, the accused asked her some kerosene to clean the machine.Since P.W.2 was having lunch, she has given 10 litres capacity can containing around 6/7 litres of kerosene to the accused.As soon as P.W.2 entered the house, she found the deceased and her child were lying unconscious in the kitchen.When she enquired the accused, he stated that when he embraced the deceased, she did not accept and therefore, he hit on her head with poori kattai, M.O.11 and when she fell unconscious, he quenched the thirst of lust by committing the offence under Section 376, IPC and since he wanted to simulate the occurrence as if the deceased committed suicide, he fisted the child, who was playing, on her face and laid her near her mother.Thereafter, P.W.2, made call to P.W.1 impersonating the deceased, being threatened by the accused that he would do away with her in the same manner like the deceased if she tells to anybody about the occurrence, and later left the scene of occurrence.Around 4 pm, when she came to know that the deceased and her child were burnt, she went to the house of the deceased and witnessed the burnt bodies of the deceased and her child in the kitchen.Further, P.W.24, Doctor, who conducted post mortem had deposed that the back side of the body, crown of the head and the soles were not burnt and therefore, there is no possibility of committing suicide.What is left to be decided is whether the prosecution has proved the link between the chain of circumstances with regard to the screening of the offence by pouring kerosene on the deceased and her child.The accused, in his extra judicial confession made to P.W.2, had stated that he had committed the offence under Section 376, IPC and to make it as a suicide, he asked P.W.2 to give kerosene and thereafter, he poured the kerosene on the unconscious deceased and her child and set them on fire and screened the offence under Section 376, IPC.The above statement would make it clear that the accused had the intention to screen the offence under Section 376, IPC.That apart, as per Ex.P46, post mortem certificate, the symptoms for the commission of offence under Section 376, IPC could not be traced due to the extensive second degree burns over the front on all the parts of the body of the deceased.P57 is the video cassette and Ex.While proceeding with the investigation, on 18.08.2003, after getting the opinion of the Doctor by preparing medico legal questionnaire and recording the statements of witnesses, he altered the provisions of offence as the ones under Sections 302 and 376 IPC.and sent the altered report Ex.P-60 to the Judicial Magistrate.On 19.08.2003, he handed over the investigation to PW-31 the Superintendent of Police, Salem, and was assisting him in further investigating the matter.On 23.08.2003 at 7 A.M., PW-30 arrested the parents of the accused.xxviii) PW-31 is the Chief Investigating Officer/Superintendent of Police, who after taking over the investigation from PW-30, proceeded further.On 19.08.2003, he went to the scene of occurrence and recorded the statement of PW-2 and that of other witnesses.The absconding accused was produced before him by the Inspector of Police on 20.08.2003 at 1.30 P.M. He sent him to the Hospital for obtaining medical opinion.After complying with the legal formalities, he recorded the statement of the accused.He produced the accused with a report before the D.R.O., Salem, to record his statement in writing and through video.The Station House Officers, amongst various other assignments, also entrusted with the job of investigation of crimes.Unless an officer is hand and foot assigned for conducting investigation of a case in a full-fledged manner and pursuing the same in a court of law, it would be impossible to occlude the resultant failures in the administration of criminal justice, leading to wrong acquittals.In such circumstances, suggestion is made to the Government to establish a separate "Crime Investigation Wing" exclusively for investigation, prosecution and to take necessary follow-up action, as found in the developed countries in order to attain the avowed objectives of the criminal justice and administration system.Registry is directed to communicate copy of this Judgement to the Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, and the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu.The Chief Secretary to Govt., Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai.The above-said ghastly incident was said to have taken place on 15.8.2003 within the jurisdiction of Yercaud Police Station.This horrifying issue, stimulated the Superintendent of Police, Salem District, P.W.31 to undertake investigation by himself and to register an FIR in Crime No.350 of 2003, initially for an offence punishable under Section 304-B, IPC, which was subsequently altered, pursuant to which the appellant was tried and thereafter, convicted and sentenced to undergo (i) seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, on year rigorous imprisonment for having committed the offence of rape on the deceased mother under Section 376, IPC; (ii) life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, one year rigorous imprisonment for having murdered the deceased mother and 13 months old girl baby under Section 302 (2 counts) IPC; (iii) two years imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, one month rigorous imprisonment for having poured kerosene on the mother and 13 months old baby and set them on fire in order to screen the offence under Section 302 read with 201 (2 counts), IPC; and (iv) seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, one year rigorous imprisonment for having caused criminal intimidation to P.W.2 under Section 506(2), IPC.As per requisition Ex.P23 made by P.W.31, P.W.20, Dr.He saw the burnt bodies of the deceased and her child, surrounded by lot of people.Around 8 pm, P.W.1 gave a written complaint, Ex.P1 and registered the FIR, Ex.P50, in Crime No.350 of 2003 for the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC.F.I.R. was sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer, P.W.17, as well as to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.W.30, for further action, since the occurrence took place within two years from the date of marriage of the deceased.As per Ex.P51, requisition made by P.W.31, P.W.28, District Revenue Officer, examined the accused and recorded Ex.P52 confession statement in video through P.W.29 Police Videographer.P57 is the video cassette.The Videographer, who was examined as P.W.29, deposed that on instructions from P.W.31, he took video at the time of enquiry and took photo of the accused, before recording the video.P55 is the photo of the accused.Print of Ex.He also examined P.W.7 Shanmugam in respect of the electrical goods sold to the accused and seized the credit bill and recorded his statement.After completing the investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused under Sections 506(i), 376 and 302 read with 201 (2 counts) IPC and also filed a separate charge sheet against Thiruselvam, accused, Krishnan @ Venkatachalam and Selvam under Section 498(A)The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charges were framed and since the accused denied his complicity in the offence, the case was taken up for trial.On completion of the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. on the incriminating materials for which the accused denied any complicity in the offence committed and claimed innocence.On the side of defence, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.D1 to D11 were filed.3.35. D.W.2, sister of the accused, deposed that the deceased called her on 13.3.2008 and stated that when she went to her brother's house for asking Rs.10,000/-, her brother and her sister-in-law refused to give money and sent her out of their house forcibly.She further stated that at about 9 am on the date of occurrence, the deceased called her over phone and stated that she does not like to live due to the distress caused by the scolding of her brother and sister-in-law.3.35. D.W.3, Manger of Indian Bank, Mechery Branch, deposed that the accused came to the bank on 20.8.2003, the accused came to the Bank between 10 am to 2pm and redeemed the jewels pledged in the Bank.3.36. D.W.4, who was working as the Sub Divisional Engineer (Legal), BSNL, deposed that no outgoing STD call was made from telephone No.222032 in August, 2003, as per the magnetic tape maintained by the Exchange for registering all the STD outgoing.The Court examined one Francis as C.W.1, who deposed that on hearing noise from the house of the deceased, he saw the smoke emanating from the house of the deceased.He went to the house of the deceased and saw the window glass broken due to the heat and since some people were standing in front of the house, he climbed up the roof of the house and removed the tiles in order to enter into the house and saw the bodies of the deceased and her child in the hall.The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, upon appreciation of the evidence and hearing both sides, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned.Hence, the above appeal.V  Contentions of the appellantMr.K.V.Sreedharan, learned counsel for the appellant, challenges the order of conviction and sentence as follows:(b) The case of the prosecution rests upon the complaint Ex.In the said complaint, P.W.1 had not uttered anything about the conduct of the accused towards the deceased.(d) Further, P.Ws.4 to 8, who spoke about the movement of the accused on the date of occurrence, are not reliable witnesses, as they were examined after a period of 10/15 days.(e) The carbon particles found deposited more in the kitchen, than in the hall, would prove that the deceased had committed suicide along with her child, as it is supported with the fact that the tiles in the kitchen alone were removed and also by the evidence of P.W.1 who had stated that the deceased called him and stated that she would commit suicide if he did not reach her place within one hour with money.Therefore, there is a possibility that the people who entered the house, after gaining the entry, would have removed the body to the hall, and accordingly, the deceased had committed suicide only and the offence under Section 302, IPC is not made out.(f) From the statement of D.W.2, sister of the accused, that two days prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased called her over phone and informed that her brother refused to give money and scolded her and on the morning of the date of occurrence, she informed that she was very much dejected and she did not want to live, it can be clearly elucidated that the deceased had only committed suicide.(g) Alternatively, since the death of the deceased and her child was due to burn injuries and the accused has no motive to commit the murder of the deceased and her child, it can be assumed that the accused wanted only to screen the offence.Therefore, the offence under Section 302, IPC is not made out.(h) Finally, the offence under Sections 376, 302 (2 counts) and 302 read with 201, IPC has not been proved with medical evidence and beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore, conviction and sentence have to be set aside.Therefore, the same would not make her evidence unreliable, as she is the only witness who saw the deceased and her child in the kitchen before they were burnt and in the hall after they were burnt.P1 itself.Further, since he received a call at about 2.00 pm on the date of occurrence from P.W.2, who impersonated as the deceased, P.W.1 had the suspicion that she would have committed suicide due to dowry harassment.After coming to know about the conduct of the accused, P.W.1 stated the same to P.W.31, Superintendent of Police.Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be stated as untrustworthy.(c) P.W.3 was of the opinion that the death of the deceased and her child was due to dowry harassment and she had no doubt that it was homicide.On seeing the article in the newspaper that the death was homicide, she recalled about the statement made by the deceased with regard to the conduct of the accused 15 days prior to the date of the occurrence.The same, however, would not render the evidence of P.W.3 undependable on the ground that it was given after two months.(d) P.Ws.4 to 8 speak about the movement of the accused just prior to the occurrence and immediately after the occurrence and at the place of the occurrence.The delay in obtaining their evidence was due to the fact that the case was initially registered for the offence under Section 304-B and 498-A, IPC and only later, it was registered for the offence under Sections 376, 302, 302 read with 201, IPC.Moreover, they are not eye witnesses to the occurrence.Further, the Investigation Officer was not cross examined with respect to the delay in examining those witnesses.Therefore, the delay in examining P.Ws.4 to 8 would not make their evidence unbelievable.(e) As per the evidence of C.W.1, who removed the tiles of the house of the deceased, the bodies of the deceased and her child were found in the hall only.This is strengthened with the statement of P.W.2, who witnessed the bodies in the kitchen before they were burnt and in the hall, after they were burnt.Even though the carbon particles were found deposited in the kitchen, the same would not change the nature of offence, because, P.W.16, Scientific Officer and P.W.24, Doctor, who conducted autopsy, were of the opinion that it was not suicide since the hair in the crown and back of the head, back side of the body and soles were not burnt.(f) If the statement of D.W.2 is true that the deceased informed her that she was very much depressed on the morning of 15.8.2003, viz. date of occurrence and therefore, she did not want to live, naturally D.W.2 should have informed the same to her brother and parents.Failure to do the same would make it clear that D.W.2 would have also joined along with her brother in demanding money and therefore, the contention that the deceased had committed suicide has to be rejected.(g) P.W.2 had deposed about the extra judicial confession made by the accused that he had an eye over the accused and since the deceased refused to heed his wish, he hit the deceased on her head and when the deceased fell unconscious, the accused committed the offence under Section 376, IPC.P.W.2 also witnessed the deceased and her child lying in the kitchen before being burnt and in the hall after they were burnt.This would prove the motive of the accused and clearly establishes the offence under Section 302, IPC.We have also perused the entire materials on record.Before proceeding further, it is apt to refer the law laid down and the tests to be adopted for placing reliance on the extra judicial confession and the circumstantial evidence.The prosecution mainly depends on the extra judicial confession of the accused made to by P.W.2, neighbour and P.W.28, District Revenue Officer.While P.Ws.1 to 3 speak about the motive, P.Ws.4 and 5 speak about the movement of the accused near the scene of occurrence and P.Ws.6 to 8 speak about the absence of the accused in the school where he was working, at the relevant time.The chain and the links, which constitute the circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused, are as under:(i) the accused had an ill-intention to commit rape on the deceased;(ii) he had chosen the time when the deceased was alone in the residence and left the school and came to the residence;(iii) he hit the deceased with poori kattai, M.O.11 and when the deceased fell unconscious, he committed the offence under Section 376, IPC;(iv) he fisted the child on her face and on her becoming unconscious, laid her near the deceased;(v) he threatened P.W.2 with dire consequences and made her to speak to P.W.1, impersonating the deceased, in order to make the death of the deceased and her child as a suicide;(viii) his leaving the scene of occurrence by opening the gate of his house, around 2/2.10 pm, was witnessed by P.W.5 and his brother;(ix) at about 2.10 pm, after purchasing electrical goods, he had stated to P.W.6 that he had committed a small mistake and would tell the same later and thereafter, went to Sister Convent;P.W.2 spoke to P.W.1, as tutored by the accused, that she had been tortured for money and asked him to come within one hour, or otherwise she would commit suicide.Since the accused threatened her, fearing danger to her life, P.W.2 would not have informed P.W.17 on the earlier day.Further, in his evidence, P.W.1 had stated that the deceased called him and asked him to come with money within one hour, otherwise, she would commit suicide.Immediately, P.W.1 called his brother's residence and spoke to his sister-in-law, P.W.3 about the telecon by the deceased and asked her to visit the place of the deceased and to inform him.P.W.3 also, in her evidence, stated that P.W.1 called her and stated about the telecon of the deceased.In the extra judicial confession made by the accused to P.W.2, he had stated that when he embraced the deceased, she did not accept and therefore, he hit on her head with poori kattai, M.O.11 and when she fell unconscious, he quenched his thirst by committing the offence under Section 376, IPC.The above statement is corroborated by the wound certificate Ex.P25 certifying that there was a simple injury and opining that it might be due to a finger nail scratch.The possibility that finger nail mark on the left clavicular region would have been caused on the accused by the deceased only when the deceased tried to resist the accused from committing the offence under Section 376, IPC cannot be ruled out.Substantiating the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 4, P.W.5, building contractor, deposed that he saw the accused opening the gate and coming out of his house around 2/2.10 pm.Thereafter, the accused was found at the shop of P.W.7, who deposed that the accused came along with P.W.6 to purchase electrical goods, which is strengthened with the copy of the bill, Ex.P.W.6 deposed that the accused, after purchasing electrical goods from the shop of P.W.7, stated that he committed a small mistake.If the accused left the School at 12.45 pm only to purchase electrical goods, he would have straight away gone to the shop of P.W.7 and returned to the School, immediately after his purchase and in which event, P.Ws.4 and 5 would not have seen the accused at the place of occurrence at about 1/1.15 pm and 2/2.10 pm respectively, nor P.W.6 would have taken him to the shop of P.W.7, to whom the accused had stated that he committed a small mistake.The prosecution has, therefore, rightly proved the links between the chain of circumstances that the accused had ill intention towards the deceased and chosen the convenient time for the commission of offence under Section 376, IPC and accordingly, left the School at 12.45 pm, went to the residence and since the deceased did not heed to his desire, he hit on her head with poori kattai, M.O.11 and when she fell unconscious, he committed the offence, left the house by opening the gate, which was seen by P.W.5 and went to the shop of P.W.7 along with P.W.6 and thereafter, returned to the School.From the above, it can be elucidated that the accused had poured kerosene on the deceased and her child, who were unconscious and set them on fire.Accordingly, the accused had committed the offence under Section 302, IPC.12.3. P.W.2 is the only witness who saw the deceased and her child lying in the kitchen, when she was called by the accused and thereafter, found the burnt bodies of the deceased and her child in the hall.The said portion of her evidence derives strength from the evidence of C.W.1 who deposed that he removed the tiles of the house of the deceased and thereafter, when he entered the house after the public gained entry, he saw the bodies of the deceased and her child in the hall only.Therefore, the contention that the deceased had only committed suicide and thereafter, the people who entered inside the house would have brought the bodies to the hall, cannot be sustained, as the stove, gas cylinder and other things in the kitchen were found intact.Moreover, the doors of the house were found to be unlocked.Thus, after committing the offence under Section 376, IPC the accused would have brought the deceased and her child to the hall and would have poured kerosene and set them on fire.Hence, the contention that the carbon particles were found deposited more in the kitchen than in the hall also cannot be accepted, because, the house of the deceased was very small and therefore, there is possibility for the deposit of carbon particles in the kitchen.However, the deposit of carbon particles in the kitchen would not change the nature of offence.That apart, as per the statement of P.W.6, at about 2.10 pm on the date of occurrence, the accused, who came to his shop, asked him to drop him at Electrical shop to purchase electrical goods and after purchasing some goods, the accused asked him to drop him at Sister Convent.While going, since the accused asked him to drive fast, he enquired as to the urgency, and at that time, the accused told him that he committed a small mistake and he would tell the same later and he got down at Sister Convent.The above statement supports the evidence of P.W.2 to conclude that the accused has committed the offence under Section 302, IPC.As per Ex.P46, Post Mortem Certificate, extensive second degree burns were found over the front on all the parts except over the back of the head, middle of the back, most of the buttocks and both soles.Assuming the deceased had committed suicide, naturally she would have poured kerosene on her head which would have spread on all over her body and on setting fire, all parts of the body would have got burnt.But, as per the post mortem certificate, back of the head, middle of the back, most of the buttocks and both soles were not burnt.Further, after setting fire on her and on her child, she would have moved here and there and raised alarm, but would not have laid down as if she wanted to sleep.Moreover, if the deceased had committed suicide, after pouring kerosene, she would have thrown the can containing kerosene in the house itself, but not outside the house.This would establish that the deceased had not committed suicide and she was done to death.Even though an argument was raised on behalf of the appellant that as per the evidence of D.W.2, the deceased would have only committed suicide, we are unable to appreciate the same, since D.W.2, who is the sister of the accused, on being informed by the deceased about her frustration to live due to the scolding of her brother and refusal to give money, is normally expected to inform the same to her brother, husband of the deceased and tried to convince her.But, the action of D.W.2 in not informing the same to her brother creates a doubt as to the veracity of her evidence.Therefore, the same is liable to be rejected.We have already rendered our finding as to the trustworthiness of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 and as to the discharge of burden by the prosecution to prove the links between the chain of circumstances.We are, therefore, of the considered opinion, that at the time of occurrence, the accused had the knowledge that he had committed the main offence and caused disappearance of evidence with regard to the main offence, and had the intention to screen the offence, by burning the body of the deceased and her child and consequently, the ingredients with respect to the screening of offence had been satisfied.Accordingly, the offence under Section 302 read with 201, IPC has also been made out.Thus, the prosecution has satisfactorily discharged their onus of proving the link between the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused qua the screening of offence is concerned.VIII  FindingIn view of the above discussion, our appraisal and analysis of the evidence on record, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has successfully established all the circumstances appearing in the evidence against the accused by clear, cogent and reliable evidence and the chain of the established circumstances cumulatively lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime.IX  EncomiumX - UPSHOT This appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem.kplNote to Registry:The deceased was made unconscious by him with a severe blow on her head with a dough-roller (poorikattai) so that he could deflower her without any fray or resistance.The little drops of humanness which conjointly make humanity a cherished desire of mankind had seemingly dried up, when he gave a deadly punch on the tender face of his niece, a baby of just 13 months old, to make her inert so as to comfortably burn her along with her mother, who was already made unconscious by his brutal acts.Insolently, he invited a neighbour PW-2, showed her as to what he has committed, intimidated and threatened her not to divulge his acts and by squeezing her neck, forced her, who was already under the grip of fear, to talk to the relatives of the first deceased over phone as if the deceased herself was talking in order to make them believe that the first deceased was alive at that time.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.came to be framed.When the accused was initially questioned, he pleaded innocence and therefore, trial of the case was taken up.The prosecution, in its endeavour to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined PWs-1 to 31, marked Exs.On the side of the defence, four witnesses were examined as DWs-1 to 4 and Exs.D1 to D11 were marked.i) PW-1 is the brother of D-1 and he speaks about the dowry demand and the phone call received by him from her sister's residence at 2 P.M. on the fateful day.Since the phone call was cut off on the side of his sister, he immediately tried to contact her but in vain and therefore, he contacted his brother over phone in that regard.By 3.30 P.M., he received a telephonic message from his brother to the effect that their sister/D1 and her child/D2 were no more.He started immediately, reached the scene house at 7 P.M. and thereafter lodged a written complaint Ex.P1 with the police and Ex.P2 is the Telephone Bill.ii) PW-2 is a neighbour of the accused.According to her, on 15.08.2003 at 1.30 P.M., the accused asked for kerosene to clean a machine and, as she was having food at that time, she gave him the Can containing about 6 to 7 litres of kerosene.When PW-2 came out of her residence, the accused signalled her to come to his residence and thinking that he called her to return back the kerosene Can, she went there and at the kitchen room found both the deceased lying inert on the floor.By threatening PW-2 that she would also be finished off if she does not act on his words, the accused asked her to talk over phone to the brother of D1 posing herself as D1 and state that unless they bring money within an hour, herself and D2 would not be seen alive.Accordingly, after stating so, she immediately cut the line even without answering the reply from the other end.It is her specific evidence that she was under the grip of panic and fear and was not able to do her works on that day.Her evidence is that earlier, D-1 told her about the misbehaviour of the accused and requested her not to reveal the same to his brother.According to PW-3, she did not inform the said fact immediately after the occurrence as they came to know that it was a case of murder only later on.iv) PW-4 deposed that he saw the accused at his residence at about 1.15 p.m. and called him to attend a plumbing job, for which, he declined stating that he had some other work.He speaks to the presence of the accused at the vicinity of the occurrence place at the relevant point of time.v) PW-5, a building contractor, who knows the accused as a plumber, while going in a motorcycle along with his brother, saw the accused coming out of his residence/scene place between 2 and 2.10 p.m.vi) PW-6 states that at about 2.10 pm., the accused came to his shop and requested him to drop him at the electrical shop and his specific statement is that while travelling so, the accused asked him to drive fast and when questioned as to what happened, he replied that he had committed a mistake.PW-6 further states that only after knowing about the incident, he could understand the meaning of what has been stated by the accused as mistake.His evidence is that he saw the accused unusually disturbed and in a state of hurry.Copy of the counterfoil of bill for the purchase of electrical goods by the accused is marked as Ex.viii) PW-8 was working as a Supervisor at St.Anne's Convent, where the accused and his brother viz., the husband of D1, were engaged for electrical works.His evidence is that on 15.08.2003, the accused left the working place by 12.45 P.M. to purchase some electrical goods, however, he returned back only by 3 P.M.ix) PW-9 is the Scientific Officer, who, on receipt of Ex.P4, letter sent by the Court along with materials recovered at the scene of occurrence viz., empty cylinder, plastic can, piece of burnt mat with stain, wire bag , stove etc., conducted chemical examination and the report submitted in that regard is Ex.PW-10 is the scientific officer who issued Ex.PW-11 is the Scientific Officer, who on receipt of Ex.P7/letter from the court of the Magistrate, subjected the underwear of the accused and the semen found therein to chemical analysis and also sent sample blood and salvai to the Government Hospital for examination.P8 is the Chemical Report and Ex.P9 is the Serologist's Report.x) PW-12, on coming to know about the incident, went in search of the husband of D-1 so as to inform him about the death of his wife and child.At about 3.30 P.M., he found both the accused and the husband of D1 at a bungalow.He took the husband of D1 along with him in his motorcycle without informing him of the incident.He saw the accused leaving that place in another vehicle.xi) PW-13 was summoned to the police station for enquiry and in his presence, the accused made a confession statement and the admissible portion thereof is Ex.xii) PW-14 is the Sub Divisional Engineer of BSNL, Yercaud, and he has been examined to speak about the working condition of the telephone viz., Telephone connection No.222612, in the house where the offence was committed.xiii) PW-15 is the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statement of PW-2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 25.08.2003 and the said statement is marked as Ex.xiv) PW-16 is the Scientific Officer.After making observation and examination of the scene of occurrence, the articles available therein, and the posture and location of the burnt bodies, he forwarded his report under Ex.xv) PW-17 is the Revenue Divisional Officer.As the death of D-1 was within three years of marriage, he conducted enquiry and in that course, held inquest over the bodies of the deceased and the inquest report is Ex.His enquiry report is marked as Ex.P16, wherein, it is concluded that the death was not a result of dowry harassment and that it is a suspicious death.xvi) PW-18 is the village Administrative Officer.On information, he along with his Assistant reached the scene of occurrence and found the front door unbolted from inside and it got opened just by placing hands thereon.PW-16 and his Assistant attested Ex.P18/Observation mahazar, prepared by the Investigating Officer.xvii) PW-19 is the Medical Officer, who has issued the Certificate under Ex.xviii) PW-20 is the Doctor, who, on receipt of Ex.P23 requisition from the Investigating Officer and Ex.P24 from the court, examined the accused for the injury found at his neck and for virility.As regards the abrasion found on the neck of the accused, he opined that such injury is possible due to a finger-nail scratch.P25 is the wound certificate and Ex.P-26 is the virility certificate.xix) PW-21 is the court clerk who forwarded the material objects to the forensic lab for chemical examination.xx) PW-22 is the Judicial Magistrate, who passed remand order Ex.P29 against the accused.He has stated that the police did not file any petition to record the confession of the accused and that the accused voluntarily stated that he committed the offence, however, he did not record the same in the remand order.xxi) PW-23 is the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses including PW3 and those statements have been marked as Ex.xxii) PW-24 is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead bodies on receipt of Exs.P44 and 45 requisition from the police.As regards D-1, he issued post mortem certificate under Ex.P46, wherein, the following has been noticed:-" External Appearances: Face : Hair burnt on the front of scalp upto the back of the parietal bones, both eye lids burnt on both sides and closed.Blood present on the nostrils.Tongue protruded and clenched between the teeth.1) Extensive 2 (degree) burns over the front on all the parts and over the back on all parts except over the back of the head, middle of the back most of the buttocks and both sole of feet.The extent of the total burnt area is 85% and the unburnt area is 15% approximately.2) There is a depression on the 4 side of the head 4" above the left ear.Internal Examination:- .....Skull: Depressed fracture on the parietal bone 4" above the left ear measuring about 2" x 1" x = cm. size.No blood in the calvarium.Brain tissue immediately below the fractured area is lacerated measuring 2" x 1" x =" cm. size.Neck: Hyoid bone normal. ....."As to the cause of death, it is opined that D-1 would appear to have died of shock due to head injury and burn injuries.P47 is the post mortem certificate issued in respect of D2 and in the said certificate, it is opined that D-2 would appear to have died of shock due to burn injuries.By referring to his noting in the post-mortem certificate that tongue was protruding and teeth clenched, the Doctor, while deposing before court, stated that the deceased would have been alive at the time when the accused lighted them.xxiii) PW-25 is the Head Constable, who took the dead bodies to the hospital for the purpose of autopsy.PW-26 is the Police Photographer who took photographs of the scene of occurrence in 11 angles.P48 series are the photographs and Ex.P49 series are the negatives thereof.xxiv) PW-27 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who on receipt of the complaint from PW-1, registered a case in Crime No.350/03, prepared FIR under Ex.P50 and forwarded copies thereof to his superior officers.xxvi) PW-29 is the police photographer who photographed and videographed the crime scene and the statement of the accused.P55 is the photo of the accused, Ex.The accused took him to the scene of occurrence and produced the dough-roller, shirt, pant and underwear from the kitchen and also a phone register and the same were seized under mahazar in the presence of witnesses.He examined the witnesses on different dates and the statement of PW-2 Selvi as regards the occurrence was recorded through video.On 01.9.2003, he sent the accused to judicial custody.Between 19.08.2003 and 14.11.2003, he examined 56 witnesses including Doctors, R.D.O. & V.A.O., and recorded their statements.After collecting all materials, he laid charge sheet against the accused before the Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 506 (1), 376 and 302 read with 201 (2 counts) IPC.He also laid a separate charge sheet against the husband of D1 and other relatives for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating materials put forth against him by the prosecution, he denied his complicity in the commission of the offence and filed a statement, wherein, he has stated that D-1 was agonised on account of the attitude of her brothers, who were not helping her; that on 15.08.2003, he went to work along with his brother and only at 3.30 P.M., through PW-12 Ravi, they came to know that D-1 self-immolated her along with the child; that the Investigating Officer tortured him to give a confession statement to the effect that he had murdered D1 after committing rape on her and torched her along with D2; that he is an innocent; that he never produced any material object as alleged by the police; that the confession before the D.R.O. was also obtained under coercion and threat and that a false case has been foisted against him.DW-2, the sister of the accused, has deposed that on 13.3.2008, D1 phoned her stating that her brother and his wife have forcibly sent her out of their house when she went to them, asking for a loan of Rs.10,000/- and that on 15.08.2003 at 9 A.M., she again received a phone call from D1 stating that she was very upset as her brother and his wife have scolded her and therefore, she does not like to live.DW-3 is the Branch Manger of Indian Bank, Mechery Branch, and he has stated that on 20.08.2003, the accused came to the Bank and redeemed the jewel pledged with the Bank between 10 A.M. and 2 P.M.DW4 is the Sub Divisional Engineer (Legal), BSNL.During re-examination, he has stated that billing facility is available only for outgoing calls and not for incoming calls.As referred to earlier, Exs.D1 to D11, viz., photo of one Dhanapal, carbon copy of the bill dated 15.02.2004, statements given by witnesses during inquest, telegram, jewel loan register and the signature of the accused found therein, have been marked as defence side documents.5-B. CW-1 is the court witness and he is residing adjacent to the house of the accused.According to him, while having lunch, he heard noise and on coming out, he found smoke emanating from the house of the accused and few persons standing there and further, he climbed up and went to the roof top and removed four or five tiles and by that time, persons standing outside the house entered and found both the deceased dead with burn injuries.5-C. The trial court, after exhaustive consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides and of the arguments advanced on either side, found the appellant/accused guilty of all the charges and passed the order of conviction and sentence as aforementioned.The said order is under challenge in this Criminal Appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant elaborately argued the matter, raising several grounds, in his endeavour to assail the order passed by the trial court.At the foremost, he submits that the emphatic case of the defence is that D1, who was very upset and felt dejected as she was abandoned by her brothers and not helped by them while her family was in adversity, took the extreme decision of self-immolating herself along with her child.He further clarified that such burn injuries would be possible if the deceased were burnt after being laid in a state of unconsciousness.He has specifically stated that he could not find carbon stains on the oesophagus.According to him, if it is a case of self-immolation, definitely, the deceased would have run here and there and the burn injuries would be quite different from the ones noticed by him.He further suggested that she would have been burnt after made to lie on floor unconscious.He also withstood the rigour of cross-examination and emphatically stated that it is a case of murder.It would not be possible for a person who has sustained deadly head injury, as could be seen from the medical evidence, to self-immolate herself and her child.Now, the incriminating circumstances available against the accused may be dealt with.All of them are independent witnesses and of course, PW-6 seems to be a person known well to the accused and was friendly towards him.PW-4 has stated that he met the accused on the occurrence day at his residence between 1 and 1.15 p.m. for the purpose of laying a pipe line, and the accused refused therefor stating that he has some domestic works to do.PW-5 has stated that on the same day at about 2 or 2.10 p.m., while proceeding along with his brother, he saw the accused coming out from his residence.PW-6, who seems to be a friend of the accused, was approached by the accused at 2.10 P.M. with a request to drop him at the electrical shop, whereupon, he took him in his motor-cycle.He has specifically stated that while travelling in the motor-cycle, the accused asked him to drive fast and therefore, he asked him as to what happened, for which, the accused answered that he had done a mistake.According to PW-6, he could understand the meaning of what was said by the accused as 'mistake' only after seeing the newspapers.He has stated that at about 2.30 pm.the accused came and purchased electrical goods from the shop and at that time, he was seen disturbed.PW-8 is the Supervisor at the school where the accused and his brother were working on the occurrence day.His emphatic evidence is that the accused left the working place for purchase of electrical goods by 12.45 p.m. and returned back at 3 P.M. The time gap at which each of the witnesses saw the accused at various places and the sequence arising therefrom, is quite natural and fortifies the case of prosecution that it was the accused, who alone was present at the scene house while D-1 and D-2 were alone there, and indulged in the heinous crime.As pointed out earlier, PW-2, in her statement made before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and while deposing before court, consistently stated that the accused had been waiting for a right opportunity to have sex with her sister-in-law and on the occurrence, he used the loneliness prevalent in the residence to satiate his vicious desire.Further, incriminating materials were seized at his instance.In fact, the altered F.I.R reached the court on the same day without any delay.Similarly, referring to the evidence of DW-3, it is argued that inasmuch as the accused was present in the Bank on 20.08.2003 for redeeming the jewel pledged, the prosecution version that he was arrested on the same day is unbelievable.The obscure evidence of DW-3 that the accused came to the Bank between 10 A.M. and 2 P.M. seems to be strange and does not infuse confidence.On the face of the same, if one looks at the evidence of the Investigating Officer that the accused was arrested on that day at 1.30 P.M., it would be clear that the prosecution version in that regard is quite acceptable.From the foregoing discussion, the incriminating circumstances and materials made available by the prosecution to connect the appellant with the crime can be categorised as follows:-The motive assumes great significance inasmuch as its existence is an enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning.(iv) The accused procured kerosene from PW-2 and utilised the same for torching the bodies.(v) He subdued and silenced PW-2 under threat and, with her help, created a make-believe story that it was a case of suicide.(vi) It is the brother of D-1/PW-1, who set the law in motion by preferring a written complaint with the police and the allegation was that the husband of D-1 along with his family members demanded dowry and ill-treated her, due to which, she committed suicide.Scientific investigation should substitute the conventional ones.Arduous efforts should be made to improve the system in order to increase the certainty of conviction and punishment for the most serious offenders and repeaters.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu.I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem.

['Section 376 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 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The case of the petitioner/ complainant is that the prospective accused No.2, Mr. K.N. Shukla is one of the directors of accused No.1 company, namely Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. and is Page 1 of 14 responsible for day to day affairs and business of the said company.Prospective accused No.3 Mr. Vishesh Rastogi is the Manager and authorised signatory of the said company.Mr. Vijay Taneja, Sachin Bidhuri, Vinod Chopra, Sharad Taneja, Ramesh Arora and Rajiv Arora are well known to the complainant as they are doing the business of real estate.They approached the petitioner and told him that they are having very good relations with Mr. K.N. Shukla and Vishesh Rastogi of M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd., who owns a very prime piece of land of more than 200 acres at G.T. Road, Amritsar, Punjab.Page 1 of 14The complainant initially refused any dealing with them.Mr. Vijay Taneja and the director of M/s SVS Infra Build Pvt. Ltd. proposed to become partner with the complainant in purchasing the land.On persuasion, the petitioner/complainant along with Mr. Harish Kumar came to Delhi.The prospective accused persons namely Vijay Taneja, Mr. Sachin Bidhuri, Mr. Vinod Chopra and Mr. Sharad Taneja took them to the office of M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. at Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.The complainant was sent outside for taking lunch.When the complainant along with Mr. Harish Kumar came back, accused perons namely Vijay, Sharad, Sachin and Vinod took Mr. K.N. Shukla and Mr. Vishesh Rastogi in a separate room where they had some personal meeting.The accused persons told the complainant and Harish Kumar that they have finalised the deal and decided to purchase 160 acres of land at the rate of Rs.1.20 crores per acre.The complainant objected by saying that they should have been consulted before finalisation of the deal.Vijay Taneja, Sachin Bidhuri, Sharad Taneja and Vinod Chopra Page 2 of 14 told the complainant that they were partners in purchase of the said land and the complainant has to believe them.On their representation Mr. Harish Kumar, partner of the complainant paid Rs.25 lakhs through cheque No.065835 dated 16.6.2011 drawn on Central Bank of India in favour of M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.20.00 lakhs in cash.Similarly the complainant also paid Rs.25.00 lakhs by way of cheque No.057822 dated 16.6.2011 drawn on Union Bank of India in favour of M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.20.00 lakhs in cash.All the prospective accused persons directed the complainant to pay Rs.2.00 crores within two days in addition to Rs.1 crore which was to be paid by Mr.Vijay Taneja as his share.Page 2 of 14Mr. Vijay, Sharad, Sachin and Vinod in furtherance of their conspiracy, in presence of the complainant issued cheque No.019801 dated 17.6.2011 amounting to Rs. 1 crore (Rupees one crore) and told the complainant that this cheque was in lieu of the said cheque and has been issued in lieu of one-third share of the total amount of Rs.3.00 crores (Rupees three crores).The complainant paid amount on different dates as per receipts issued by Mr.Vishesh Rustogi, authorised signatory of M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. The cheque bearing No.057822 dated 16.6.2011 for Rs.25.00 lakhs issued by complainant was not encashed on account of difference in signatures and in lieu thereof the complainant/petitioner transferred the said amount by way of RTGS in favour of M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. Later on, the complainant came to know that the cheque for Rs.1.00 crore which was issued by SVS Infra Build Pvt. Ltd. was never produced for Page 3 of 14 encashment by accused No.1 company.The complainant also alleged that all the accused persons assured the complainant that after receipt of the total amount of Rs.3.00 crores (Rupees three crores), they will execute an agreement to sell and GPA in favour of the complainant and thereafter, further amount shall be paid after 30 days of the signing of the agreement.After 24.6.2011 the complainant asked the proposed accused Vijay, Vinod, Sachin, Sharad to get the agreement executed in his favour and they assured that the agreement would be executed very soon.In the first week of November, 2011 the complainant came to know through Mr. Ramesh Arora, Gurjit Aujla and Rajeev Kumar, who are partners/directors of M/s New Hope Developers that they have already executed an agreement to sell dated 28.6.2011 with M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. in favour of their company M/s New Hope Developers.The directors warned the complainant that they have agreement with accused No.1 company and if the complainant would take any action against the directors and authorised signatories of M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. or partners of M/s SVS Infra Build Pvt. Ltd., the complainant has to face serious consequences.Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi called the status report.The petitioner placed on record a `settlement agreement' dated 29.5.2012 to show that M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. obtained approximately Rs.1,23,52,07,364/- from M/s Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. (earlier known as M/s. Gold Developers Pvt. Ltd.) against development consideration of 206.37 acres of land, out of which the petitioner was induced to purchase 160 acres.Vide order dated 11.7.2013, after considering the ATR, Learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed to change the Investigating Officer under the close supervision of SHO concerned.Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner was again forced to settle the matter with the accused persons.The petitioner made various representations with the senior officials but to no avail.Page 13 of 14By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `Cr.P.C.') the petitioner seeks quashing of final report dated 15.2.2012 submitted by the investigating agency in case FIR No.20/2012 under Section 420/120B IPC registered at P.S. Baramkhamba Road, New Delhi.In nutshell the facts of the case are that the petitioner lodged a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. seeking directions to the police for registration of FIR.The Metropolitan Magistrate directed the SHO, P.S. Barakhamba Road to file Action Taken Report.On 15.2.2012 FIR under Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC was registered.The complainant has also alleged that on 5.11.2011, the complainant came to know through public notice in Tribune that land of M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. of which deal was conducted has already been mortgaged by the accused persons to Gold Developers Pvt. Ltd. (GDPL) and Gold Developers International Pvt. Ltd. (GDIPL) and both of these companies have their offices in New Delhi.Page 3 of 14The complainant has also alleged that all the proposed accused persons with dishonest intention fraudulently allured the Page 4 of 14 complainant to grab the amount of Rs.2.00 crores (Rupees two crores) and they have in furtherance of their conspiracy cheated the complainant.Page 4 of 14Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that after registration of FIR, the investigating agency started pressurising the petitioner/complainant to settle the matter with the accused persons and withdraw the complaint.Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. deals with the information to the police and their power to investigate.On an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioner vide order dated 11.7.2013, the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi observed that the investigation has been passive and no sufficient progress has been made despite registration of FIR.The Magistrate directed the ACP concerned to change the Investigating Officer, who do not seem to be proceeding on correct lines and with the expediency the case requires and mark this case to an investigating officer of the rank of Inspector at the same police station.It was also directed that all the efforts be made for completing the investigation within two months.According to the status report filed on behalf of the State, since there is no written agreement between the complainant and Page 12 of 14 the alleged accused person/company and there was time stipulation to materialise any sale deed and title of the property in question remained with the alleged firm M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. which later on entered into fresh agreement with M/s New Hope Developers which was also not materialised.Page 12 of 14The receipt dated 16.6.2011 clearly depicts that the said amount was paid by the complainant (purchaser) towards advance to the seller in respect of land admeasuring 160 acres at the rate of Rs.1.20 crores.Similarly the receipts dated 17.6.2011, 18.6.2011 and 24.6.2011 clearly show that the amounts mentioned in the receipts were paid in respect of the 160 acres of land at Amritsar and the detailed agreement was to be executed within one week.The same fulfils requirement of an agreement.The agreement to sell executed on 28.6.2011 between M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s New Hope Developers is on record.Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a public notice published in the newspaper `Tribune' Chandigarh Edn.It is not clear that if the land in question of M/S Vishnurupa Devlopers Pvt. Ltd. situated at Amristar was freezed, as to how M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. managed to sell the part of the same land and what action was taken by the I.O. against the erring officials.In the light of the aforesaid discussion, without doubting the fairness of investigation carried out by the investigating officer, it would be fair and in justice of both the parties and the public that the investigation is done by the Crime Branch of Delhi Police.Accordingly, further investigation of FIR No.12/2012 dated 15.2.2012 registered at P.S. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi shall be carried by an officer not below the rank of Inspector in the crime branch of Delhi Police.The investigation shall be supervised by the officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police.Since FIR was registered in 2012, the investigation shall be completed expeditiously.With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.

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

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

CRM No. 793 of 2011 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 20.1.2011 in connection with Sutahata P.S. Case No. 278/2010 dated 18.10.2010 under Sections 147/148/149/186/353/332/ 333/379/325/326/307/427 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and 9(b) of the Indian ExclusiveAnd In the matter of : Shyamal Das - petitioner Mr. Asish Dey ... for the petitioner The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on instruction he is not pressing this application.The application stands dismissed for want of prosecution.(J. N. Patel, Chief Justice.) (Ashim Kumar Roy, J.)

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

On 27.01.2020, a counter affidavit is filed by learned counsel Sri Kazim Ibrahim sworn by Sri Vinay Kumar Chaturvedi, Inspector, C.B.I, Special Crime Branch Office Complex.The bail application was listed severally but the same could not be heard, meanwhile due to Pandemic of Covid-19, the State of U.P. including District Lucknow gone under complete lockdown and physical hearing in the courts was suspended.The urgent hearing after sometime was permitted through video conferencing and at that stage on the ground, the applicant is suffering from Chronic Hapatitis-B, mention was made before Hon'ble the Senior Judge on 06.05.2020 through e-mail on the prescribed website of the Court, the case was then nominated by Hon'ble the Senior Judge vide order dated 11.05.2020 to this Court.Heard learned counsel Sri Pranjal Krishna, Advocate assisting his Senior designated Sri Nandit Srivastav, Advocate and learned A.S.G. Senior designated Sri S.B. Pandey, Advocate assisted by Sri Kazim Ibrahim, perused the record.From the perusal of record as contended by learned counsels the matter appears to have initiated on the basis of two public complaints which were received one from Manoj Srivastav and another from Vinod Jain, to the effect that huge amount has been misappropriated in 27 Savings Accounts standing at Lalitpur Head Post Office under the Jhansi Postal Division in U.P. Circle.During the preliminary enquiry, it was found that one account was written twice, 26 accounts were found initially and an amount of Rs.16,15,600/- has been found defrauded.On the basis of report of said preliminary enquiry into complaints, an F.I.R. was lodged and the investigation proceeded.In investigation, it was found that the applicant is a Postal Assistant and he was found in conspiracy with other co-accused though being a public servant they committed criminal breach of trust and thus withdrawn by way of forgery, manipulation and falsification, thereby made a loss to the State to the tune of Rs.3,11,75,845/- and reciprocally obtained themselves illegal gain.They did so by modifying the data entries fed in computer and thereafter by deleting the same.As such in conspiracy with each other they destroyed the evidences of electronic documents also.The applicant has made Annexure -1, the certified copy of the F.I.R. in Criminal Case No. 1426 of 2017 under Sections 120-B I.P.C. read with 201, 204, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477(A) I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) & (d) P.C. Act, Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 Police Station- C.B.I./SCB/Lucknow, District- Lucknow.In the aforesaid F.I.R. details of known/suspected accused with full particulars is given.From perusal of which it appears that including accused applicant total six accused are named who are respectively (1) Sri Indra Jeet Tiwari, Postal Assistant, Account Branch, Lalitpur Head Post Office.(2) Sri Shailesh Khare, Postal Assistant, Saving Bank Control Organization Branch, Lalitpur Head Post Office, Lalitpur.(3) Sri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Postal Assistant, Counter Clerk, Lalitpur Head Post Office (Present applicant).(4) Sri Sunil Tiwari, Agent.(5) Sri Anil Jain @ Anil Kumar Jain, National Savings Agent, Lalitpur Head Post Office.(6) Sri Manoj Singhal, National Savings Agent, Lalitpur Head Post Office, Lalitpur, U.P.The said F.I.R. against the accused-applicant is registered on the complaint in writing made by Sri Mahendra Kumar Srivastav, Senior Superintendent of P.H.O., Jhansi Division, Jhansi addressed to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I./S.C.B., Lucknow on 20.08.2014 with regard to the alleged fraud case of Lalitpur Head Office of Jhansi Division in U.P. Circle.The complainant has informed the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I./S.C.B., Lucknow that pursuant to the two public complaints namely of Sri Manoj Shivhare R/o Nai Basti, Lalitpur and Sri Vinod Jain R/o Ghanta Ghar, Lalitpur with regard to misappropriation of huge amount in 26 Savings Bank Account (particulars are given in the written complaint) standing at Latlitpur Head Post Office under Jhansi Postal Division in U.P. Circle, a preliminary enquiry was done.He further informed that in that preliminary enquiry it comes out that an amount of Rs.16,59,600/- has been defrauded.He further informed that the aforesaid two public complaints have disclosed that through data entry module, the entries of deposit were modified, therefore, all the available informations present in computers i.e. backup, was preserved during preliminary enquiry.The present bail application is of Vinod Kumar Chaudhary who is a co-accused in Criminal Case No.1426 of 2017 [C.B.I. Vs.Indrajeet Tiwari & Ors], Crime No.RC0532014A0006 of P.S. C.B.I./SCB/Lucknow under Sections 120-B read with 201, 204, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477(A) I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) & (d) P.C. Act, Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Court No.6, Lucknow.This first bail application is moved on 14.01.2020 by learned counsel Sri Pranjal Krishna, Advocate who is in assistance with learned Senior Designated Sri Nandit Srivastav, Advocate.Copy of the bail application has already been provided in the office of Additional Solicitor General pursuant thereto learned A.S.G, Senior Designated Sri S.B. Pandey, Advocate in assistance with learned counsel for the Central Government Sri Kazim Ibrahim, Advocate has put in appearance to protest the bail plea.In this connection the preliminary enquiry further revealed that the account numbers mentioned in the aforesaid public complaints were checked in Sanchay Post (A programme of departmental Saving Bank).Out of 26 accounts, Pass books for only 5 S.B. accounts were found available in the Sanchay post and remaining 21 S.B. accounts mentioned in the complaint were shown in computer as "invalid accounts".It was found that the said 21 accounts were deleted from the system after withdrawal of amounts.The said preliminary enquiry report on the basis of which the F.I.R. was registered further discloses that the allegation made in said two public complaints and also in the report of preliminary enquiry, it is prima facie found that there is a gang operating in Lalitpur Head Post Office comprising Sri Indrajeet Tiwari, Postal Assistant, Account Branch, Lalitpur Head Post Office, Sri Shailesh Khare, Postal Assistant, Saving Bank Control Organisation Branch, Lalitpur Head Post Office, Sri Vinod Kr.Chaudhary, Postal Assistant, Counter Clerk, Lalitpur Head Post Office, Sri Sunil Tiwari, Agent, Sri Anil Jain and Sri Manoj Singhal, National Savings Agent, Lalitpur Head Post Office.The mode and manner by which the aforesaid gang of accused persons defrauded the huge amount of public money is described in the complaint and the report of preliminary enquiry that they installed Data Entry Module in there respective systems in Account Branch and then Sri Indrajeet Tiwari and Sri Shailesh Khare used the computer of account branch to modify the deposit amount in the Data Entry Module in the Post Office computer record.Thereafter, they use to sent someone at the counter to withdraw money.At the counter, Sri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Postal Assistant use to help them in taking withdrawal in huge amount.In order to put a smoke screen over these fraudulent withdrawals, this gang used to take witness of above mentioned National Savings Agent on the withdrawal vouchers.On the basis of forged witness done by National Savings Agent, Sri Anil Kumar Jain and Sri Manoj Singhal huge amount of money was misappropriated.It is further complained that in this way they committed fraud in more than six thousand entries and crores of rupees have been defrauded by their gang.In the course of checking other accounts as per ledger entries it was found that from the backup data dated 08.06.2013 in respect of accounts fraudulent entries were made by the gang using Data Entry Module which were actually opened in the name of various different account holders mentioned against them.The amounts were withdrawn by fake/imposter persons with this modus operandi and huge some of money were misappropriated, though the actual depositor have not withdrawn their amount.Their amount was fraudulently withdrawn by the gang.It is further mentioned that it is prima facie responsibility of the counter Postal Assistant and Assistant Post Master (A.P.M.) to check and verify the name and identity of correct account holder which was not done by the officials namely Sri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary and Anil Kumar Jain.The amount of aforesaid 32 accounts is Rs.27,47,200/-, the enquiry report as mentioned in the complaint further discloses that National Savings Agent were also involved in this fraud as it is evident from the fact that amount of Rs.16,59,600/- were credited into the Government account by them namely, Sri Anil Kumar Jain and Sri Manoj Singhal as per report of the Post Master Lalitpur, Head Post Office.The complainant further reveals that the departmental enquiry reached at conclusions, the irregularity in Savings Bank Accounts has been detected with involvement of defrauded amount of Rs.44,01,800/- by the aforesaid modus operandi.It is pertinent to note here that the applicant challenged his prosecution in criminal case no. 1426 of 2017 (C.B.I. Vs.Indrajeet Tiwari and Ors.) detailed hereinabove U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.8428 of 2018 moving Criminal Misc.It was requested by learned counsel for the petitioner that the grievance of the petitioner would be sufficiently met in case bail application of the petitioner is considered expeditiously in accordance with law.The Court ordered "In view thereof, it is provided that if the petitioner surrenders before the Court below within three weeks from today and applies for bail, the court below will consider the same, in accordance with law in view of the observation made in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Vs.State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 328 (Supreme Court).For a period of three weeks, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of."The present bail applicant failed to move the bail application within the aforesaid prescribed time before Special Judge, C.B.I. concerned pursuant to order dated 10.01.2019 and he again moved to the High Court U/S 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that applicant is seriously ill and is suffering from Chronic Hepatitis-B and acute Jaundice, therefore, could not moved the bail application within the aforesaid prescribed time.He further prayed for some more time.The relevant portion whereof is being quoted hereunder:-"Time is extended by one week only.In case petitioner surrenders before the Court below within one week from today and applies for bail, the Court below will consider the same in accordance with law in view of the observation made in the case of Lal Kamlendra 2009 (3) ADJ 328 (Supreme Court)".Pursuant thereto the applicant moved the application for grant of bail before the Special Court, C.B.I., Lucknow.In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application it is stated that pursuant to the F.I.R. dated 28.08.2014 wherein the applicant is accused along with the other co-accused investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed therein on 30.06.2017 against him along with the other co-accused for committing the offence of criminal conspiracy through breach of trust, cheating, forgery of valuable documents, using forged documents as genuine and falsification of accounts by the abuse of official position etc., thereby causing an undue loss of approximately 44,01,800/- to the government exchequer and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves under the relevant Sections of I.P.C.It is argued by learned counsel that a circle level enquiry of this fraud was conducted by Director Postal Services, the report of the enquiry dated 08.05.2015 states the role of Mr. Mahendra Kumar Srivastava (the complainant in present case), the then Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Jhansi Division, Jhansi.It is alleged in this report that Mr. Mahendra Kumar Srivastav (the complainant) is one of the principle offenders of this fraud and was having effective in departmental rules of transfer and posting of employees or officials and also manipulation of records.He was placed under suspension by the Postal Department.The written complaint dated 20.08.2014 made by Sri Mahendra Kumar Srivastav, whereupon on 28.08.2014 the present F.I.R. is registered was submitted on preliminary enquiry done by him on two private complaints dated 04.03.2014 by Mr. Vinod Jain and 05.03.2014 by Mr. Manoj Shivhare.Learned counsel for the bail applicant further drew the attention towards the contents of aforesaid public complaints that they were apparently against Mr. Mahendra Kumar Srivastav himself along with the other three accused.Even then he was entrusted with the preliminary enquiry which he did almost in five years and thus save his skin, he fabricated the things towards the accused applicant.Some of the co-accused who are National Savings Agent were also shown in the commission of offence under conspiracy.As such each of the accused in the present case shown equally involved in the offence apparently have similar role as alleged in the prosecution case.The role of the applicant in the F.I.R as alleged is merely on speculation, the evidence with regard thereto is neither mentioned in the preliminary enquiry report, FIR nor in the charge sheet, therefore, prima facie the role, complicity and involvement of the accused in the alleged conspiracy is not established.Learned counsel further argued that so far as allegation as to the offence of forgery of valuable security and that of cheating, dishonesty, inducing delivery of property is concerned, the applicant has neither forged nor destroyed any valuable security, nor it is the case of prosecution also, moreover, the bare perusal of the charge sheet sufficiently shows that no act of applicant can make him liable within the scope of the above mentioned offences.Learned counsel further argued the applicant had ever been co-operative with the Investigating Officer, he has completed about four years service honestly and with full dedication to the Postal Department, he has to live life, which is expected to be considerably long, therefore, his application for release on bail should be considered on the aforesaid reasons.Learned counsel further submitted that as prima facie no offence is made out against the applicant and in aforesaid offences, the Special Court, C.B.I. has released on bail the co-accused Shailesh Khare vide order dated 24.01.2018 and Kalu Ram vide order dated 14.05.2019 (Annexure No.9).Later on the co-accused Anil Kumar Jain, Manoj Kumar Singhal were also granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.07.2019 (Annexure No.10), therefore, he should also be released on bail so that he may be able to put his defence properly when the trial begins.Learned counsel further argued that despite the submission of charge sheet on 30.06.2017 still the trial has not begin, the accused is in Jail since 07.01.2020, though he is suffering from serious ailment, the Chronic Hepatitis-B and he is suffering a lot in incarceration.Learned counsel has made Annexure No.11 to the bail application, the medical prescription and treatment with that regard.During the entire period he had never been arrested but he never absconded from the process of the investigation, he has no criminal history.Learned counsel concluded his argument with a prayer to release the accused-applicant on bail.On the other hand, learned A.S.G. has opposed the bail plea of the accused-applicant on the ground that accused-applicant is participant in criminal conspiracy for withdrawing fraudulently from the National Savings Bank account of the depositors in Post Office which is public money.The accused applicant along with other co-accused has drained out a huge amount of public money.Learned A.S.G. further argued that it is clear and evident that National Savings Agents were also involved by the accused applicant and his companions in the conspiracy to commit the fraud.From the fact that the aforesaid agents arraigned in the present crime case have deposited Rs. 16,59,600/- and the same have been credited in the relevant account.The said National Savings Agent are Sri Anil Kumar Jain and Sri Manoj Singhal who are co-accused with the present applicant and other co-accused.Learned A.S.G. drew the attention towards the role of the present applicant that he is Postal Assistant and Counter Clerk, he has duty to verify the person seeking withdrawal of amount and present before him on the counter by documents like K.Y.C., Aadhar, etc. The applicant illegally omitted to discharge his duties acting under under the conspiracy and let the withdrawal done on the forged documents by imposters.He further submitted that during investigation it is implicated that the accused applicant working as counter clerk intentionally without identifying the real account holders done the process of withdrawal therefrom on the basis of forged identity presented by imposters.Learned A.S.G. argued that this was role of accused participant in the conspiracy and as such the applicant forged more than 400 Savings Account and withdrew amount from more than 100 accounts in aforesaid manner.Thereafter the original data entry and accounts were modified and deleted.According to prosecution the fraudulent withdrawal of amount was done from more than 169 National Savings Account with the complicity and involvement of the accused-applicant, causing the loss of Rs.1,31,35,200/-, this is a huge amount.He further submitted that the applicant as it is revealed from the record, was absconding and when on 21.03.2018 an N.B.W was issued, after a considerable delay, when process was issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 02.12.2019 of the Special Court and enforced, he put appearance before the Court.As such the argument of learned counsel for the bail applicant is not true that accused-applicant co-operated during the investigation and he will ensure his attendance during trial, as it is doubtful from the conduct of the accused, therefore, he should not be released on bail so as to ensure the trial to proceed further.This is also the case of prosecution that the officials of the post office namely Indrajeet Tiwari, Shailesh Khare and the present accused-applicant, Vinod Kumar Chaudhary were in collusive concert and conspiracy with the co-accused Sri Sunil Tiwari (Agent), Sri Anil Jain, Sri Manoj Singhal, National Savings Agent and thus had developed a modus operandi, wherein the amount deposited in National Savings Account in post office by public was used to have been withdrawn on forwarding of other co-accused, putting forth fictitious and imposter depositors in place of real depositors.For withdrawal they used forged documents and the applicant as Counter Clerk used to accept the forged identity of the imposters without any verification with the original entries fed in the computer.Thus he permitted the withdrawal.Thereafter the three co-accused, the officials of a Bank used to modify the entries accordingly and thereafter delete the same.Their roles cannot be assessed as lesser or heavier as they have committed the offence in concert with each other with a common object to give effect to the dishonest and illegal withdrawals.If all these are proved by evidences in trial, the punishment would be severe, they cannot be placed at this stage at different pedestals, even the National Savings Agent, co-accused in the present case are also liable to be placed on the same pedestal along with the other co-accused.From the order of this Court dated 10.01.2019 in Criminal Misc.Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. bearing no.8428 of 2018, it reflects that stay of arrest was sought on the ground of applicant's suffering from Chronic Hepatitis-B whereupon for the interim period arrest was stayed prescribing time to appear before the Special Court for moving application for bail.The medical prescriptions of the applicant along with the medical prescription of his wife, have already been annexed along with the bail application [Annexure-11 of the bail application]"Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In Crl.A.No.582 of 2013:-For Appellant :Mr.P.G.Perumal Priyan For Respondent :Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor In Crl.A.No.619 of 2013:-For Appellant :Mr.M.L.Ramesh For Respondent :Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor In Crl.A.No.385 of 2013:-For Appellant :Mr.G.Ramkumar For Respondent :Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor In Crl.A.No.371 of 2013:-The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Vimala.P.W.1 is her husband.P.W.1 was working as a Salesman in a private concern.The deceased was doing cloth business at her house itself.P.W.1 was assisting her in the said business.It was the practice of P.W.1 to leave the house for his work in the morning at 9.00 am and to return to his house around 6.30 pm.On 20.01.2012, in the usual course, P.W.1 had left the house for his work leaving the deceased alone at his house.3.Thereafter, around 12.45 pm on the same day, the deceased called him over phone and informed that A.3 who was already known to the deceased and P.W.1 had come to their house for the purpose of purchasing clothes in connection with a function at his house.Then within a short while, the deceased again called P.W.1 over phone and informed that A.3 had taken only two shirts promising to visit again to purchase rest of the clothes.P.W.1 instructed the deceased to sell the clothes to A.3 only after receiving the cost.4.Around 4.00 pm on the same day, P.W.1 tried to contact the deceased through her cell phone.But, the cell phone of the deceased was in a switched off mode.Then, at around 6.30 to 7.00 pm, as usual, P.W.1 returned to his house.He was in possession of one of the keys for the outer gate of the house.With that key, he opened the lock of the outer gate and entered into the premises but, the main door of the house was found locked.P.W.2 immediately rushed to the house of P.W.1 at about 9.45 pm.When they enquired at the house of a neighbour as to whether the deceased had given a key of the main door of the house, they told in the negative.Therefore, P.Ws.1 & 2 got perplexed.By using a hammer then they broke open the lock of the main door of the house.When they entered into the house, they found that there were blood stains on the floor.The bureau was found opened and the wife of P.W.1 was not however seen.When P.W.1 searched for her, he found the deceased lying dead underneath the cot, in a pool of blood.The clothes and other materials kept in the bureau were found lying outside.He proceeded to the place of occurrence, after leaving a request to the Finger Print Expert to come to the place of occurrence.At 1.00 am on 21.01.2012, on reaching the place of occurrence, P.W.18 prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness.The Finger Print Expert who had already arrived, made a thorough search in the place of occurrence and lifted two chance finger prints from the bureau of the house.The Police Photographer arranged by P.W.18 came to the place of occurrence and took photographs from various angles at the place of occurrence.But, the same turned futile, as it could not get any clue for the investigation.P.W.18 recovered blood stained cement plasters and the ordinary cement plasters from the place of occurrence under a mahazar.P.24 is the post mortem certificate.P.W.16 gave opinion that the death was due to strangulation and also due to the head injuries.He further opined that the death would have occurred 24 hours prior to the post mortem.6.P.W.18 recovered the blood stained clothes from the body of the deceased.When the investigation was in progress, on 24.01.2012 at about 5.30 pm, it is alleged that A.3 and A.4 appeared before P.W.8 who was the then Village Administrative Officer of Virudhachalam.According to him, A.3 & A.4, were already known to him.On such appearance, A.3 & A.4 told him that along with A.1 and A.2 they had killed the deceased and in connection with the same, they wanted to give confession.TN 20 AK 4105 and jewels and the other material objects.In pursuance of the same, he took P.W.18 and the another witness to South of his house and produced a gold bangle weighing 3 soverigns (M.O.2) and the other material objects viz., sarees and shirts.P.W.18 recovered the same under a mahazar.On returning to the police station, he forwarded A.3 and A.4 to Court for judicial remand and also handed over the Material Objects to Court.7.On 26.01.2012, at 2.00 am, at Erumanur Village, when P.W.18 was on vehicle check up, the Tata Sumo bearing registration No.TN 49 H 1666 was found moving.P.W.18 intercepted the same.A.1, A.2 & A.5 were in the Car.There were blood stains found on the knife.The cutting portion of the knife was slightly bent.A.1 further produced a key punch with two keys (M.O.16); yet another key punch with 5 keys (M.O.17); one Nokia cell phone (M.O.32) and yet another cell-Samsung cell phone (M.O.33).Then he produced the jewels viz., three row chain (M.O.3); a bracelet (M.O.14); a three stone nose pin and two nose pins (M.O.4 series) three rings (M.O.5 series) a thali (M.O.12); a thali chain (M.O.13).P.W.18 recovered all these Material Objects under a mahazar and the original sale deed (M.O.15) pertaining to the house of P.W.1 and the deceased.Then P.W.18 altered the case into one under Sections 392, 302, 376 and 414 I.P.C., and submitted an alteration report to the Court.8.P.W.18 forwarded A.1 for medical examination.P.W.15  Dr.Saravanan, conducted medical examination on A.1 and certified that he was capable of performing penile sex with a woman.P.W.12, in turn, informed that he had pledged those jewels at Muthoot Finance, Veeraganur Village.In pursuance of the same, on 02.04.2012, at 11.00 am, P.W.18 recovered the jewels (M.Os.6,7,8,9,10,11) under a mahazar.He examined the officials of the Muthoot Finance and recorded their statements.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, as many as 18 witnesses were examined and 28 documents were exhibited besides 33 Material Objects.10.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 has stated that on the day of occurrence, he left the house in the morning to his work spot.He has further stated by around 12.45 pm, the deceased told over phone and informed him that A.3 had come to purchase clothes.Again after some time, according to P.W.1, the deceased spoke to him and told him that A.3 had taken only two shirts and promised her to come again to purchase rest of the items.He has further stated that at 4.00 pm, when he tried to contact the deceased over cell phone, her cell phone was in a switched off mode.He has further stated that between 6.30 and 7.00 pm, he returned home and the house was found locked.For Appellant :Mr.S.Prabhakaran For Respondent :Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor In Crl.A.No.350 of 2013:-For Appellant :Mr.Prasanna Venkates For Respondent :Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor COMMON JUDGMENT(Common Judgement of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu.J) The appellant in Crl.A.No.582 of 2013 is A.1; the appellant in Crl.A.No.619 of 2013 is A.2; the appellant in Crl.A.No.385 of 2013 is A.3; the appellant in Crl.A.No.371 of 2013 is A.4 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.350 of 2013 is A.5 in S.C.No.130 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai.The trial Court framed as many as six charges as detailed below:-ChargesAccusedSection of lawCharge No.lAccused 1 to 4120(B) I.P.C.,Charge No.2A.1376 I.P.C.,Charge No.3A.1302 I.P.C.,Charge No.4A.1 to A.4392 r/w 397 I.P.C.,Charge No.5A.2 to A.4302 r/w 34 I.P.C.,Charge No.6A.5414 I.P.C., By judgment dated 22.04.2013, the trial Court convicted all the accused under all the charges and sentenced them as detailed below:-Accused Section of lawSentenceA.1120(B) I.P.C.,392 r/w 397 I.P.C.,Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one yearA.2 to A.4120(B) I.P.C.,302 r/w 34 I.P.C.,392 r/w 397 I.P.C.,Rigorous imprisonment for two years Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two yearsRigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one yearA.5414 I.P.C.,Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.The trial Court has ordered the sentences to run concurrently.Through the outside electricity switch, he put on the lights outside and went to the nearby Tea Shop, believing that the deceased had gone elsewhere in connection with some work.Even after, he returned from the Tea shop for a long time, the deceased did not return.P.W.1 therefore, informed P.W.2, a friend of him about the same.The jewels kept in the bureau, the keys of the house and the keys of the bureau were found missing.There was a long cut injury on the neck of the deceased.5.P.W.17, the then Sub Inspector of Police on receipt of such complaint, registered a case in Crime No.51/2012 for offence under Sections 392 & 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.25 is F.I.R. He forwarded both the complaint (Ex.Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.27, Inquest Report.Then, he forwarded the body for post mortem.P.W.16 conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 21.01.2012 at 1.30 pm.He found the following injuries:-External injuries noted:- 1.All finger nails cyanosed.2.Right eye  upper eye lid contused  size 4cm x 1cm x 0.5 cm with conjunctional haemorrhage.3.Laceration of abrasions  (a) 0.5 cm  upper part of front of neck  1cm below the chin.4.Curved abrasions (a) 0.5 cm long 1 cm below the middle of right lower jaw.(b) 1.5 cm long  centre of neck  4 cm above the suprasternal notch (c)1cm long  left side of neck  8 cm from angle of left mandible (d) 1 cm long  left side of neck  7cm from angle of mandible.5.Contusion of size 2cm x 1cm x 0.5 cm over right mandible6.Lower lip contused right side  2cm x 1cm x 0.5 cm.Tip of tongue 0.5cm protrauding between the teeth7.Contusion of size 9cmx2cmx1cm over middle and right side of forehead.8.Contusion of left chest  upper part  2 in number 8cm x 1cm x0.5 cm 16cm x 6xm x 0.5 cm one below the other.9.Contusion of size 8cm x 2cm x0.5 cm lower part of left chest.10.Contusion of size 11 cm x 2cmx0.5 cm over left chest  lower part and upper abdominal wall  lateral aspect.11.Contusion of size 4cm x 1cm x0.5 cm over medial aspect of left upper thigh.Ex.A.3 further told that if, he went to the Police Station to surrender, they would assault him and therefore, he had come to P.W.8 to surrender.After these long conversation, P.W.8 allowed A.3 to confess.When P.W.18 interrogated, A.1 on his own, volunteered to give a confession.P.W.18 recorded the said confession in the presence of P.W.11 and another witness.P.W.18 recovered the said Car (M.O.24) under a mahazar.A.1 produced a knife from the said Car.At his request, the material objects were sent for chemical examination.On completing investigation, P.W.18 laid charge sheet against all the five accused.9.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.He opened the main compound gate of the house with the key in his possession.Till 9.45 pm, the deceased did not come.He informed P.W.2 and on his arrival, both of them broke open the main door of the house and they found the deceased underneath the cot lying in a pool of blood and there were injuries on the body of the deceased.P.W.1 has further stated about the missing of articles viz., M.Os.1 to 17 from the house.He had identified the said Material Objects as stolen properties.P.W.2 a family friend of P.W.1 has stated that on receiving message from P.W.1, he rushed to the house of P.W.1 and by using a hammer, they broke open the lock of the main door and they found the deceased underneath the cot lying in a pool of blood with injuries.P.W.2 has further stated about the complaint made by P.W.1 to Police. P.W.3 who is the brother of P.W.1 has stated that at or about the occurrence, he found A.1 to A.3 moving towards the house of the deceased.When he enquired them, they told that they are going to the house of the deceased to purchase clothes.He has stated that he heard about the occurrence and then came to the place of occurrence and he has stated on the basis of only hearsay information.P.W.5 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.6 has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar and the rough sketch, in the place of occurrence and the recovery of material objects from the place of occurrence.P.W.7 is the Scientific Expert who examined the material objects sent to him.He has stated that he found human blood stains in all the material objects including the knife recovered from A.1 (M.O.25).P.W.8 has further stated about the fact that A.3 gave a voluntary confession which he reduced into writing.The said confession is Ex.He has further stated that he has produced A.3 & A.4 to P.W.18 and he has also stated about the disclosure statements made by A.3 & A.4 to P.W.18 and the consequential recoveries of the material objects at their instances.12.P.W.9 is the Finger Print Expert.He has stated that on the request made by P.W.18, he rushed to the place of occurrence and thoroughly examined the entire house for chance finger print at last, he found two chance finger prints on the left side door of the bureau in the bed room of the house where the deceased was lying dead.He marked the same as Exs.He took photographs of the same.However, they did not tally.Thereafter, when he compared the same the chance finger prints with the finger prints of the culprits available in the Finger Print Bureau, he found the finger print of A.1 tallied with the chance finger print (Ex.M.2) The said finger print of A.1 had been taken and preserved in connection with the case in Crime No.19/2011 under Sections 302 & 379 I.P.C., on the file of the Edaikal Police Station.In this connection, he submitted a report to P.W.18 under Ex.After the arrest of A.2, according to him, the finger print taken from A.2 was compared by him which tallied with the chance finger print (Ex.M.1) taken from the place of occurrence.In this regard, he submitted yet another report under Ex.13.P.W.10 is a Mechanic by profession working at Virudhachalam.He has stated that on 20.01.2012, A.3 had left his motor cycle to him for repair and then, he took it back on the same day evening.Thus, the evidence of P.W.10 is in no way help the case of the prosecution.The confession made by them and the recoveries of material objects.14.P.W.12 is the vital witness for the prosecution.He has stated that on 21.01.2012, A.1 came to him and gave him some of the stolen articles for the purpose of pledging.Accordingly, in order to help A.1, P.W.12, pledged the said jewels at Muthoot Finance, Veeraganur Village and gave him Rs.14,200/-.P.W.12 has further stated that some more jewels were pledged by him at Manapuram Gold, Veeraganur Village.On the arrest of A.1 and on the disclosure statement made by him, P.W.12 has identified P.Ws.13 & 14, the branch Managers of Muthoot Finance and Manapuram Gold.According to them, the stolen articles were recovered by P.W.18 under Exs.P.20 and 21 mahazar.P.W.15 is the Doctor who examined A.1 has given an opinion that A.1 was capable of performing penal sexual intercourse with a woman.P.W.16 has spoken about the post mortem conducted on the body of the deceased and her final opinion regarding the cause of the death.P.Ws.17 & 18 have spoken about the investigation done in this case and the final report filed.15.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, they denied the same as false.On the side of A.3, Mr.Ramadoss was examined as D.W.1; Mr.Manikandan @ Kalaimani (A.3) was examined as D.W.2 and four documents were exhibited as Exs.D.1 is the report of a local vernacular news paper dated 22.01.2012; Ex.D.2 is a copy of the voters identity card of A.2; Ex.16.Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted all the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.Challenging the same, the appellants/accused 1 to 5 are before this Court with these Criminal Appeals.17.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.18.This is a case based on circumstantial evidence.It is needless to point out that, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove the circumstances projected by it, beyond reasonable doubts and all such proved circumstances, should form a complete chain, without any break, so as to unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and there should not be any other hypothesis which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused.Keeping this broad principle in mind, let us go into the circumstances projected by the prosecution in the present case.19.The first and foremost circumstance projected by the prosecution is that on 20.01.2012, at about 9.00 am, when P.W.1 left for his company concerned, where he was working, he left the deceased alone at his house.Thus, from the evidence of P.W.1, it is crystal clear that the deceased was lastly seen alive at 9.00 am on the day of occurrence.20.The next circumstance projected by the prosecution is that according to P.W.1 at about 12.45 pm, the deceased spoke to him over cell phone and informed him that A.3 who was already known to their family had come to purchase certain cloth items in connection with a function at his house.He had selected certain cloth items to purchase.Within a short while thereafter, the deceased again called him and informed him that A.3 had taken only two shirts and had assured to come again to purchase the rest of the clothes.P.W.1 instructed her to collect the price and then to sell the clothes in the event A.3 came.This was the last call received from the deceased.We do not find any reason to reject this part of evidence.21.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the call details regarding the above phone calls between the deceased and P.W.1 have not been collected by the prosecution from the cell phone service providers.Ofcourse, it is a flaw.Had the call details been collected by the Police that would have given added strength to the case of the prosecution.In our considered view, the failure to collect those call details from the cell phone service providers has not in any manner caused any dent in the case of the prosecution, as P.W.1 had no axe to grind against these accused.22.It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that at 4.00 pm, he tried to contact the deceased over phone.The cell phone of the deceased was in a switch off mode.This would only indicate that the deceased was either dead and was not in a position to attend the call.It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that as per the usual course, he returned to his house around 6.30 and 7.00 pm on the day of occurrence.He found the main door of the house locked from outside.He had one key of the compound gate.Hence, he opened the compound gate, went inside the compound, switched on the outer lights.Since, he had no key of the main door of the house, he went to the nearby tea shop.After returning from the tea shop, he found the deceased had not returned.He waited for some time.Thereafter, he called P.W.2 over phone.At 9.45 pm, they broke open the main door of the house and they found the deceased dead and lying in a pool of blood with injuries inside the house.They also came to know that some of the properties had been stolen away.23.The deceased was found lying in a pool of blood and there were also injuries.The Doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased had opined that the deceased would have died due to strangulation as well as due to the other injuries found on the body of the deceased.24.P.W.1 has stated that M.Os.1 to 14 were found missing from the house of P.W.1 which includes the key punch with keys relating to the main door of the house and the key punch with keys relating to the bureau of P.W.1 & the deceased and also certain title deeds relating to property.These facts have been mentioned at the earliest point of time even in Ex.The assailants were not known.Therefore, it cannot be argued that the details of the stolen properties had been mentioned only for the purpose of the case.It is crystal clear that at the very first instance, P.W.1 had mentioned about the missing of M.Os.1 to 14 in Ex.P.1 itself which duly corroborates his oral evidence.Thus, the prosecution has established that M.Os.1 to 14 had been stolen away in the same occurrence in which, the deceased was done to death.Thus, it is presumable that the person or persons who committed murder of the deceased had committed robbery of the jewels viz., M.Os.1 to 14 also.25.Now, the next important question is as to who committed the above crime.26.So far as A.5 is concerned, in order to prove that he was one of the assailants/culprits who committed the crime, the prosecution relies only on the extra judicial confession said to have been given by A.3 to P.W.8 on 24.01.2012 at 5.30 pm.There is no other evidence against him.27.Now, turning to the case against A.4, according to the case of the prosecution, on 24.01.2012 at 5.30 pm, he appeared before P.W.8 along with A.3 and told him that he also wanted to surrender to the Police in connection with the above crime.P.W.8 admitted during cross examination that A.3 alone gave confession and he reduced the same into writing.It is his further evidence that A.4 did not give any confession.P.W.18 arrested him and on such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession, in which, certain Material Objects were marked one of the material objects is the Tata Sumo bearing registration No.TN 20 4105 (M.O.20).The other material objects recovered from A.4 have also not been connected to the crime.M.Os.1 to 14 have been marked as stolen properties.Out of the properties recovered on the disclosure statement made by A.4, there was only one gold item which is a gold bangle with the inscription of 916 hallmark weighing 3 soverigns.P.W.1 has identified M.O.2 bangle as one of the stolen properties.28.Now, turning to the case against A.1 to A.3, P.W.3 Mr.Veeramani has stated that on 20.01.2012, he found all these accused viz., A.1 to A.3 moving towards the house of the deceased.When he enquired them, they told that they were going to the house of the deceased to purchase clothes.From this evidence, the prosecution, to some extent, has proved that A.1 to A.3 were together moving towards the house of the deceased at or about the time of occurrence.We do not find any reason to reject the evidence of P.W.3 which is very convincing.29.The learned counsel for the appellants would however, submit that there was no test identification parade conducted for these three accused.But, a perusal of the evidence of P.W.3 would go to show that he has stated that all these three accused were already known to him and therefore, the argument that there should have been prior test identification parade, deserves only to be rejected.30.Then, comes the vital evidence of chance finger prints found at the place of occurrence.P.W.9, the finger print expert has stated that on the request made by P.W.18, he visited the place of occurrence and searched for chance finger print and at last, he found two chance finger prints, on the left side door of the bureau in the bed room of the deceased where the deceased was lying dead.Since, the properties were stolen away from the bureau the culprits had occasion to handle the door of the bureau.31.P.W.9 has further stated that he lifted those two chance finger prints and marked the same as Exs.He has further stated that when he compared the same with the finger prints of the inmates of the house namely P.W.1 and the deceased and also that of P.W.2, they did not tally with the same.He preserved the same.He has further stated that he compared the said chance finger prints with the admitted finger prints of the accused involved in various cases which were preserved by the Finger Print Bureau.He found on comparison that the finger print of the first accused herein preserved in connection with the case in Crime No.19/2011 under Sections 302 & 379 I.P.C., on the file of the Edaikal Police Station, tallied with the chance finger print marked as Ex.Thus, from this evidence, the prosecution has clearly proved that A.1 had gone into the house of the deceased and that is how his finger print had come into being on the left side door of the bureau of the house.Similarly, after the arrest of A.2, the sample finger print taken from him was compared and the same was tallied with the sample finger print marked as Ex.32.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the photograph of the chance finger prints taken have not been marked in evidence.Therefore, we hold that the said chance finger prints belonging to A.1 and A.2 found at the bureau at the house of the deceased is a very strong circumstance to prove that A.1 & A.2 had gone to the house of the deceased at or about the time of occurrence and handled the bureau.33.The next circumstance is the arrest of A.1, A.2 & A.5 on 26.01.2012 at 2.00 am.During routine vehicle check up by P.W.18, he intercepted the vehicle bearing registration No.TN 49 H 1666 and on such interception, A.1 gave a voluntary confession out of which, some of the stolen properties were recovered and from out of the disclosure statement made by A.2, some more stolen properties were recovered.The details of the stolen properties so recovered on their disclosure statements have already been dealt with herein above elaborately.34.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that P.W.1 has admitted during cross examination that A.1 was brought to the place of occurrence by about 1.00 am on the next day of the occurrence itself.From out of this, the learned counsel would submit that the story propounded by the prosecution that A.1, A.2 & A.5 were arrested only on 21.06.2012 at 2.00 am cannot be true.Ofcourse, he has stated that on the next day of the occurrence, at 1.00 am, A.1 was brought to the place of occurrence by the Police.But, we are not prepared to give much weightage for this part of evidence of P.W.1 because, due to fading memory, P.W.1 would have stated so.Therefore, much weightage cannot be given for that part of evidence.35.P.W.11 is an independent witness.A.1 & A.2 have got no explanation regarding the possession of stolen articles including the key punch of the main door as well as the key punch of the bureau which have been mentioned in the F.I.R., itself.In the absence of any such explanation by A.1 and A.2 for the possession of the above stated stolen articles, we have no option but, to presume as provided in Section 114 Indian Evidence Act that these two accused had also committed the crime in question.36.The evidences of P.Ws.12, 13 & 14 also lend assurance to the fact that on 21.01.2012, A.1 was found in possession of some of the stolen properties which were given to P.W.12 by him and P.W.12 in turn, produced the same to P.Ws.13 & 14 for the purpose of pledging.The evidences of P.Ws.12 to 14 also further lend assurance to the above conclusion which we have arrived at.So far as A.3 is concerned, undoubtedly, his confession to P.W.8 is a substantive evidence against him.From these circumstances, the prosecution in our considered view, has clearly established that A.1 to A.3 had gone to the house of the deceased under the guise of purchasing clothes and committed murder of the deceased and also stolen away the valuable articles as detailed herein above.Thus, so far as A.1 to A.3 are concerned, we hold that the prosecution has clearly proved their guilt and therefore, the appeals filed by A.1 to A.3 are liable to be dismissed.38.Now, turning to the quantum of punishment imposed on A.1 to A.3, the trial Court has imposed only a minimum punishment which does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.Thus, we do not find any merit in the appeals filed by A.1 to A.3 viz., Crl.39.In the result, Crl.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This Petition is for quashing and setting aside the FIRregistered against the Petitioners at Kalwa Police Station being C.R.No.I-197 of 2018 for a offence punishable under sections 326, 506of IPC.The Respondent No.2 - original complainant as well asthe aggrieved person viz. Ashad Zakir Hussain Mullaji have filedseparate affidavit dated 26th July 2018 thereby giving no objection toset aside the crime bearing C.R. No.On specific querymade by us, she submitted that she has made the said affidavit onher own free will, without there being any pressure or undueinfluence.She has further confirmed that she has no objection forquashing the subject FIR initiated by her against the Petitioners.We have carefully gone through the FIR on the basis ofwhich offence has been registered against the present Applicantsunder sections 326, 504 of IPC.Perusal of the complaint wouldreveal a verbal altercation took place between the complainant onone hand and the accused persons and this altercation culminatedinto an assault with the aid of wooden bamboo which was lying at thespot.The two rival parties have amicably settled the disputesbetween themselves and buried the hatchet.Not only this, they saythat since they are neighbours, they want to live like good neighboursand that was the reason for restoring friendly ties.

['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The facts of the case are that Plots No.14 and 16 situated at Scheme No.54, Mechanic Nagar Extension, Indore were allotted to Smt. Sunanda Gupta and Smt. Vandana Gupta vide lease-deed dated 25.08.2005 for a period of twenty years.Later on, the lease hold rights were transferred by the aforesaid lessee to one MP Real Estate & Developers vide sale-deed dated 01.11.2006, whereby the lease hold rights were transferred by Smt. Sunanda Gupta and Smt. Vandana Gupta.On 04.11.2008, the applicantThe facts of the case are that Plots No.14 and 16- M/s. SCS Builders & Developers (P) Limited purchased the lease hold rights and moved an application on 09.01.2009 for mutation, but the mutation has not taken place in spite of number of reminders given to the respondents.It is submitted that order dated 14.07.2015 was never served on the applicant and only on 31.10.2015, the respondents sent copy of the same to the applicant.He has also drawn my attention to the order passed in the writ petition and writ appeal and submitted that by the aforesaid order, the prayer for mutation on the ground that the original record is with Economic Offence Wing; and secondly, the original lay out plan has been changed, and rejected the application.Relevant part of the order 4 dated 14.07.2015, which is at page No.4 of the order, reads as under: -"izdj.k ds laca/k esa mDr leLr ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, iz'uk/khu Hkw[kaMksa ds laca/k esa fLFkfr fuEukuqlkj gS%& 1- e-iz- jkT; vkfFkZd vijk/k vUos"k.k C;wjksa e-iz- Hkksiky@bankSj }kjk tkap izdj.k dz-8@2008 ds i'pkr vijk/k dz- 11@2008 /kkjk 420] 467] 468] 471] 120&ch Hkk-n-fo- ,oa 13 1 Mh] 13 2 Hkz"V vkpj.k fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1988 ds varxZr iathc) fd;k tkdj iz'uk/khu Hkw[kaMksa dh O;fDrxr ufLr;ka tIr dh tk pqdh gSaA 2- iz'uk/khu Hkw[kaMksa dh fLFkfr ,oa {ks=Qy esa la'kksf/kr ys vkmV vuqlkj ifjorZu fd;k x;k Fkk ftlds laca/k esa fo'ks"k U;k;ky; esa izdj.k 9@09 ntZ gksdj yafcr gSA izdj.k esa la'kksf/kr ys&vkmV vuqlkj ifjorZu ij fu.kZ; gksuk gSaA vr% iz'uk/khu Hkw[kaM dzekad 14 ,oa 16 ds varj.k ds vkosnu mijksDr vk/kkj ij fujLr fd;s tkrs gSaA mDr U;k;ky;hu izdj.ksa ds fujkdj.k ds i'pkr vkosnd ls uohu vkosnu izkIr gksus ij U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds ifjizs{; esa dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsxhA"As per record, the aforesaid crime has been registered by the State Economic Offence Bureau against the original allottee i.e. against Smt. Sunanda Gupta and Smt. Vandana Gupta and certain Officers of the IDA, and therefore, record pertaining to the aforesaid plots has been seized by them.The complete set of documents could not be made available to the 5 respondents, and therefore, order dated 14.07.2015 has been passed by the respondent - IDA.Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that the same stand was taken in the writ petition and once the aforesaid objection was turned down and the learned Writ Court directed to pass an appropriate order regarding mutation, then the respondents could have passed the order of mutation in-stead of rejecting the application on the pretext that the original records are not available with them.Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed and the charges framed against the petitioner in Special Case No.09/2009 vide impugned order dated 06.04.2016 are hereby quashed."From the aforesaid, it is not in dispute that land of Plots No.14 and 16, Scheme No.54, Mechanic Nagar Extension, Indore were allotted on lease for a period of 25 years, i.e. up to 2030, as per the terms and conditions of lease-deed dated 21.10.2005 registered on 28.08.2005, transfer / alienation is permissible.

['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

[a] The accused 1 and 2 are brothers.They are residents of Lakshimayur Village in Omalur Taluk.The first accused had a son by name Selvam and another son by name Venkatesan.The first accused was living with his family members, including his sons.Mr.Selvam (since deceased) was involving in petty thefts.Despite the warning and advice given by the first accused, he had not stopped the same.It is further alleged that because of the said bad conduct of the deceased Selvam, the first accused decided to do away with him.[b] On 24.10.2010 at about 10.00 p.m. the first accused had gone to Thuvaraikadu and he was waiting there.He had asked his another son Venkatesan to bring Selvam to Thuvaraikadu.Accordingly, Venkatesan [juvenile accused] took the deceased to Thuvaraikadu.By about 12 midnight, the first accused pushed the deceased down and Venkatesan killed him.Then, the first accused cut the deceased with koduval on his head.The deceased succumbed to the injuries instantaneously.Then, the accused 1 and 2 returned to their house.After concealing the koduval at his house, the first accused met his brother the second accused and informed him about the same.Then the accused 1 and 2 decided to cause disappearance of the body.Therefore, together they went to Thuvaraikadu with a gunny bag, put the dead body into the gunny bag, hid the same with stones and pushed it into a well.This occurrence was not noticed by anyone.[c] On 25.10.2010, at about 8.00 a.m., the first accused went to P.W.1, the then Village Administrative Officer of Taramangalam and wanted to confess about the above occurrence.P.W.1 agreed to record the same.The first accused then gave a voluntary confession narrating the above events and admitting his guilt as well as the guilt of his son Venkatesan and the second accused.The first accused subscribed his Left Thumb Impression to the same.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.213 of 2012 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem.He stood charged for offences under Sections 364 r/w 34, 302 and 201 IPC.Including the appellant, there were two accused.By judgment dated 27.03.2013, the trial Court convicted both the accused.The trial Court, however, acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 364 r/w 34 IPC.So far as the first accused/appellant is concerned, he was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and for the offence under Section 201 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused/appellant is before this Court with this appeal.He took the first accused along with Exs.P.W.11, the Sub Inspector of Police on receipt of Exs.P1 and P2, registered a case in Cr.No.460 of 2010 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against all the three accused, including the juvenile.P16 is the FIR.Then, he forwarded Exs.P.W.15 arrested the first accused in the presence of P.W.1 and another witness.On such arrest, at 10.00 a.m., he made a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had thrown the dead body of the deceased.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the well and identified the same.P.W.15 prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch showing the place of occurrence [Exs.P25 and 26] in the presence of the same witnesses.Then he gave intimation to the Fire and Rescue Service for help.When his men climbed down the well, they found a gunny bag immersed in water.They brought it out.When it was opened, the dead body of the deceased was found inside.P.W.15 then conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for post-mortem.[e] P.W.5 conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased on 26.10.2010 at 1.00 p.m. He found the following injuries:"An oblique wide open chopped injury involving front and right side of neck M- 20 x 10 x bone deep with exposing of trachea and oesophagus with underlying pre and para vertebral muscle contused.O/D Underlying blood vessels, soft tissue, nerves, right side carotid, vertebral artery, external and internal jugular vein severed, with sternomastoid muscle severed.The cut fracture of cervical spine C2 with severance of underlying spinal cord served.This injury is situated at the level of 8 cms above supra sternal notch and 5 cms below mid chin on right side."He opined that the death of the deceased was due to effects of shock and haemorrhage due to neck injury.According to him, the death would have occurred 36 hours prior to the autopsy.[f] P.W.15 continued the investigation.On the disclosure statement made by the first accused, he produced a blood stained shirt and a blood stained pant from his house.At 6.15 p.m., on 25.10.2010, P.W.15 recovered the same.On the same day, at 5.00 p.m., he arrested the juvenile accused Venkatesan and the second accused Raja.On such arrest, the juvenile accused Venkatesan gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden M.Os.4 and 5 [multiple colour full hand shirt and grey colour pant].On returning to the police station, P.W.15 forwarded the accused to Court for judicial remand and handed over all the material objects to the Court, with a request to send the same for chemical examination.The Chemical Analysis Report reveals that these material objects, including the aruval which was recovered at the instance of the first accused contained human blood.On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.[g] Since Mr.Venkatesan was found to be a juvenile in conflict of law, he was proceeded against before the appropriate Juvenile Justice Board.These two accused alone faced the trial before the trial Court.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the above charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined and 29 documents were exhibited, besides 11 material objects.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 has spoken about the extra judicial confession given by the first accused.P.Ws.2, 6, 7 and 8 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.3 is the owner of the well.He has stated that the gunny bag was found in the well.P.W.4 also has stated that the dead body was taken from the well.P.W.5 has spoken about the post-mortem conducted and the Final Report regarding the cause of death.P.W.9 - Fire service man has stated that he lifted the dead body from the well with the help of his men.P.W.10 has spoken about the photographs taken at the place of occurrence.P.W.11 has spoken about the registration of the case.P.W.12 has stated that he handed over the FIR registered by the Sub Inspector of Police on 25.10.2010 at about 10.00 a.m., to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Omalur.He has not stated anything about the time at which he handed over.He has also not stated as to the mode of his transport.P.W.13 has stated that he took the dead body from the place of occurrence to the hospital and handed over the blood stained cloth found on the body of the deceased to the Inspector of Police.P.W.14 the Head Clerk of the Magistrate Court has stated that he forwarded the material objects for chemical analysis on the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate.P.W.15 has spoken about the investigation done and his Final Report.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor he did marked any documents in his favour.His defence was a total denial.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.This is a case based on circumstantial evidence.The prosecution relies only on the extra-judicial confession said to have been given by the appellant to P.W.1 and consequential recovery of the dead body from the well.He would further submit that the appellant is an illiterate person and the Inspector of Police, using his authority, had obtained the thumb impression of the appellant in Ex.P1 and forwarded the same to the Court.The learned counsel would further submit that there is absolutely no explanation as to why the FIR along with Ex.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would however, oppose the appeal.According to him, the appellant, for his own reason had gone to P.W.1 to confess.P.W.12 - the Constable who took the FIR from the Sub Inspector of Police and has handed over the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate has not offered any explanation for the delay.P1 a doubtful document.

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

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

323/341/506/387/500/34 IPC read with Section 25 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Mayur Vihar, Delhi vide detailed order of 30th August, 2012, trial court had summoned respondents herein for the offence under Section 323/341/506/34 IPC.Above-said order was challenged by way of a revision petition by the respondents herein.Revisional court vide impugned order of 17th January, 2013 has upset the above-said trial court's order and has discharged respondents herein by holding that allegations made by petitioner-complainant appear to be improbable and motivated.The initial version given in petitioner's complaint of 10th Crl.M.C.No.1198/2013 Page 1 September, 2007 to the concerned DCP reads as under:-The persons named Rajpal, Kamla, Sukhbir are known to the applicant.All of them wrongfully at 2.00 p.m. restrained the applicant in a way near 13-Block Trilok Puri which falls within area of PS Mayur Vihar and made illegal demand of Rs.3 lacs.After refusal by the same they used filthy languages and started beatings.Rajpal and Sukhbir showed knife and all of them threatened either withdraw the case and fulfill their demands of Rs.3 lacs otherwise they will kill the applicant and his family.They also threatened to falsely implicate the applicant and his family in any case.Public persons collecting there saved the applicant.

['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan, J.) The petitioner is the detenu herein.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:Police Station & Crime No.Section of LawThe ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 16.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Thally Police Station in Crime No.283/2013 for offence under Section 392 IPC.Amidst several grounds raised to assail the impugned order of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that as per Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, as soon as the arrest is made, it must be communicated to the relatives of the person arrested.

['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.11.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Court No. 2, Etawah rejecting the bail application of appellants, in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 2256 of 2019 (Bhola @ Rohit Kumar and another Vs.State) arising out of Case Crime No. 192 of 2019, under Sections- 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Basrehar, District -Etawah.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case.As per FIR version, no specific role has been assigned and only presence of appellants is shown on the spot.The main role of assault has been assigned to one Vipin Prakash and the same fact is also getting support by the statements of injured witnesses.On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said fact.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application.The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.11.2019 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.Let the appellants Bhole @ Rohit Kumar and Abhishek involved in Case Crime No. 192 of 2019, under Sections- 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Basrehar, District -Etawah be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.This bail order would be subject to the fulfilment of following conditions:-The appellants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.The appellants shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.The appellants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel.

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

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

Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on the night intervening 18/19.10.2006, PW-26 Ins.Ravinder Singhw was patrolling in the area of PS Sultan Puri and while patrolling, he was informed by the duty officer that DD No.7-B dated 19.10.2006 had been registered regarding apprehension of one thief at P-II Sultan Puri.Accordingly, PW-26 Ins.Ravinder Singh reached there and found PW-10 ASI Ranbir, PW-12 Ct. Biri Singh and accused Krishan present there and came to know that accused Krishan along with his other co-associate had inflicted injuries on the person of one lady namely Pinky and that accused Krishan had been apprehended at the spot and that the injured lady had already been removed to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi by her husband/PW-3 Deepak Kumar.PW-26 Ins.Ravinder Singh went to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi, along with his staff and accused Krishan, leaving PW-21 Ct.Joginder at the spot.The PW-8 HC Raj Kumar and PW-13 Ct.Ravinder were also called to the hospital and accused Krishan was handed over to them with directions to get his medical examination conducted.The PW-26 Ins.Ravinder Singh also met PW-3 Deepak, husband of injured Pinky in the hospital, however, he did not give any statement then as he was busy Crl.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 2 of 12 in treatment of his wife.At about 3:15/3:20 A.M. the concerned doctor declared Smt. Pinky dead.Thereafter, Ex.PW-3/A i.e. statement of PW-3 Deepak Kumar was recorded, wherein he stated that he was residing with his family in rented accommodation at P-II/1484, Sultan Puri, Delhi and was working in a factory.He had married Pinki (since deceased), two years prior to the incident.On the night of the incident, complainant was watching film on television along with his parents, sister Sadhana and cousin (maternal brother) Vijay in the room, while his wife was sleeping on a bed on the roof of the room.At about 12.30/12.45 mid night, the complainant heard his wife screaming and he came out of the room and saw that two boys had climbed roof of the house.Present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the judgment dated 12.7.2013 and order on sentence dated 16.7.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in case FIR No.1674/06 registered under Sections 302/397/34 IPC at Police Station Sultan Puri, by which the appellant has been convicted to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months.The appellant was further directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for the period of seven years with fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for Crl.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 1 of 12 three months.It was directed that both the sentences would run concurrently and benefit of section 428 was given to the appellant.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 1 of 12The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial court in its judgment dated 12.7.2013, is as under:As the complainant was liming the ladder, kept for going to the roof, to save his wife, both the boys started coming down from the said ladder.The first boy pushed complainant backwards and managed to escape by climbing down the ladder, however, complainant managed to apprehend the other boy, who had given blow with a brick on his wife's head, while he was attempting to escape.In the meantime, public persons also collected at the spot and gave beatings to accused Krishan, as his name was revealed later on.Complainant took his wife to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and while doing so, he observed that the artificial Crl.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 3 of 12 ear-rings, which his wife had been wearing, were missing.The complainant further started that accused Krishan told that name of his co-accused was Parveen.The complainant prayed that necessary action be taken against the accused persons.The PW-26 Ins.Ravinder Singh prepared rukka Ex. PW-26/A on the basis of the said complaint and sent it to PS for registration of the case through PW-12 Ct. Biri Singh."Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 2 of 12Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 3 of 12At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to contest the conviction of the appellant under Section 397/34 of the Indian Penal Code.It is further contended that the act was committed without premeditation, in the heat of the moment and only one blow was inflicted, and the appellant did not act in a cruel manner.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the trial court record, the evidence and the judgment passed by the trial court.PW-3, Deepak Kumar, who is the husband of the deceased, has supported the case of the prosecution and has given details as to how on hearing the noise of his wife he immediately came out of the room with Vijay, his cousin brother, and saw two boys were present on the roof.He further testified that one of the boys had gagged his wife's mouth while the other was holding a brick in his hand, which he hit on her wife's head.The person, who had hit the wife of PW-3 with a brick, was apprehended.He was given beatings by the neighbours.He disclosed his name as Krishan, Crl.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 4 of 12 appellant herein.PW-3 identified the appellant in Court.It is further testified by PW-3 that at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital her wife was declared dead.PW-3 also testified that the appellant had disclosed the name of the other boy as Praveen.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 4 of 12Based on the testimony of the eye-witnesses, PW-3 Deepak Kumar and PW-6 Vijay Kumar, PW-5, Harpal Singh, and having regard to the fact that the appellant was apprehended at the spot, the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant.The only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the present case would fall under the Section 304, Part-I, of the Indian Penal Code.It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that the appellant has already undergone the sentence of more than eight years.Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, reads as under:Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.--Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death."In Rajendra Singh Vs."In order to bring the case within Exception 4 to Section 300 of Indian Penal Code all the following conditions have to be Crl.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 5 of 12 fulfilled, namely, (1) The act must be committed without pre- meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion; (2) when there was a sudden quarrel; (3) without the offender taking undue advantage; (4) and the accused had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner.Therefore, there must be a mutual conduct or exchanging of blows on each other.When the deceased was armed and did not cause any injury to the accused even following a sudden quarrel and the accused has inflicted fatal blows on the deceased, Exception 4 is not attracted" - In Kikar Singh Vs.State of Rajasthan AIR 1993 SC 2426, it was held that :Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 5 of 12"If the accused used deadly weapons against the unarmed man and struck a blow on the head it must be held that giving the blows with the knowledge that they were likely to cause death, he had taken undue advantage.The court took into account based on the testimony of the witnesses that the accused persons did not intend to cause death and also when the persons reached the place the accused persons ran away.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 6 of 12Even more important aspect is that while they were beating the deceased the witnesses reached the place and shouted whereupon the accused persons immediately ran away instead of inflicting more injuries with intent to kill the deceased.vs. State of Punjab, (1987) 2 SCC 14, this Court came across a similar type of incident, where the prosecution case was that one Maya Bai had two sons and two brothers.The deceased was one Kishore Singh.The accused suspected that Mayabai had illicit relations with the deceased.Hence one day when the deceased was returning from village and when he reached the field of Kashmiri Lal, the accused came out of the wheat field.The first appellant had a kirpan and the second appellant had kappa.It was alleged that the four accused took deceased on wheat field and threw him on the ground.There was an alarm created by Lachhman Singh, PW-3, which had attracted PW-4 and Mohinder Singh.When they reached the spot, the accused ran away with their weapons.The deceased had seven injuries on his body.Injury No.7 was fatal according to the doctor, who examined him.It was argued that the prosecution had not come forward with true case as to how the incident happened.The trial Judge found two accused Jit Singh and Teja Singh not guilty, since the case against them was not proved beyond the reasonable doubt.The appellants were convicted because they had weapons with them unlike the acquitted accused.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 7 of 12The trial Judge was not wholly justified in observing that there was no evidence about the so-called illicit relationship between Maya Bai and Kishore Singh, the deceased.The materials available create considerable doubt in our mind as to whether the appellants really intended to kill Kishore Singh or whether his misconduct pushed them to wreak revenge against the deceased and in this pursuit attacked him.But we are not fully satisfied that the appellants intended to kill the deceased.The correct approach on the evidence and other circumstances in this case, would according to us, be to find the accused guilty under Section 304 Part I, and to sentence them under that section."After analyzing the entire evidence, it is evidently clear that the occurrence took place suddenly and there was no premeditation on the part of the appellants.There is no evidence that the appellants made special preparation for assaulting the deceased with the intent to kill him.There is no dispute that the appellants assaulted deceased in such a manner that the deceased suffered grievous injuries which was sufficient to cause death, but we are convinced that the injury was not intended by the appellants to kill the deceased.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 8 of 12Concededly, there was no enmity between the parties and there is no allegation of the prosecution that before the occurrence, the appellant had pre-meditated the crime of murder.We are inclined to think that having faced some sort of hostile attitude from the family of the deceased over the cable connection, a sudden quarrel took place between the appellant and the son of the deceased, on account of heat of passion, the appellant went home; took out his father s revolver and started firing indiscriminately, and unfortunately one of the bullets hit the deceased on her chin.At the most, it can be said that he had the knowledge that the use of revolver was likely to cause death and, as such, the present case would fall within the third clause of Section 299 IPC.Thus, in our opinion, the offence committed by the appellant was only "culpable homicide not amounting to murder.Under these circumstances, we are inclined to bring down the offence from first degree "murder" to "culpable homicide not amounting to murder", punishable under the second part of Section 304 IPC.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.In our considered view, when the bricks were thrown on the vital parts of the body of the deceased who was an old man of 78 years, in that event, knowledge to commit murder can definitely be attributed to the appellant.In this case, the deceased died instantaneously after receiving the brick injuries.On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would be met if the conviction of the appellant under sections 302/149 IPC is set aside and the appellant is convicted under sections 304 Part- II/149 IPC and sentenced to five years imprisonment."In the case of Gudu Ram Vs.State of Himachal Pradesh reported at 2013 Crl.L.J. 481, the accused had hit the deceased on the head by a wooden bat.The next question to be considered is whether the appellant had the intention to kill Dalip Singh.Here we have some difficulty in accepting the understanding of the events as narrated by the Trial Court and the High Court.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 10 of 12However, the nature and number of injuries and their location (the skull) as well as the "weapon" used (a small wooden cricket bat) lead us to conclude that to a reasonable person, an attack of the nature launched by the appellant on Dalip Singh could cause his death.While it may be difficult to delve into the mind of the attacker to decode his intentions, knowledge of the consequences of his actions can certainly be attributed to him.Under the circumstances, we partly allow this appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant for the murder of Dalip Singh but convict him of an offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC.It is also not the case of the prosecution that the appellant had carried brick to hit the deceased on her head.Thus, it can be said that when the deceased made a noise the brick was used to silence her.The post mortem report would show that only one blow was given and thus it cannot be said that Crl.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 11 of 12 the appellant had acted in cruel or undue manner or took undue advantage of the deceased.Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.We are of the view that in the present case the appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC and not under section 302 IPC, having regard to the above factors and more importantly that a brick was used at the spur of moment and only one blow was inflicted.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 11 of 12Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 12 of 12

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

AMITAVA ROY, J.The subject matter of scrutiny is the judgment and order dated01.10.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh inCriminal Appeal No. 378-DB of 2004 concurring with the verdict of the TrialCourt in convicting the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and307 IPC while acquitting the co-accused Harpartap Singh, his son.Following his conviction, the appellant had been awarded sentence of lifeimprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence under Section 302IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- withdefault sentence under Section 307 IPC.Both the sentences have beenordered to run concurrently.The High Court has concurred with thesentence as well.We have heard Mr. Yatindra Singh, Senior Advocate, learned AmicusCuriae for the appellant and Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, learned counsel forthe respondent.The incident witnessing the death of Jatinder Singh and the injuriessustained by Lakhwinder has the genesis in a trifle.On a statementrendered with regard thereto by Gurdial Singh(PW1), the First InformationReport was registered against the appellant and his son Harpartap.It wasalleged that over a lingering land dispute between the informant and theappellant, who are brothers, on 06.07.2002, while Jugraj, the son of theinformant was in his fields, the appellant had hurled abuses to him.Jugraj having felt humiliated and anguished, on returning home, complainedabout the same to his father Gurdial, the informant.The houses of thebrothers were adjacent to each other.When the appellant returned homefrom his fields, the informant went to the terrace of the roof of his houseand summoned the former to that of his.The appellant and his sonHarpartap responded to the call whereafter informant enquired of Gurpal asto why he had abused his son.This enraged the appellant and whilearrogantly proclaiming that he was not only justified to do so but that hewould continue to conduct himself as done, rushed downstairs of his houseand brought his DBBL gun.His son Harpartap, the acquitted co-accused wasalso with him.It is alleged by the prosecution that on the exhortation ofHarpartap, the appellant opened fire, which hit the informant on the sideof his head.Meanwhile drawn by the commotion, Paramjit Kaur, the wife ofthe informant, Jatinder Singh and Lakhwinder Singh, friends of Jugrajrushed to the terrace.On seeing them, the appellant fired from his guntowards them, which hit Paramjit and Jatinder on their abdomen andLakhwinder on his mouth and head.On hue and cry being raised, theappellant and the accused fled the scene.The injured were rushed to the Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsarwhere they were treated.However, Jatinder succumbed to the injuriessustained.After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was laidagainst both the accused persons under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.The accused persons denied the charge and, therefore were tried.Theprosecution examined several witnesses including the informant, theinjured and the doctor who had performed the post-mortem examination andhad attended the injuries of others involved.The accused persons wereexamined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the completion of the trial, theTrial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 307 IPC butacquitted the co-accused Harpartap.To reiterate, the High Court hasaffirmed the conviction and the sentence recorded by the Trial Court.The learned Amicus Curiae has persuasively argued that theprosecution has utterly failed to prove the charge against the appellantwhich is patently deducible amongst others from the exoneration of the co-accused Harpartap, who allegedly had instigated the former to open fire onthe deceased and the injured.We have examined the evidence pertaining to the incident as availableon records.The eye-witnesses including the informant have offered aconsistent, coherent and convincing narration thereof which does not admitof any doubt of their trustworthiness.The plea of their familyrelationship to discredit them does not commend for acceptance in theattendant facts and circumstances.Noticeably, in course of theinvestigation, amongst others, the 12 bore DBBL gun loaded with two livecartridges used for the offence had been recovered from the appellant.Thesite plan prepared by the investigating officer also pins the place ofoccurrence as deposed by the witnesses.Further four cartridge shells havealso been recovered from the said spot.The medical evidence reveals injuries on the deceased and the injuredcompatible with the weapon used.The charges levelled against theappellant thus have been proved beyond doubt.We order accordingly.Ex-consequenti, the appeal is partly allowed.

['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.

At that time, the accused 1 and 2 came in TATA Sumo Car bearing Registration No.TN29AA5497 and asked the petitioner to take his Motor Cycle on the road to pave free way for their TATA Sumo Car.After completion of the investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No-I, Dharmapuri.The learned Judicial Magistrate No-I, Dharmapuri, taken the case on file in P.R.C.No.19 of 2011, thereafter the learned Judicial Magistrate No-I, Dharmapuri, has committed the case to the learned Principal Sessions Court, Dharmapuri.The learned Principal Sessions Judge taken the case on file in S.C.No.96 of 2011 and made over the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri, for disposal in accordance with law.Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri, after completing the formalities, framed the charges against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 448, 307 and 506(ii) IPC.http://www.judis.nic.in 3 3 Before the trial Court, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.10 were examined and 9 documents were marked besides material objects M.O.1 to M.O.3 were produced.After completing the prosecution evidences, when the incriminating circumstances culled out from the prosecution witnesses were put before the respondents 2 to 5, the respondents 2 to 5 denied as false.On the side of defence Ex.D1 was marked but, no oral evidence was examined.3 After completing the trial and also hearing the arguments on either side, considering the materials place before the trial Court, the trial Court has found that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.4 Challenging the said judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri, in S.C.No.96 of 2011, the defacto complainant has filed the present revision case before this Court.5 The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that P.W.1 sustained injury and admitted in the hospital.Accident Register and the evidence of Doctor/P.W.2 and eyewitness in this case corroborated the same.P2 A.R.Copy and acquitted the accused persons, which warrants interference of this Court.6 The learned counsel appearing for the respondents two to five submitted that in this case, A1 also sustained injury and admitted in the hospital and copy of the Accident Register was marked Ex.P.W.1 also admitted that during cross examination, A1 also sustained injury and admitted in the hospital.Whereas, the Investigating Officer has stated that he arrested the accused at 08.45p.m, it is not possible, when A1 sustained injury and also admitted in the hospital, the Investigating Officer could arrested him.The trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence that the arrest of A1 was suspicious.The prosecution has not registered the case against the petitioner and they have not conducted the fair investigation.It is well settled law that, if two views are possible the view in favour of the accused should be extended and when the accused also sustained injury, it is for the prosecution to establish as to how the injury was sustained by the accused.The dispute arose between the petitioner and accused 1 and 2 with regard to moving of Motor Cycle on the road.Then A1 and A2 called the accused A3 and A4 to the above dispute place through their mobile phone.On 08.05.2010 at about 06.00p.m., all the accused entered into the house of petitioner and committed the offence.Due to the above dispute all the accused have voluntarily entered into the house of petitioner and A2 has voluntarily attacked the petitioner on the left cheek with small knife and A1 has voluntarily attacked the petitioner on the left jaw with blade and A3 has voluntarily attacked the petitioner of the chest with stone and A4 has voluntarily attacked the petitioner on his back with iron rod and all the accused threatened the petitioner by showing knife and iron rod andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 all the accused caused injuries to the petitioner with an intention and knowledge and under such circumstances, if the above act of the accused caused the death of petitioner the accused would be guilty of murder and thereby all the accused appears to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 448, 307 r/w 120(b) IPC.9 In order to prove the case of the prosecution, as many as 10 witnesses were examined, out of which 10 witnesses PW.1 is the injured witness.On careful reading of the evidence of P.W.1 during cross examination, he admitted that A1 also sustained injury and he was also admitted in the hospital and getting treatment.The prosecution has not explained as to how A1 sustained injury.On the side of the defence Accident Register copy/Ex.The Doctor who made entry in the Accident Register was not examined.P.W.2 himself admitted that during cross examination A1 was brought to the hospital at about 06.25p.m., and also this was not denied or properly explained by the prosecution.Therefore, once P.W.2 has stated that P.W1 was admitted in the hospital and P.W.1 was brought to the hospital at about 06.30 p.m., it is relevant to note that A1 was admitted in the hospital at 06.25 p.m., itself.As per the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.1 was admitted at 06.30 p.m., on 08.05.2010, A1 was admitted on the same day at 06.25 p.m, itself.http://www.judis.nic.in 7 Whereas, the Investigation Officer has stated that A1 was arrested at 08.45p.m, near by the four road.P.W.9 Sub-Inspector of Police deposed that he arrested the A1 on 08.05.2010 at 08.45p.m near four road.10 From the careful reading of the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.9, it transpires that if at all the A1 was admitted in the hospital at 06.25p.m., P.W.9 could not have arrested A1 at 08.45 p.m, and the same creates suspicion.Further, P.W.1 himself admitted that A1 also sustained injury and also admitted in the hospital and taking treatment.When A1 also sustained injury, the prosecution has not explained as to how A1 sustained injury and without registering the case against P.W.1, it is stated that P.W.1 was assaulted by two known persons and two unknown persons.The police should have recorded the statement from P.W.2 the very same Officer had recorded the statement from P.W.1 when he was admitted in the hospital.Further there is no compelled circumstances to take different view.Under these circumstances, this Court finds that there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and there is no merit in the revision case.12 In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.05.07.2019 Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no sbn To The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri.http://www.judis.nic.in 9 P.VELMURUGAN.J, sbn Crl.RC.No.466 of 2012http://www.judis.nic.in 10

['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) 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 facts giving rise to the present case, in brief, are thus--The accused is the resident of Karad.He had married to one Malan who died because of burn injuries previously, therefore, he solemnized his second marriage with deceased Sanjivani.He was living with his children and wife.He always used to quarrel with her after drinking liquor.On the date of the incident i.e., on 18.4.1999 he was in drunken condition and picked up quarrel with his wife at 5.00 p.m. At that time, daughter Rupali (P.W. 2) was playing outside the house.She was sent to call her maternal uncle Shiva (P.W. 3).He arrived at the spot of the incident and saw that the accused had been quarrelling with his wife and he had poured kerosene on her person.The accused then took match-box and lighted match-stick and threw it on the person of his wife and consequently she sustained burn injuries.The accused and Shiva took her to the Cottage Hospital, Karad, for medical treatment at about 7.05 p.m. Dr. Chivate (P.W. 6), medical officer on duty, started medical treatment.He also recorded the history of the incident as given by Sanjivani who disclosed that it was her husband who had set her on fire.JUDGMENT P.V. Kakade, J.The medical officer informed the police.Police Head Constable Tukaram (P.W. 8) visited the Cottage Hospital at about 11.05 p.m. and recorded the F.I.R. wherein deceased Sanjivani also disclosed him that it was her husband who set her on fire by pouring kerosene upon her.On the basis of the F.I.R., offence was registered at C.R. No. 94 of 1999 punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. at City Police Station, Karad.Sanjivani was then transferred to Civil Hospital, Satara for the purpose of medical treatment where she succumbed to her injury.Dr. Marulkar (P.W. 9) had effected the autopsy on the dead body and post-mortem report was duly submitted to the police.According to the report, Sanjivani sustained 85% burn injuries and she died as a result of those burn injuries.Doctor also opined that burn injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.He also recorded the death as homicidal on the case paper.The offence was converted into 302 of the I.P.C. against the accused.The investigating officer visited the spot of incident and drew spot panchnama.Inquest panchnama was held and the body was sent for post-mortem examination whose report is part of the record.Statements of witnesses were recorded and incriminating articles seized in the course of title investigation were sent to C.A. for examination whose report was received and is part of the record.On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was sent to the Court of law.The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions.The learned Sessions Judge, Satara framed charge against the accused for the impugned offence to which he pleaded not guilty.Defence of the accused is that of total denial of any criminal liability.According to the Sessions Judge, it was a homicidal death suffered by Sanjivani.Prosecution led its evidence at length on which basis the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the evidence on record is sufficient to bring home the guilt and accordingly recorded the order of the conviction and severe sentence against the accused in aforesaid manner.Hence the appeal.We have heard Mr. A.P. Mundargi for the appellant and Mrs. Kejariwal, learned A.P.P. for the State.We have also perused the entire evidence on record.As can be seen from the evidence on record, it is the case based on two dying declarations besides evidence of various witnesses providing corroboration to the dying declarations.The evidence of Dr. Chiyate, medical officer of Cottage Hospital, Karad, shows that on 19.4.1999 he was on duty.At about 7.15 p.m. on 18.4.1999 patient Sanjivani Patne was admitted in the hospital with burn injuries.He examined her and found that there were burn injuries all over her body to the extent of 72%.Accordingly he prepared case paper.The patient also gave history stating that burn injuries were caused by her husband by pouring kerosene over her person at about 7.15 p.m. at Mangalwar Peth, Karad.At the time of recording history, as per Dr. Chivate's evidence, Sanjivani was conscious and well oriented.She was responding to verbal commands.There was smell of kerosene.Even her hair were wet due to kerosene.The medical treatment was given to her and the patient was transferred to Krishna Hospital at Karad at about 8.30 p.m. but was again brought by the relatives to the Cottage Hospital at 10.30 p.m. At 10.45 p.m. he informed his superiors to arrange for recording dying declaration of Sanjivani and, therefore, police were informed to record dying declaration.At 12.30 a.m. during the night, the patient was transferred to Civil Hospital, Satara, for further treatment.According to Dr. Chivate, Sanjivani was also in a position to talk and give statement during the period from 10.30 p.m. to 12.30 a.m. during the night.This version of Dr. Chivate is corroborated by case history record Exh. 30 wherein it is clearly stated that patient had given history of homicidal burn by her husband by pouring kerosene upon her at 7.00 p.m. at Karad, Mangalwar Peth.It was observed that patient was conscious and well oriented and cooperative and was responding to verbal commands.The second dying declaration comes in the form of F.I.R. P.W. 8 Tukaram, Police Head Constable attached to Karad Police Station had stated that Head Constable Ankushe directed him to record dying declaration of Sanjivani on receipt of the information.Perusal of Exh. 31 shows that Sanjivani had stated that it was accused--her husband who had poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire.According to her, she was subjected to such treatment by accused because he suspected her chastity.This dying declaration was recorded in the presence of Dr. Chivate as he has testified to.Moreover, P.W. 8 has also categorically stated that while he recorded the statement Exh. 32, Dr. Chivate was present throughout the time and after recording the statement he obtained thumb mark of Sanjivani below it and then obtained signature of the medical officer upon the same.P.W. 2 Rupali, 10 years old daughter of deceased Sanjivani was examined as a witness along with P.W. 3 Shivaji who was supposed to be the eye-witness to the incident.They did not support the prosecution case, however, their evidence in the present status also is sufficient to support the prosecution version.Rupali, the other eye-witness has stated that she was playing outside the house of her own and at which time quarrel was going on between Sanjivani and the accused in the house.At that time, she found that her mother was in burnt condition.Similarly, P.W. 3 Shivaji has admitted the fact that he was called by witness Rupali and when he went there at the house of the accused, he saw accused and Sanjivani were quarrelling.In the course of the said quarrel, accused asked her wife to go to her parents' home as he was suspecting her chastity.However Sanjivani refused to go to her parents' home and then she went inside the room.The accused also followed her.While they went inside, the witness smelt of kerosene and hence went inside the room and saw that kerosene was poured on the person of Sanjivani.She was wearing saree and blouse and thereafter the witness came out and Sanjivani shouted loudly that she should be saved.At that time, she was on fire.No doubt, this witness has however turned hostile and stated that he did not see as to how she was set on fire.In spite of this denial, the evidence of witness Rupali and Shivaji has categorically established the fact that accused and Sanjivani were quarrelling inside the house of the accused when accused was insisting that she should go to her parental home and Sanjivani was refusing to do so, at which time Shivaji went inside and saw that kerosene was on the person of Sanjivani.Thereafter she went to the bathroom shouting that she should be saved and at which time she was found in flames.This scenario testified by witness Rupali and Shivaji, in our view, is sufficient to lend support to the evidence of dying declarations on record and further provides corroboration to that evidence.In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.

['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.

JUDGMENT P.N. Sinha, J.This revisional application under Section 482 of Cr.PC has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing complaint case No. C-661 of 2002 under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) now pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (in short CJM), Barasat and the order dated 16.9.02 passed by the learned CJM issuing process against the petitioners and another accused.The aforesaid complaint case was started on the basis of complaint lodged by O.P. No. 2 as complainant in the Court of the learned CJM against these petitioners and another accused.It was the allegation of complainant that on the basis of an advertisement in 'Bartaman' Bengali daily newspaper dated 21.2.99 a marriage negotiation between Pranabesh Bagchi, son of complainant and petitioner No. 2 Mohua Bagchi nee Mukherjee was made and in the newspaper the advertisement was published as 'quick marriage, East Bengal Mukherjee, 20/5'1" class X standard, really beautiful, expert in household works, father Central Government employee, no objection in business'.During negotiation the petitioner No. 1, father of the bride told that his daughter is Xth standard pass.On the night of 'fulsajya' complainant's son discovered that he has been deceived by the father of the bride who has suppressed about old mental aliment of his daughter which is incurable.After the marriage, it was noticed that accused petitioner No. 2 used to leave her wearing apparels in front of other persons without caring for privacy and she uttered irrelevant talks.During her stay in the matrimonial home the complainant's son tried to have co-habitation with his wife, the accused No. 2, but the attempt failed as right hand of accused No. 2 started trembling abnormally.Accused No. 2 disclosed to the son of complainant that it was due to the result of some kind of disease and doctor advised her that, if she takes regular medicine throughout her life, the disease .would remain under control but would not be cured.Thereafter, the complainant made appointment with Dr. Braja Ghosh, a neurologist for treatment of accused No. 2 and Dr. Ghosh referred the case to a reputed neorophysicist Dr. Narayan Chakraborty.Dr. Chakraborty after examining accused No. 2 declared that she was suffering from mental ailment since her birth.Subsequently, accused No. 2 filed an application under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, 6th Court, Alipore.In the matrimonial suit she stated that she read upto class IX standard and she was not class X standard pass.The complainant accordingly lodged the complaint against the accused petitioners and another for the offence of cheating.It appears that the learned CJM by order dated 16.9.02 issued process under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC against the petitioners and another.Thereafter, the petitioners have moved this Court for quashing the proceeding and also for quashing the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing process against them.Mr. Joymalya Bagchi, learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that a plain reading of the petition of complaint without adding or subtracting anything to it would clearly indicate that there is no element of offence under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC.The complaint discloses that there was no inducement and there was no delivery of property and there was no wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to the accused persons.There are several inconsistencies in different paragraphs of the complaint.The petitioner No. 2, the daughter-in-law of complainant started a case under Section 498A of IPC against her husband and other in-laws, and thereafter, as a counter blast the complainant instituted the present proceeding.There cannot be any misrepresentation if the bride read upto class IX and not class X. It does not attract any element of cheating.Matter would have been different if the bride i.e. petitioner No. 2 was totally illiterate.The mental incapacity of bride since birth cannot be regarded as suppression and concealment of incurable disease amounting to cheating.The husband, son of complainant has instituted a suit for divorce against petitioner No. 2 on the ground of desertion.If the husband files the suit against the wife on the ground of desertion, the allegation by the husband or her mother regarding cheating, inducement, deception etc. does not arise at all.Before the learned Additional District Judge, 6th Court at Alipore evidence was recorded over the application filed by petitioner No. 2 claiming alimony pendente life and in the said Court the petitioner No. 2 was examined as a witness.If she was suffering from mental disorder and mental incapacity of high degree, the learned Additional District Judge would have noted it in the order sheet or in the deposition sheet.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In the complaint furnished by the complaint Shri R.N. Sharma, he had clearly mentioned about an offence against Deepak Misra, Police, in the formal FIR recorded, has not mentioned in the column No. 3 the offence committed by him, nor his name is mentioned in Column No. 5, which shows the name and address of the criminal.ORDER R.S. Sodhi, J.The petitioner by this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order No. 14036/15/94/- UTS dated 8th April, 1997, passed by the respondent refusing sanction for prosecution of Mr. Deepak Misra, DCP, for offence under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order on the ground that the same was passed without considering material facts on record, is non-speaking, arbitrary, unreasonable, mechanical, passed in total non-application of mind and is a fraud of power/colorable exercise of power/abuse of power and has been made with the obvious intention of shielding a senior IPS officer.The facts leading to the case are that Aditya Naraian succumbed to his injuries on 14th October, 1990, on receiving a fire arm injury at the hands of SI.D.P. Singh of Delhi Police in the incident of 25th September, 1990, when residents of Sarojini Nagar were demonstrating against the implementa- tion of the Mandal Commission report.On 1st October, 1990, the petitioner filed a complaint with SHO, Vinay Nagar Police Station to investigate the incident of shooting in Sarojini Nagar area which had caused death of his son.It is the case of the petitioner that the newspaper reported the filing of a public interest petition being Civil Writ Petition No. 3393 of 1990 (P.V. Kapur and another Vs.Union of India) in the Delhi High Court for adjudication upon action of police firing in INA Market and Sarojini Nagar.The petitioner, therefore, with leave of the court, filed an affidavit narrating the incident which took place on 25th September, 1990, at Sarojini Nagar and sought various reliefs from the court including that criminal proceedings be initiated against those police officers found responsible for the death of his son.In the meantime, however,the petitioner sought an appointment with the commissioner, Delhi police, to look into the matter, upon which, the com- missioner directed Mr. Deepak Misra, the then Additional DCP (south) to conduct a formal investigation into the incident of shooting that took place at Sarojini Nagar on 25th September, 1990, and to submit a report.Deepak Misra examined various witnesses during the course of his inquiry and identified the police officer who fired the shot but was of the opinion that :"However, it is a sheer tragedy and most unfortunate that this bullet which was fired presumably in the air and in which no mala fide happened to have taken place, the bullet took an awry trajectory and had hit Aditya Narayan who was very much present at the inter-face of police and violent mob...""..Hence, to sum up, the immediate cause of death of Aditya Narain was due to the infection which was contracted by him during post-operation period.This infection contracted by him was in itself an effect caused by the bullet shot by SI D.P. Singh from his service revolver and SI.D.P. Singh had to resort to open fire from his service revolver to disperse an unlawful assembly... SI.D.P. Singh had, to the best of his judgment, opened fire in the air but, as ill-luck would have been, the bullet in its dying moments happened to graze through skull of Aditya Narain who was a part of unlawful assembly near the over- turned water tanker at Navyug School crossing."This inquiry report became subject matter of Civil Writ Petition No. 3393 of 1990 wherein the High Court by judgment and order dated 6th Septem- ber, 1990, held that "The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms."The petitioner filed a complaint dated 7th June, 1992, with the SHO, Vinay Nagar Police Station requesting for registration of an FIR under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against SI D.P. Singh and under Sec- tion 218 of the Indian Penal Code against DCP, Deepak Misra.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.4 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Sakaldeeha, District-Chandauli is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that highly belated FIR delayed by two months was got registered by mother of the girl and that too after recovery of the girl against the applicant and five other persons.On 04.01.2019, the girl was returned back and on the same day, this FIR came into existence.There is no whisper in the FIR regarding sexual assault upon her.Though, the victim was present at the time.The FIR was registered under Section 363 and 366 IPC.The allegation made in the FIR is that she went along with the applicant and remained there for considerable period of time.During this period, she has never tried to come out from the clutches of the applicant or raise any alarm.The conduct of the girl clearly shows that she was in consensual relationship with the applicant.The age of the girl is 17+ years.She is a major girl.Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail.The submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, is quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.Let the applicant-Harinarayan, involved in case crime no.4 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Sakaldeeha, District-Chandauli be released on bail 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 WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE 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.(iii) 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 IPC.

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

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

Dayan Krishnan, ASC, for the State along with Sh.A. Menon.The present order will dispose of four appeals - Crl.A. 229/2011 - Tariq Mehmood & Anr.All the appellants - Tariq Mehmood and Ishaq Ahmed (in Crl. A. 229/2011), Arshad Khan; Mufti Mohd. Asrar and Ghulam Mohd. Dar were tried together with several other accused.By common judgment and order dated 24.12.2010 and 15.01.2011 of Ms. Pinki, learned ASJ/Designated Court, Saket, New Delhi (which have been challenged in the present appeals), these accused/appellants were convicted for committing various offences.These appeals were heard on several dates.During the course of hearing, the appellant's counsel submitted that having regard to the nature of evidence and the fact that the principal accused Abdul Majeed was held guilty and awarded 10 years sentence for the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, (which was the maximum punishment to him), was reduced to 8 years Rigorous Imprisonment by this Court, in a previous order and that the same was to run concurrently with the sentences for the other offences, it was urged that having regard to the allegations leveled against these appellants, Tariq Mehmood and Ishaq Ahmed (in Crl.A. 229/2011), Arshad Khan; Mufti Mohd. Asrar and Ghulam Mohd. Dar, and the findings of the Trial Court, they would not be contesting or pressing for setting-aside of the conviction.The appellants were also present; they were present pursuant to production warrants issued by the Court.They concurred with the statements made on their behalf by the counsel.The prosecution case was that the principal accused Abdul Majeed, in conspiracy with several others, had plotted committing various subversive and terrorist acts in India.These included possibility of kidnapping several Crl.A. 229/2011 , Crl. A. 281/2011 , Crl. A. 307/2011 & Crl.A. 986/2011 Page 2 highly-placed individuals, and also getting some terrorists, who were lodged in Indian jails, released in bargain.The role attributed to Abdul Majeed was a prominent one; he is alleged to have purchased a plot with a view to stay in India to provide hideout to the others, some of whom were from Pakistan and also to mastermind operations and provide logistic support.Although the present appellants and the other accused, i.e. Abdul Majeed, Mohd. Amran and Mohd. Ashraf were named in the same First Information Report (FIR), and also arraigned (charged) along with these appellants, in view of the fact that some of them pleaded guilty, the order of conviction and sentence was passed much earlier.These orders were made by the learned Designated Judge (POTA).The relevant sentences awarded by the learned Designated Judge(POTA) on 15.10.2003 were noticed by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment, in the form of a chart.C.8(c) Vide order dated 18.01.2010 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kait, Judges, Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 775/03, the order on sentence in respect of accused Abdul Majeed was modified.C. 8(d) The sentences awarded vide order dated 15.10.2003 passed by Sh.S.N. Dhingra, learned Designated Crl.A. 229/2011 , Crl. A. 281/2011 , Crl. A. 307/2011 & Crl.A. 229/2011 , Crl. A. 281/2011 , Crl. A. 307/2011 & Crl.The appeal stands disposed of modifying the order of sentence dated 15.10.2003, but limited to the sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC.We direct that for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and pay a fine in sum of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine would undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.The appeal stands disposed of as aforesaid.................A. 229/2011 , Crl. A. 281/2011 , Crl. A. 307/2011 & Crl.No other allegations were leveled or proved against him.

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

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

(2) The prosecution case is that Maya Devi, who was aged about 19 at the time of the present occurrence, was the daughter of Raj Kumari (Public Witness 1) who was aged about 45 years.Both the mother and daughter had taken to the profession of dancing and singing, and used to live in an apartment on G. B. Road, Delhi.The accused used to visit Maya Devi and had illicit connections with her.(3) On August 14, 1967 at about 6 a. m., it is stated, Maya Devi was lying on a cot along with her son, aged about one month.Raj Kumari was at that time lying on another cot in the room.Babu alias Amar Deep, an employee of Raj Kumari, was sitting in a room near the staircase.Raj Kumari's maternal uncle, Kishori Lal, her cousin.Rattan and Ashok, and her mother, Radha (also known as Tara or Ilaichi) were in the verandah.The accused then came there holding jug P. 1 and bottle P. 2 The accused gave Re 1.00 to Babu for bringing tea whereupon Babu left.The accused then poured acid out of the jug on Maya Devi, her son and Raj Kumari.He also remarked that they would be disfigured.Raj Kumari and Maya Devi felt burning sensation and they all started crying.The accused then threw the jug on the cot and placed the bottle on the ground and ran away.Kishori Lal, who saw the incident, as well as Radha then came inside the room and took Maya Devi, her mother and son towards the City Clinic.While going down they met Babu and told him about the occurrence.Raj Kumari, Maya Devi and her son Along with others arrived at the City Clinic, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, a private hospital, at about 6 -30 a. m. They were examined by Dr. V. K. Jain.The doctor found that there were a few streaks and patches of acid burns on the person of Raj Kumari on the right arm and forearm.He dressed the burns and discharged her with the direction to attend for dressing as an outdoor patient.Acid burns were also found by the doctor on the scalp of the infant child of Maya Devi.Maya Devi had extensive injuries on her person.She was given Morphia and her burns were dressed, and intravenous drip was started.Maya Devi remained in the City Clinic up to August 21, 1967, on which day she was transferred to Safdarjang Hospital.Maya Devi was then not in a position to give a statement.The Assistant Sub-Inspector then went to the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of witnesses.He also prepared the site plan and got the place of occurrence photographed.Various articles lying there, including jug P.I and bottle P.2 which was half full of acid, were taken into possession by the Assistant Sub-Inspector, and put into sealed parcels.After that, the Assistant Sub-Inspector went to the City Clinic and made an application P. F. F. on which Dr. Jain made an endorsement that Maya Devi was not fit to make a statement.This was not liked by him.He wanted to take me forcibly to his house.JUDGMENT H.R. Khanna, C.J.(1) This is an appeal by Sudershan Kumar alias Darshan, aged 25, who has been convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, f causing the death of Maya Devi by pouring acid on her and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.The accused has also been convicted under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, for causing injuries to Public Witness Raj Kumari and the infant son of Maya Devi by throwing acid on them, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.The accused wanted Maya Devi to marry him but she declined to do so as the accused was already married to another woman.On account of the above refusal of Maya Devi, the accused used to quarrel with her.A few days before the present occurrence, the accused took Maya Devi along with him.She stayed with him for about 10 or 12 days and thereafter was brought back by the accused to her mother's apartment.The accused on that occasion again asked Maya Devi to marry him but she refused to do so.The accused then threatened Maya Devi that if she did not want to marry him she should either leave Delhi or he would kill her in such a manner that she would have a lingering death.The Assistant Sub-Inspector then searched for the accused but could not trace him.The accused was arrested by Asi Rattan Chand Kalia on August 15, 1967, from the zoo on Mathura Road.The offence for which the accused was arrested at that time was under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, and he was bailed out.(5) On August 16, 1967, Asi Surjit Singh went to the City Clinic and made an application P. F/2 for recording the statement of Maya Devi.Dr. V. K. Jain then made an endorsement on that application permitting the recording of Maya Devi's statement.The Assistant Sub-Inspector then recorded statement P. G. of Maya Devi wherein she named the accused as the person who has thrown acid on her, her mother and son on 14th morning.The statement was recorded in the presence of Dr. Jain.Accordingly, on August 21, 1967, Maya Devi was got admitted in the Safdarjang Hospital at about 9 p.m. Maya Devi was attended to in that hospital by Dr. K. S. Raj Kumar (Public Witness 6), House Surgeon, and Dr. (Miss) Nirmala Lakshmi Naranan (Public Witness 7), Registrar.On August 23, 1967, Shri V. N. Chaturvedi, Sub-divisional Magistrate, Hauz Qazi, on an application having been made to him by Asi Surjit Singh for the purpose, went to Safdarjang Hospital and recorded the statement P. C. C. of Maya Devi.The statement was read over to her.She admitted it to be correct and thumb-marked the statement as well as signed it in English.Asi Surjit Singh, on receipt of the information about the death of Maya Devi, went to Safdarjang Hospital and prepared inquest report P. D. The dead body was then sent to the mortuary.Post-mortem examination on the dead body of Maya Devi was performed by Dr. S. S. Kaushal (Public Witness ll) on August 26, 1967, at 6 p.m. Sealed parcels of the different articles taken into possession by the police were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, where they were examined by Shri Sirinivas Rampal (Public Witness 16).Shri Rampal found that bottle P.2 contained nitric acid.The clothes of the deceased were also found stained with nitric acid.The presence of the acid in jug P.I could not be detected.The provision of law, under which the case had been registered against the accused, was changed from Section 326 to 304, Indian Penal Code, on August 26, 1967, and Section 302, Indian Penal Code, on September 4, 1967, after the case had been checked by the Prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police.(8) The accused in his statement under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, admitted that Maya Devi was daughter of Raj Kumari and that he used to visit her.The accused, however, denied that he wanted to marry Maya Devi and that she was not agreeable to that.According to the accused, Maya Devi was living with him as his wife without formal marriage and the question of marriage did not arise at all.The accused admitted that he was married to another women.It was denied by the accused that there had been any quarrel between him and Maya Devi on account of her alleged refusal to marry him.The accused denied that he ever threatened Maya Devi that he would kill her in such a manner that she would have to die in agony.The prosecution allegations about the accused having gone to the house of Maya Devi on the morning of August 14, 1967, with a jug and bottle of acid, and about his having asked Babu alias Amar Deep to bring tea or about his having poured nitric acid on Maya Devi her mother and child, were all denied.The accused also denied having purchased any acid.As regards his arrest, the accused stated that he himself went to police-station Kamla Market on August 15, 1967, when he was put under arrest.According further to the accused, the prosecution witnesses were interested and were deposing against him at the instance of the police.The accused further stated:"I have been falsely implicated.Maya Devi was an educated lady.I am also educated up to Prep.Maya Devi liked me and she did not like to embrace the profession of singing and dancing and her mother used to compel her and wanted her to enter that profession.Maya Devi did not like this.Therefore, her mother was against her.Maya Devi was living with me since January, 1967 and I had been getting her treated in the hospital.She gave birth to a son at my place.Three days before the occurrence she came to see her mother when acid was thrown on her.So far I have come to know her mother threw acid."(9) In defense one witness, Rajinder Kumar, was examined.According to Rajinder Kumar, he used to visit the house of Raj Kumari to listen to her songs.Maya Devi did not sing or dance in spite of having been asked by Raj Kumari and used to sit in an adjoining room.The witness added that he went to City Clinic on the morning of August 14, 1967, after coming to know of the present occurrence.Maya Devi then told the witness that her mother had thrown acid on her.The witness also identified the handwriting of Maya Devi on letter D. G. According to that letter, Maya Devi had left her mother's house because she was in love with the accused and his visits used to result in quarrel between her mother and the accused.It was also added that Maya Devi did not like the life of a singing girl and whatever she had written in that letter was of her own free-will and not under pressure of the accused.(10) Learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case about the accused having caused the death of Maya Devi by throwing acid on her and about his having caused injuries to Maya Devi's mother and son.The defense evidence of Rajinder Kumar was disbelieved.As regards letter D. G. it was held that it had not come from proper custody and was a fabricated document.The accused was, accordingly, convicted and sentenced as above.(11) There can be no manner of doubt that Maya Devi died on August 26, 1967, in Safdarjang Hospital.This fact is also admitted by the accused in his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.According to the prosecution case, the accused poured acid on Maya Devi and her mother and child on the morning of August 14, 1967 as a result of which Maya Devi died and her mother and child received injuries.The accused has denied this allegation.It has also been argued on behalf of the accused that even if it be held to be proved that he poured acid on Maya Devi, the said act of the accused cannot be held to be the proximate cause of her death.The dying declaration reads as under:-"I and my mother do the profession of singing and dancing at G. B. Road.Shri Sudershan Kumar alias Darshan had illicit relations with me.He used to take me outside.For some days past, I and my mother had stopped him from taking me outside.On 14th August, 1967, in the morning when I got up I saw Shri Sudershan Kumar holding a jug in his hand and a bottle of acid in his other hand.Jug had acid in it.He threw it on my face and body.The acid also fell on my mother who was lying in the adjoining charpoy.A drop of it also fell on my son.The reason why Darshan has thrown acid on me is that I was not prepared to go with him as desired by him.He used to threaten me quite often, that either I (Maya Devi) should leave Delhi or I should marry him, other wise he would disfigure me and would throw acid on me.But I did not lodge the report considering that he was talking noneense just that way.This acid has fallen on my chest, back arms.This instance has been seen by my mother, servant Amar, Ashok Kumar, Rattan and Kishori Lal and other women.Shri Sudarshan ran away after throwing the acid.I am making this complaint against Sudarshan Kumar".(13) The evidence of Dr. V. K. Jain shows that Maya Devi was in a fit condition to make a statement at that time and that the above statement was recorded in his presence.According to the doctor, the statement was then read over to Maya Devi.She admitted it to be correct.To similar effect is the evidence of Asi Surjit Singh.According to Asi Surjit Singh, Maya Devi, after making the statement, signed it in English.Dr. Jain also then made an endorsement P.G./1 about the statement having been made by Maya Devi in his presence and about her having signed it after it was read over to her.There appears to be no cogent ground whatsoever to disbelieve the evidence of Dr. V. K. Jain and Asi Surjit Singh in this respect.(14) Apart from the dying declaration P. G. of Maya Devi, which was recorded by Asi Surjit Singh, we have on record the evidence of Shri V. N. Chaturvedi, Sub-divisional Magistrate (Public Witness 17), that he recorded the statement P.C.C. of Maya Devi on August 23, 1967 at 5 .20 p.m. in Safdarjang Hospital.The statement reads as under:-"I and my mother are doing the profession of dancing and singing at G. B. Road.Darshan Kumar had illicit relations with me.For some days past my mother had stopped him.This was not liked by him.On 14th August, 1967, I got up in the morning at about 6.00 a. m. I saw Darshan holding a jug in his hand and in the other a bottle.The jug had acid in it.He threw it on my face and the body.This also fell on my mother who was lying on the adjoining charpoy.A drop also fell on my son.This occurrence has been seen by my mother, servant Amar, Ashok Kumar, Kishori Lal and other women."(15) Shri Chaturvedi has deposed that Maya Devi was in a fit condition to make the statement.The statement was read over to her.She admitted it to be correct and thumb-marked the same.In addition to the thumb-impression of Maya Devi, the witness also obtained her signatures on the statement.There is no sufficient reason to disbelieve the above statement of Shri Chaturvedi.The fact that he did not get the signatures of any doctor on the statement P.C.C. would not detract from his testimony.Shri Chaturvedi had no animus against the accused and we fail to understand as to why he should have recorded the statement P. C. C. if in fact it was not made to him by Maya Devi.(16) According to the version of the accused, it was Raj Kumari who threw acid on Maya Devi.It is, in our opinion, extremely difficult to believe that Maya Devi would spare her real assailant and falsely mention the name of the accused as the person who had thrown acid on her.It also does not appeal to reason that Raj Kumari would throw acid on Maya Devi, who was her own daughter, especially when the throwing of acid was bound to result in disfiguring of Maya Devi and thus rendering her unfit for the profession of dancing and singing.It is also difficult to believe that Raj Kumari would have taken Maya Devi to the hospital for her treatment and thereafter lodged a report about the present occurrence at the police-station, if she herself had thrown acid on her.(17) The dying declarations of Maya Devi about the accused having thrown acid on her, her mother and child are corroborated by the evidence of Raj Kumari (Public Witness 1).There can be no manner of doubt regarding Raj Kumari's presence at the scene of occurrence, because she was herself injured as a result of the acid poured by the accused.According to Raj Kumari, it was the accused who poured acid on Maya Devi and also caused injuries thereby to Raj Kumari and the infant child of Maya Devi.There seems to be no cogent ground to disbelieve Raj Kumari in this respect.Raj Kumari also lodged first information report P.A. about the occurrence soon after her dressing and in it the name of the accused as the person who had caused injuries by pouring acid to Maya Devi and others was mentioned.First information report P.A. also lends corroboration to the statement of Raj Kumari.In addition to the above, we have the evidence of Kishori Lal (PW12) who has deposed evidence about the accused having thrown acid on Raj Kumari, Maya Devi and the child and about his having thereafter run away.Nothing cogent has been brought to our notice as might discredit the statement of Kishori Lal.(18) The prosecution has also examined Babu alias Amar Deep (PW2).After this witness had been cross-examined by the defense counsel, this witness was declared hostile by the trial Court and questions in the nature of cross-examination were allowed to be put to him by the Public Prosecutor.The defense counsel then made a request that he might be allowed to further cross-examine the witness.This request was disallowed by the trial Court.As we were of the opinion that the defense counsel should have been granted an opportunity to further cross-examine the witness, we recalled the witness so that further questions may be put to him by the defense counsel.In this respect we find that according to the testimony of Dr. V. K. Jain, he found the following injuries on Maya Devi when he examined her at 6 -30 a.m. on August 14, 1967:-"1.She was a well-built woman.Her pulse was 100 per minute.There were burns on the face; the whole face with lips and conjunctive Cornea of both the eyes was opaque.Both ears were burnt.Otherwise, she could not see, because cornea of both eyes was opaque.Neck : Complete neck burns on both interior and posterior aspects.Thorax : Burns up to the breasts.Breasts were involved.Trickle of fluid on to the abdomen and chest as well, causing burns in streaks.That trickle of fluid was there but I cannot say if it was acid.It could be acid.Back : Burns approximately up to T-4 level.That means the burns were up to the forth vertebra of the back and then lower down two to three streaks of burns as if caused by liquid trickling down.That liquid could be acid.Limbs : (Upper limbs).Both upper limbs burnt in patches and streaks up to the fingers and palms.(Lower limb) Isolated burns on the knee and thigh, in streaks only."(21) The duration of the above injuries was fresh, within one to two hours.The injuries could have been caused by acid.According to Dr. Jain, the injuries suffered by Maya Devi were sufficient collectively in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.(22) Dr. K. S. Raj Kumar, House Surgeon of Safdarjang Hospital, examined Maya Devi when she was admitted in that hospital and found her condition as under:-"1.Her both eyes were open and cornea was hazy and opaque.She was of average built and nutrition.Her general condition was poor, the tongue was thickly coated and dried.She was drowsy, and was responding to the surroundings poorly.There was no anaemia, cyanosis and glands.Local examination showed that there was 35% burnt area over her face, neck, back, arms and chest, and they were badly infected.Foul smell was present.The dressing was soaked with pus."(23) The systematic examination revealed no abnormality.Dr. Kumar added that if the burns are to the extent of 30% or above, the same are dangerous to life and that the injuries of Maya Devi were dangerous to life.(24) Dr. (Miss) Nirmala Lakshmi Naranan (Public Witness 7) has deposed that the dressing of Maya Devi was changed on August 23,1967 and that at that time the doctor removed the loose slough from her body.(25) Dr. S. S. Kaushal, who performed post-mortem examination, made the following observations on the dead body:-"SUPERFICIAL ulceration with seropurulent discharge and pus all over face, front of the chest, back and both upper limbs.Skin on the forehead was blackened.Scalp hair cut short.No smell of kerosene oil.Both lungs were edematous and exude froth on section.Liver was congested.Both kidneys showed cloudy swelling.Stomach empty.Mucus membrane congested.Stomach contained 2 ounces of medicine like fluid.Uterus was empty, normal but deeply congested.Other parts including skull brain were normal."As stated above, the medical evidence shows that 35% of the body surface of Maya Devi was burnt as a result of injuries received by her.According to observations on page 196 of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Modi, Sixteenth Edition, the involvement of one-third to one-half of the superficial surface of the body is likely to end fatally.It is also significant that the injuries received by Maya Devi as a result of the assault on her were on most vital parts of her body like the face, neck and breast.(27) Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the statement of Dr. (Miss) Nirmala Lakshmi Naranan wherein she has deposed that the cause of death of Maya Devi was malaena and respiratory failures.In the present case, as stated above, according to Dr. Jain, the injuries caused to Maya Devi were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.To similar effect is the statement of Dr. Raj Kumar.It is further corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Kaushal.There is nothing in the statement of Dr. Naranan that the injuries suffered by Maya Devi were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.On the contrary her evidence shows that general condition of Maya Devi was very poor.The material on the record shows that Maya Devi was at first treated in the City Clinic and as there was not much improvement in her condition she had to be removed to the Burns Unit of the Safdarjang Hospital.There is nothing cogent to warrant a finding that Maya Devi did not have proper treatment.Apart from the above, we are of the opinion that the Explanation 2 to Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code affords an answer to the above contention.The Explanation reads as under:-The burns were of a simple nature.The medical evidence on death was contradictory.In this respect we find that the evidence of Raj Kumari shows that the accused had earlier threatened Maya Devi that if she did not marry him or leave Delhi, he would kill her in such a manner that she would have a lingering death.According to the dying declaration P.C.C. of Maya Devi the accused had threatened to kill or disfigure her with acid.Bottle P.2 taken into possession by the police, was half full of acid and it appears that the accused had poured the remaining half of the acid on Maya Devi.

['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

However, the complainant's case was that certain examination was to be held for recruitment of some categories of employees for the bank and the two accused persons settled with him that they would get his nephew appointed provided he paid them Rs. 10,000/- of which Rs. 2,000/- were paid by way of first instalment.The examination was held.The revision, fails.A large number of candidates were called for interview and after a long time first 19 persons were appointed as managers and then 42 others on some other posts but the complainant's nephew did not figure in the lists.It was further alleged that the accused persons had tampered with the papers, mark-sheets and other examination records in fur- therance of their conspiracy to earn money from the candidates.

['Section 5 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 criminal application is allowed.The substantive jail sentence imposed upon the applicant by the the learned Special Judge-4 under the POCSO Act, Amravati in Special (POCSO) Case No. 256/2016 on 15.11.2018 convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 11 punishable under section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Sections 354-D(I) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal.The applicant to mark his presence at Police Station, Warud, Dist.The applicant shall remain personally present before this Court at the time of final hearing of this appeal.With this, the criminal application is allowed and disposed of.JUDGEDiwale ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 02:56:11 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 02:56:11 :::

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

sdas allowed C.R.M. No. 5634 of 2019 In Re.: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 02.07.2019 in connection with Uttarpara Police Station Case No. 893 of 2018 dated 11.12.2018 under Sections 417/376/406/504/506/323/354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re: Suman Samaddar ..... petitioner Mr. Sarayati Datta ...for the petitioner Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, Mr. Mainak Gupta .... for the State It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that he is not the principal accused who is presently in custody.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/-, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that he shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a period of fortnight from date.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

He also called his companions Dhanraj, Hansraj and Dilip, who came with a stick & metal pipe.Dilip wielded the metal pipe on the head of Ratanlal, Shailendra and Lokesh tried to rescue him but Kunj Bihari, Hansraj and Tufan started beating them by kicks and fists.Dhanraj gave a blow of stick on the head and right wrist of Lokesh, while Dilip kicked him in the waist.The complainant tried to escape from the spot to take injured Ratanlal to the hospital by their jeep but the offenders chased them and broke the rear shield glass of the jeep.Crime No. Under Section Police Station 183/20 307, 294, 323, 506, 427, Bhanpura, 34 of IPC MandsaurAs declared by learned counsel for the petitioner, this is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The case of the petitioner is more or less the same to the case of co-accused Hansraj and Tufan, who have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28/08/2020 passed in MCRC No.28498/2020, therefore, the petitioner has claimed parity with the said accused.The order passed in favour of Hansraj and Tufan reads thus:-This is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.183/2020 registered at Police Station - Bhanpura, Mandsaur under Section 307, 294, 323, 506, 427, 34 of IPC.It is a dispute between 2 farmer families, who are neighbours.On 03/06/2020 at about 10:30 in the night, complainant Mohanlal along with Ratanlal, Devraj, Lokesh, Shailendra and Shasank was cleaning and leveling a passage.Their neighbour Satyanarayan, Kunj ihari, Tufan protested the same 2HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.32761 of 2020 Kunj Bihari @ Parmanand Vs.State of M.P.and asked them to do whatever they wanted at their own side and not on the side of the objectors.Satyanarayan also started abusing them.Ratanlal and Shailendra requested them not to do so, but Kunj Bihari slapped Ratanlal.Mohanlal, Devraj, Madhosingh intervened and rescued them.The matter was reported to the police by Mohanlal on the same day at 22:30 pm.The case was registered.Injured were sent to the CHC, Bhanpura.Doctor found lacerated wounds and swellings etc. as caused by a hard and blunt object.Ratanlal was referred for District Hospital and thereafter he was taken to Pasupati Nath Diagnostic Center for further treatment, where in CT scan, fracture of right nasal bone, right frontal bone extending up to temporal bone and left high parietal bone with overlying scalp haematoma along with multiple hemorrhagic contusions with surrounding edema in bilateral frontal lobe were detected.On a query raised by the police, the doctor of District Hospital, Mandsaur opined that the injury of Ratanlal was grievous in nature and was "dangerous to life if left untreated".It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that initially case was registered under Sections 294, 323, 506, 427, 34 of IPC, but later under political pressure the police has added Section 307 of IPC.In this case, actually the complainant and his companions were offenders.They caused grievous injuries to the family members of the petitioners.Dilip sustained serious injuries on the 3HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.32761 of 2020 Kunj Bihari @ Parmanand Vs.State of M.P.head, which required 10 stitches.His condition is still serious.Cross-case bearing Crime No.184/20 under Section 323, 294, 506, 427, 34 of IPC has been registered against the complainants.The allegations against the petitioners are that they caused injuries to Shailendra and Lokesh by kicks and fists.There is no allegation against them to cause injury to Ratanlal.Investigation is over, charge-sheet has been filed.Trial is likely to take time, therefore, they be granted bail.The Prosecution has opposed the bail application.It is directed that the petitioners Hansraj S/o Ramkalyan Aahir and Tufan S/o Nandlal Gurjar be released from custody on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) each with separate solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before the Trial Court as and when required further subject to the following conditions:(i) The petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend the trial Court during the trial;(ii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly allure or make any inducement, threat or promise to the prosecution witnesses, so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts of the Court;(iii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or involve in any criminal activities;(iv) In case, involvement in any other criminal activity is found, the bail granted in this case may also be cancelled."Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the bail application, but has admitted the parity as claimed by the petitioner.

['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

According to the petitioners, they had entered into a Contract with A. A. Nayeem - Bidi Contractor who purchases Tendu Leaves and supplies it to other Bidi Factories.Out of the said amount of Rs. 8 lacs, a sum of Rs. 5.5 lacs was seized by the Police at Ballarshah on 28-5-2002 from the Vehicle parked in front of Hotel Arjun.At the time of seizure, the driver of the vehicle was present but the petitioners were away.According to the petitioners, the names of the petitioners do not figure anywhere in the F.I.R. lodged by Bapu Reddy.The petitioners had, therefore, sought a writ of Habeas Corpus as also for quashing and setting aside the prosecution of the petitioners for the offence under Sections 366, 367 of the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act and under the provisions of POTA.The prayer for Habeas Corpus has not been pressed.In Criminal.Writ Petition No. 255/2002, the petitioner has referred the contents of the F.I.R. in various paragraphs of the petition.According to the petitioner, he is not, in any manner, involved in the matter and the petitioner is at the most a victim of the crime and can never be associated in the crime.According to the petitioner, there are no allegations whatsoever for even the remotest possible involvement; that a sum of Rs. 8 lacs was advanced by the petitioner to the Unit Contractors viz. Khawaja Moiddin and Kamlakar (petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No. 247/02), it was a business transaction between two contractors and at any rate other than what has been scribed in the receipt "Annexure C" the petitioner is not aware for what purpose the amount was borrowed by the said Unit Contractors; that assuming but without admitting that the money was allegedly passed on to Bakanna Naxalite gang by the Unit Contractors viz. M/s Khawaja Moiddin and Kamlakar, the same cannot amount to voluntary contribution or assistance rendered by the petitioner when there is nothing on record to infer that he had any knowledge that M/s Bapu Reddy and Narendra Reddy were kidnapped by the gang of Naxalites.It is also urged by the petitioner that the Government is not able to control the Naxalite activities and if at all somebody is required to part with money in order to protect himself and submits to extortion by the Naxalites, same cannot be construed as abetting the activities of the Naxalites and, therefore, no offence under Section 3(3) of POTA is made out.The petitioner, therefore, prays for quashing of registration of Crime No. 27/02 of Police Station, Sironcha, District : Gadchiroli.In the Return filed by the State, it is stated that on 2-6-2002 Bapu Reddy gave a written report in Telgu language stating that he was abducted on 19-5-2002 along with Narendra Reddy by the members of Bakkanna gang from Kaleshwar Unit to forest of Nandigaon.Bapu Reddy was threatened by Bakkanna to bring party fund of Rs. 9.84 lacs from his Unit contractor and he was compelled to write one chit.Narendra Reddy was sent with the said chit to his Contractor and after Narendra Reddy left, Bapu Reddy inquired from Bakkanna what he would do with such huge amount.Bakkanna replied that same would be required to fight against the Government and to procure arms and ammunition to sustain naxal activities to overthrow the Government and to sustain and secure their cadre.According to Bapu Reddy he managed to escape from the clutches of the gang under the pretext of ill health.He also disclosed that Adi Reddy was in their captivity when he escaped from the clutches of Bakkanna."I Bappu Reddy s/o Kachraya, R/o Chennu Aged 30 years at Kaleshwar Firm at Pusukpalli on 19-5-2002 was Kidnapped by members of Naxalite gang of Bakanna under threat of Fire Arms.They took me and one Narendra Reddy who was already kidnapped by the above Naxalite gang from they took us from Pentayal to forests of Nandiyal, Bakanna and the members of his gang has installed tents for living there.The abovesaid members of Naxalite gang threatened me to collect the sum of Rs. 9,84,000/- only from my unit Contractor for their party fund.They scribed a chit and handed over the same to Narendra Reddy to be delivered to our Unit Contractor.They sent Narendra Reddy.I, thereafter, enquired with them what they would do with such a huge amount? Bakanna replied that the same would be used by them for purchase of Fire arms and ammunition to fight the Government and the Police force, for the purpose of saving ourselves and for further establishing their party.Thereafter sometime I feigned illness and escaped from the clutches of the Naxalites I reached Nandi and Laxmipur from there I came to Chennur.This is my report and I pray for the Registration of the Offence.Note : The above "Dalam" gang had kidnapped me.Prior to my kidnapping Reddy was already Kidnapped and in their custody.sd/-Yours."On 28-5-2002 the petitioner A. A. Nayeem was called and inquiries were made with him about the abduction of his men from Geda Unit near Ittapali.According to Police, petitioner A. A. Nayeem denied any such abduction or receipt of any demand or party fund or ransom from Naxalites.JUDGMENT R.K. Batta, J.These petitions arise out of the same F.I.R. which is a subject matter of challenge in both the petitions and as such the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by common order.We shall first refer briefly to the facts in these petitions.In Criminal Writ Petition No. 247/02, the petitioners case is that the F.I.R. does not disclose any offence against them and that there is no material to show that they are involved in any sort of terrorist activities and as such they seek quashing of the prosecution of the petitioners under Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as POTA).According to the petitioners, petitioner No. 1 is an investing partner and petitioner No. 2 has working knowledge of business of Tendu leaves.Both the petitioners are Tendu Leave Contractors.Petitioner No. 1 is also a Registered P.W.D. Contractor.Petitioner No. 1 had applied to the Government for permission to collect Tendu Leaves and after complying with the necessary formalities entered into an Agreement with the Forest Department of State of Maharashtra for collection of Tendu Leaves.Prior to that on 25-5-2002 two trucks of Tendu Leaves belonging to Satyanarayan Reddy and his associates were burnt by Naxalite Bakkanna and his associates near Mahadeopur and Police has registered a Crime No. 34/2002 at Mahadeopur and another Crime No. 51/02 at Kataram under Sections 143, 364(A), 121-A read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 25 of the Arms Act. In those crime, petitioner No. 1 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 247/02 and one Kalimuddin (brother-in-law of Khwaja) were made accused in this connection, A. A. Nayeem was called by respondent No. 2 on 28-5-2002 and inquiry was made about abduction of his men from Geda Unit near Etapalli.Said A. A. Nayeem, however, denied of such abduction or receipt of any demand for party fund or ransom from Naxalites.On 28-5-2002 a night raid was conducted after receiving a clue that petitioner Kamlakar was hiding at Ballarsha and in the said raid the Police recovered Rs. 5.5 lacs cash from the Jeep used by the petitioner Kamlakar but said Kamlakar managed to escape.Subsequently, the Police raided a room where father of the petitioner No. 2 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 247/02 was found in possession of Rs. 1 lac which was seized by the Police.On 4-6-2002, the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No. 247/02 had surrendered before respondent No. 2 but despite interrogation they have not given any information.On 6th July, 2002 the petitioners disclosed certain facts on the basis of which Section 3(3) of POTA was added in Crime No. 27/02 and the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No. 247/02 were arrested.Respondents further contended that in Crime No. 15/01 of Sub Police Station Permili Police, certain documents have been seized from the Naxalities which proves that A. A. Nayeem paid a sum of Rs. 11.90 lacs as well as several other goods for the same purpose.In additional affidavit which is on record of Criminal Writ Petition No. 247/02 at pages 43 to 53, it is submitted that the investigation has revealed that petitioner No. 3 (reference to A. A. Nayeem) had not paid money under duress because the abducted person was released by Naxalites much before the time of actual payment.It is also stated therein that said A. A. Nayeem did not disclose in his statement on 28-5-2002 that any such payment was made.Learned advocates for the petitioners as also learned A.P. P. were heard in the matter at length.Shri V. R. Manohar, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 255/02 has basically and substantially made the following submissions before us.Bhajan Lal, it is submitted that there is absolutely no evidence as against the petitioners except for the confession recorded by the Police under Section 32 of POTA.It is also contended by him that petitioner No. 1 has entered into Tendu Leaves Business for the first time and that he has absolutely no nexus with the Naxalites.He also placed reliance on some authorities to which reference shall be made at the appropriate stage later.In the light of rival contentions, we shall now examine the material on record as also the material collected during investigation.On 2-6-2002, P.S.O. Sironcha had registered Crime No. 27/02 on a complaint given to him by Bapu Reddy.The complaint was given in Telgu and English translation of the same has been filed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 255/02 which reads as under :On 28-5-2002, Police recovered a sum of Rs. 5.5 lacs from the Jeep alleged to have been used by the petitioner Kamlakar on 28th night but said petitioner Kamlakar is alleged to have escaped.Police have then recovered a sum of Rs. 1 lac from the possession of the father of petitioner No. 2 Kamlakar.The petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No. 247/02 had surrendered on 4th July, 2002 and after their interrogation on 6th July, 2002 their confessional statements were recorded, on the basis of which an offence under Section 3(3) of POTA was registered on 12-6-2002 and petitioner A. A. Nayeem was arrested.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

They were having lathies, stone and iron patti (Dau).Both the parties heard.This is first application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime Number 111/2018 registered at Police Station Nalchha, District Dhar for an offence punishable under Section 294, 323, 506 (2), 324, 326 and 34 of IPC and 25-B of Arms Act.Learned counsel for the applicants argued before this court that the complainant Rajaram has lodged a report on 28-06-2018 at about 05:30 PM that the applicants came to his house and have assaulted the complainant.On the basis of the report lodged by Rajaram a criminal case was registered at Crime No.111/18 for an offence under Section 294, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC.The applicants were released on bail as all the offences were bailable.Later on, Section 326 has been added and now the applicants are apprehending their arrest.It has been argued that injuries are minor in nature and based upon the opinion of the District Prosecution Office as well as medical report section 326 has been added and they are apprehending their arrest.It has been stated fight took place between the two parties and the present applicants 2 MCRC No.1774/2019 have also lodged a report against the complainant and the same is registered as Crime No. 112/2018, which was also lodged on the same day with the same police station.

['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(2) The case of the prosecution was as follows :- On 23rd January, 1966, a girl, Smt. Shanta, daughter of Shaligram, aged about 12 years, was grazing cattle in a field in Katoch Kiar all alone.Her mtoher.Smt. Ranpati, was working in a field at a distance of about 150 feet.The accused, Shiam Singh, it was alleged, finding Shanta all alone, went to her from the side to which she had her beck, took her into his lap, carried her some distance to the side of a stone wall, united the string of her pyjama and stripped the same up to her knees.He then took off his own pyjama also up to his knees, made Shanta lie flat beside the stone wall, and put his sexual organ into the sexual organ of the girl.Smt. Shanta raised an alarm, and her shouts were heard by two persons, Shawala Nand and Keshru, who were also grazing their cattle in two separate fields which were at a distance of about 200 feet from the place of occurrence, and when they challenged the accused and ran towards him in order to catch hold of him.the accused rose up from the body of Shanta and ran away.The said Shawala Nand and Keshru chased the accused for some distance to catch him, but could nto succeed.In the meantime, Ranpati, the mtoher of Shanta came to the place of occurrance and found Shanta in a lying position with her pyjama pulled down up to her knees.Ranpati helped Shanta to stand up, tied the string of her pyjama, and then took her to their Dohgri, which was nearby.In the evening, keeping Shanta in the Dohgri, the mtoher, Ranpati, went to her home in village Tikkri to inform her husband, Shaligram, about the occurrence.Shaligram had Just returned home after putting out some fire in a jungle which was nearby on that day.On learning about the occurrence, Shaligram went to his Dohgri, took the girl Shanta from there and proceeded towards Rohru to lodge the First Information Report in the police station at Rohru.Shaligram lodged the First Information Report in the police station.The girl, Shanta, was also medically examined.JUDGMENT T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This appeal was filed by the accused-appellant under section 408(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order of conviction passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahasu District, dated 31st May, 1967, whereby the appellant was convicted for an alleged, offence under section 376, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay of a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 and in default of the payment thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.A case under section 376, Indian Penal Code, was registered against the accused, Shiam Singh.The police commenced the investigation, and arrested the accused.The accused was, however, released on bail later on.After the completion of the investigation, the accused was charged with the offence of rape under section 376, I. P. C., and he was committed to the court of Sessions for trial.(3) At the commencement of the trial in 'the Sessions Court, the, accused pleaded nto guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.The prosecution examined 11 witnesses in proof of the charge against the accused.On a consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahasu and Kinnaur Districts, by his judgment, dated 31st May, 1967, held the accused, Shiam Singh, guilty of committing rape on Shanta, under section 376,I.P.C., convicted him for the said offence, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 and in default of the payment thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.Hence, the present appeal by the accused.(4) Before dealing with the contentions of the appellant and the evidence in the case, reference has to be made to sections 375 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.Explanation.-Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.Exception.-Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife nto being under 15 years of age, is nto rape."The present case, according to the prosecution, falls under the Fifth circumstance mentioned above.Section 376 (I' als with the punishment for rape and it is nto necessary to set out the section.Reading the first part of section 375, the Fifth circumstance and the Explanation together, it is clear that it has to be seen whether, in the present case, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing- (I)that the girl, Shanta, was under 16 years of age ; (ii) that the appellant had sexual intercourse with the girl, Shanta; and (iii)that there was "penetration" within the meaning of the section.THEwitnesses examined by the -prosecution were :- P.W.1.-Shanta.the prosecutorix ; P.W. 2.-Shaligram.the father of Shanta ; P.W. 3.- Dr. M Kaushal, who medically examined Shanta with a view to determine her ; P.W. 4.- Shawala Nand, an eye witness ; P.W. 5-Keshru, antoher eye witness ; P.W. 6.-Ranpati, the mtoher of Shanta ; P.W. 7.-Kewal Ram, Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Tikkri, who produced a copy of an entry in the family register maintained by the said Panchayat regarding the date of birth of Shanta ; P.W 8-Dr.-Dr M. L. Ahuja, Radiologist, who gave his opinion regarding the age of the girl ; P. W. 10.-Shri Sohan Singh, who partly investigated the case ; and PW.11.-Shri Daulat Ram, Station House Officer, who investigated the case.(5) The first question for determination is as to whether Shanta was under 16 years of age at the time of the incident as alleged by the prosecution.She deposed to the same effect in her evidence.P. W. 9, Dr. M. L. Ahuja, the Radiologist at Snowdown, took various X-Ray phtoographs of Shanta and gave his certificate.On a consideration of the variours X-Ray Phtoographs and his radiological findings set out in the said certificate, he stated his conclusion in the said certificate that, in his opinion, the skeletal age of Shanta was about 12 years.He deposed to the same effect in his evidence.P. W. 8, Dr. N. C. Jain, who examined Shanta on 24th January, 1966, the day following the day of the occurrence, issued a certificate Exhibit P.F. He stated in the said certificate, inter alia, that, in his opinion, the age of Shanta, was between 13 and 15 years.Relying on the above evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge held that Shanta, was below 16 years of age at the time of the occurrence.I may point out that P. W. 7, Kewal Ram, who was Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Tikkri, since 1956, produced Exhibit P. E., a copy of an entry in the family register of the said Panchayat.The said entry was the date of birth of Shanta, which was shown as 12-4-2008 Bk.In his cross-examination, he stated that the family register maintained by the Panchayat previously gto burnt when the Panchayatghar (office) was destroyed by fire in 1959, and that the present register was prepared thereafter.He further stated in crossexamination that the entry in question was made by him in his own hand at the instance of Shaligram, the father of Shanta, that no horoscope was produced before him when the entry was made, but that her date of birth was orally conveyed to him by her fathar, Shaligram, from his memory.In view of the circumstance that the original regist' r maintained by the Panchayat was destroyed by fire, and the circumstance that the date of birth was subsequently entered in the new register on the information given by Shaligram from his memory, it is safer to exclude this entry in considering the question as to the age of Shanta.As already stated above, the toher evidence regarding her age shows, in my opinion, that she was under 16 years of age at the time of the occurrence.(6) On the above finding, the next question for determination is as to whether the appellant herein had sexual intercourse with Shanta with or without her consent, and whether there was "penetration" sufficient to constitute sexual intercourse within the meaning of section 375 of the Indian Penal Code.P. W. 1, Shanta, stated in her evidence that about one year and 4 months prior to the date of her deposition, she was grazing her cattle in Katoch Kiar, that she was alone at that time, that the accused, Shiam Singh. came from behind her, caught hold of her and put her on his lap, and carried her to some distance to a wall of stone, and that there he took off her trousers and also removed his own trousers, put her on the ground, and put his male organ into her sexual organ.She further stated that she raised hue and cry when the accused did that to her, that Public Witness 4, Shawala Nand, on hearing her cry, shouted as to what the accused was doing, and thereupon the accused ranaway, and that, in the meanwhile, her mtoher also came to the scene of occurrence, and took her to their Dohgri by holding her arm.It had to be ntoed here that Shanta could nto identify the accused in an identification parade, but purported to identify the accused in the court at the time of her giving evidence.(7) In cross-examination, she stated that she saw P. W. 4, Shawala Nand, and P. W. 5, Keshru, only at the time when she was crying for help and nto prior to that, that her mtoher was the first person to go to her after the incident, that Shawala Nand and Keshru at that time ran after the accased, that when the said Shawala Nand and Keshru were chasing the accused, her mtoher had pulled her up from the ground where the accused raped her, that When her mtoher came on the spto she was still without the pyjama, which she put on with the help of her mtoher, and that when Shawala Nand and, Keshru came back to the place, she had already put on her pyjama.She further stated in her cross-examination that she saw Shawala Nand when he shouted at the accused, that Shawala.Nand was at about 50 feet from the place of occurrence when he shouted at the accused, that at that time her mtoher was working in a field nearby, that Keshru did nto shout at the time when the incident took place and she did nto see Keshru until he came to the place of occurrence, that when Shawala Nand shouted at the accused, the accused Was lying; upon her body, that when.the accused was upon her body, her feet were towards the side from which Shawala Nand was coming, that she did nto see the sexual organ of the accused when he inserted it into her sexual organ as he hid put his body upon her before he inserted his sexual organ into her private part, that When the nurse at Chirgaob examined her, she (the nurse) did nto touch her sexaal organ at all nor did she apply any medicine to it, that she did nto tell the nurse at that time that she was feeling pain in her sexual orgin as a result of the rape, that the medical officer at Rohru had inserted his finger into her sexual organ when he examined her, that she felt pain when the medical officer at Rohru inserted his finger into her sexual organ and she was nto feeling any pain in her sexual organ up to the time the medical officer at Rohru inserted his finger, thathe accused raped her for a very little while, and that she had been married to one Inder Sain, son of Sunder Singh, resident of Tikkri, prior to the date of the incident.P. W. 2, Shaligram, the father of Shanta, stated in his evidence that on the date of the incident he had gone to extinguish fire in the jungle and returned home in the evening, that his wife told him that Shanta had been raped, that on further enquiry his wife told him that the accused present in the Court had raped her, that his daughter was at that time at his Dohgri, that he thereafter went to his Dohgri and enquired from Shanta as to what had happened, that Shanta told him that she had been raped while grazing cattle by a person nto known to her, and that he thereafter took her to Rohru where she was medically examined.In cross-examination, he stated that while coming to Rohru he and Shanta had stayed at Chirgaon for the night, and he gto Shanta examined by a nurse at Chirgaon on that night, and that Shawala Nand was present at his Dohgri when he went there, and before he left for Rohru with Shanta, he was told by Shawala Nand at his Dohgri that it was the accused who committed rape upon Shanta.P. W. 4, Shawala Nand, stated in his evidence that one year and 4 months prior to the date of his evidence he was grazing cattle in Katoch Kiar, that it was just afternoon when he heard hue and cry of Shanta and ran towards her, that when he went near her he saw that Shanta was lying on the ground near a stone wall and the accused was lying upon her body, that he shouted at the accused as to who he was who was spoiling the girl, that when the girl, Shanta, was lying on the ground and the accused was lying on her, the pyjamas of buth had been stripped down, that upon hearing his shouts, tl:e accused left the body of the girl, Shanta, and ran away, that he chased the accused and caught hold of him while he Was running away, that the accused, however, gto himself freed and gave him a push as a result of which he fell down on the ground, that I e had known the accused since his childhood as the accused belonged to his panchayat circle, that at that time Keshru was also grazing his cattle near there and he also saw the accused running away from the scene of occurrence, that when he came back to the place of occurrence after chasing the accused, Shanta had already been helped to stand up by her mtoher, Ranpati, who had in the meanwhile come on the scene of occurrence, that he had told Ranpati and Keshru that it was tl.e accused who raped Shanta, that he did nto tell anybody else tl at accused Shiam Singh, was tl e culprit, and that the girl Shanta was at that time crying end was senseless.In cross-examination, he stated that Shanta was distantly related to him as grand-daughter, that he knew that the accused, Shiam Singh, was at one time an employee in the Police Department, that he saw the accused and Shanta in a lying position as soon as he heard the hue and cry of Shanta, that when he heard the cries of Shanta, he was at a distance of about 200 feet from the place of occurrence, that he had come running half the distance towards Shanta when the accused bolted away, that the accused remained on the body of Shanta for a lesser time than what would take to smoke out one cigarette, that when he heard the cries of Shanta he says that the accused was lying upon the body of Shanta as a result of which the accused had covered her whole body, that the legs of Shanta were also at that time under the body of the accused, and that the knees of the accused at that time were upon the ground and the legs of Shanta were in between the legs of the accused.He further stated in cross-examination that when he was chasing the accused, Keshru also was running behind him and asking him to catch hold of the accused, that Keshru was about 30 feet behind him, that when he gave up the chase and came back, Keshru also came back with him, that after giving up the chase, he and Keshru did nto go to Shanta and Ranpati who were standing at the wall, but that he went to his own cattle while Keshru went to his sheep, and that he told Ranpati at that time from a distance of about 20 feet that it was the accused who raped the girl Shanta.P. W. 5, Keshru, stated in his evidence that one year and 4 months prior to the date of his deposition, he was grazing his sheep at Katoch Kiar, that at about 3 p. m., he heard hue and cry of a girl, that at that time he was with his sheep upon a hillock, and from there he saw that the girl who was crying was lying underneath the body of a male that he knew the girl Shanta, and the accused, who were- buth present in the Court, that on hearing the hue and cry he started running down the hillock towards the scene of occurrence and also shouted at the accused while running down as to who he was, that he had run down for about 30 feet when he saw that the accused left the body of Shanta and started running, that he also saw at that time that Shawla Nand was also chasing the accused, that Shawala Nand, while chasing the accused, caught hold of him by the sholder, but the accused, however, gto himself freed and give a push to Shawala Nand as a result of which Shawala.Nand fell on the ground while the accused made good his escape, that he and Shawala Nand still chased the accused for some distance, but in vain, that they buth gave up the chase and went back to the place of occurrence, that in the meantime the mtoher of Shanta had Come to the place of occurrence, carried Shanta upon her back, and took her to their Dohgri, and that Shawala Nand than went to his cattle and he went to his sheep.In cross-examination, he stated that on their return after the chase, neither he nor Shawala Nand had any talk with Ranpati as she was crying while Shanta was senseless, that he did nto recognise the accused at the time when he starts coming down the hill to catch hold of the accased, but that he, however, recognised the accused when he came near the accused, as he and the accused belonged to the same panchayat circle, that Shawala Nand also told him the nameof the accused at that time, that he saw for the first timeShanta and the accused in a lying position from a distance of about 200 feet, that he recognised Shanta as soon as he heard her cries, but he could nto see Shanta when she was shouting as she was entirely covered by the body of the accased and was under his chest, but could only see her feet, that he could nto say as to what the accused was doing to Shanta when he was lying upon her body, and that as he shouted from the hillock, the accused look towards him while lying up in the body of Shanta.P. W. 6, Ranpati, the mtoher of Shanta.. stated in her evidence that one year 4 months prior to the date of her deposition, her husband had gone to put off some fire in a jungle near their village, that her daughter.Shanta had gone to graze cattle in the Katoch Kiar, that it was in the afternoon that she heard the cries of Shanta when-she (Ranpati) was working in her field, that she ran towards Shanta, that when she reached the scene of occurrence she found that her daughter was lying beside a stone wall, her pyjama had been stripped down to her knees, while the front part of her shirt had been folded upwards, and she was weepping.that she (Ranpati) also saw that Shawala Nand was chasing a man, that Shanta told her that the man who was being chased by Shawala Nand had raped her, that she tied the string of the pyjama of Shanta, helped her to stand up, and then took her to their Dohgri by holding Shanta's arm while Shanta was walking on foto, that after leaving Shanta at their Dohgri, she went to her house in the village Tikkri, where she met her husband, Shaligram, and conveyed to him the incident as narrated to her by her daughter, and that thereafter her husband.Shaligram, went to their Dohgri.In cross-examination, she stated that Shanta had been married to one Inder Sain, prior to the incident, that she was working in her field at a distance of 150 feet from the place of occurrence when she heard the cries of Shanta, that she did nto know the accused prior to the date of the incident, and that it was Shawala Nand who told her the name of the accused at the time of the incident as the culprit of the offence, (8) Thus, according to the evidence of the witnesses mentioned above, the scene of occurrence was "Katoch Kiar", the girl Shanta was grazing her cattle in that place all alone, Shawala Nand was at that time grazing his cattle up the hill at a distance of about 200 feet, while the girl's mtoher, Ranpiti, was working in a field about 150 feet away, and Keshru was also grazing his sheep on a hillock nearby about 200 feet from the place of the alleged incident.Shawala Nand and Keshru heard the shouts of the girl, Shanta.and they saw that the girl was shouting from underneath the body of the accused that Shanta was lying upon.her back by the side of a wall while the accused was lying upon her, and that his body had covered the entire body of Shanta, and only her feet were visible from underneath the body of the accused, and were in between the legs of the accused.The pyjamas of buth the appellant and the girl were stripped down to their respective khees.Shawala Nand shouted at the accused, and the acceased then left the body of Shanta put on his pyjama which he had stripped down to his knees and ran away.Shawala Nand and Keshru started chasing the accused, and they saw Shanta lying near the wall with her pyjama stripped down to her knees, the mtoher, Ranoati, also saw Shanta in that situation when she came there after hearing her daughter's cries.The mtoher then helped Shanta to stand up and tie the string of her pyjama.According to the said evidence, the girl told her mtoher that she had been raped by the person who was being chased by Shawala Nand and Keshru, but who was nto known to her at that time.The girl also gave the same version to her father, when he met her at their Dohgri.(9) In his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant stated that he did nto know anything about the alleged grazing of her cattle in Katoch Kiar by Shanta about one year and 4 months prior to the date of his statement, that he did nto know of any Katoch Kiar near Tikkri village, and that he did nto know Shanta at that time.He denied the entire prosecution case, and stated that he did nto know anything about the alleged rape upon Shanti, and that he neither raped her nor knew the age of the girl.He, however, stated that Shawala Nand and Keshru were known to him one year and 4 months prior to the date of his' statement as the said Shawala Nand and Keshru and himself belonged to villages which were at a distance of 2 miles from each toher.To a question put by the court as to whether he had anything to say as to why the prosecution witnesses were deposing against him, he answered as follows :- "THEvillagers of Tikkri including P. Ws.Shawala Nand, Shalig- ram, Kes'hru, Smt. Ranpati are inimical to me on account of the fact that during the communal ritos 1947 the villagers of Tikkri had killed the brtoher of one Gicha Shaikh and his family consisting of Ii members and thereafter had misappropriated his property.I was at that time serving in the Police as Constable posted in the Rohru Police Station and had accompanied the S.H.O. Rohru to village Tikkri at that time for investigation during which the whole of the property of the Gujjar was recovered from the villagers of Tikkri."(11) On the question as to whether the appellant herein had sexual intercourse with Shanta with or without her consent, and whether there was "penetration" sufficient to constitute sexual intercourse within the meaning of section 375 of the Indian Penal Code.So far as the evidence of the prose- cuterix, Shanta, is concerned, it can be accepts d only to the extent to which it is corroborated by the toher evidence in the case.Shri Thakur pointed out firstly that Shanta admitted in her evidence that she did nto know the appellant at the time of the occurrence, and she could nto identify the appellant in the identification parade.As regards the identification of the appellant, the evidence was only that of P. W. 4, Shawala Nand and P. W. 5, Keshru.Shri Thakur submitted that the evidence of the said two witnesses should nto be believed in view of the enemity between them and the appellant which was mentioned by the appellant in his examination under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code.It is true that the appellant stated that Shawala Nand, Shaligram, Keshru and Smt. Ranpati were inimical to him on account of the circumstance that during the communal ritos in 1947, the villagers ol Tilkii had killed the brtoher of one Gicha Shaikh and his family and had also misappropriated his property, that at that time the appellant was posted as police Constable in the Rohru Police Station and had accompanied the Station House Officer, Rohru, to the village Tikkri at that time for investigation, and that during the said investigation the whole of the' property of the Gujjar (the brtoher of Gicha Shaikh) was recovered from the villagers of Tikkri.But, the said suggestion by the appellant is, in my opinion, a far fetchtd one.The alleged investigation and recovery was nearly 19 years prior to the occurrence in question.It is difficult to believe that after such a lapse of time, the 4 persons mentioned above, viz. Shawala Nand, Shaligram, Keshru and Smt. Ranpati, took it into their minds to take a revenge upon the accused for the first time in 1966 and gave false evidence against him.No such suggestion was made to Shaligram, Smt. Ranpati or Keshrn in their cross-examination.The said suggestion was made to Shawala Nand in cross-examination, but he denied the same slating that he was nto arrested in 1947 on account of Hindu-Muslim ritos or for murdering Gujjars, and that his property was nto confiscated at that time by the police.In the circumstances, the statement of the appellant that Shawala Nand and Keshru were inimically disposed towards him cannto be accepted.It is also true that the appellant stated that the case was foisted upon him at the instance of one Nehar Singh, who, according to the appellant, was having a grouse against him on account of the acceptance of the appellant's bid in an auction in respect of a land as against the bid of the said Nehar Singh.The appellant, however, did nto state as to whether the witnesses in question were under the influence of Nehar Singh.No such suggestion was even made to the said witnesses, Shawala Nand and Keshru, in their cross-examination.t cannto therefore, be said that the evidence of Shawala Nand and Keshru should nto be believed for the aforesaid reasons, buth Shawala Nand and Keshru deposed that it was the appellant who committed the offence in question upon Shanta on the relevant date.It has, therefore to be held that the identity of the appellant is established hy the evidence of Shawala Nand and Keshru.(12) Shri Thakur referred to the following discrepancies in the evidence of Shawala Nand and Keshru, and submitted that their evidence should nto be believed in view of the said discrepancies.The discrepancies in the evidence of P. W. 4, Shawala Nand, according to him, are :-(A)Shawala Nand stated in his evidence that when he came back to the place of occurrence after chasing the accused (appellant), he had told Smt. Ranpati and Keshru that it was the accused who raped Shanta, and that he did nto tell anybody else that Shiam Singh, accused, was the culprit.On the toher hand, according to P. W. 2, Shaligram, he also was told by Shawala Nand at the Dohgn of Shaligram that it was the accused (appellant herein) who committed rape upon Shanta.(B)In the Chief Examination, Shawala Nand stated that he heard the hue and cry of Smt. Shanta, that he ran towards her, that when he went near her, he saw that Shanta was lying on the ground and the accused was lying upon her body, and that when the gii I was lying on the ground and the accused was lying on her, the pyjamas of buth had been stripped down, while in his cross-examination, he stated :- "It is correct that I saw Shanta only after I came back on the scene of occuerence after chasing the accused and nto before."(C)Shawala Nand stated in his cross-examination that the feet of Shanta were towards the direction from which he was coming while her head was towards the stone wall at the time of the incident.He then corrected himself and stated that the head of Shanta at the time of the incident was nto towards the stone wall, but that she was made to lie by the side of the wall lengthwise.On the toher hand, P. W. I, Shanta, stated in her cross-examination that when the accused was upon her body, her feet were towards the side from which Shawala Nand was coming.(D)Shawala Nand stated that Shanta had a shirt on and did nto have any chopken or gachi at the time of the incident, while P. W. I, Shanta, stated that she was at that time putting on a woollen chopken (long coat) and gachi (a string round the chopken) at the time of the incident.(E)Shawala Nand stated in his Chief Examination that when he came back to the place of occurrence after chasing the accused, Shanta had already been helped to stand up by her mtoher Ranpati who had in the meanwhile come.on the scene of occurrence.In his cross-examination, he stated that he and Keshru did nto go to Shanta and Ranpati when they were standing at the wall after giving up the chasing of the accused, that he went to his own cattle while Keshru went to his sheep, and that he told Ranpati that it was the accused who raped the girl, Shanta, at that time from a distance of about 20 feet.P. W. 6, Ranpati, on the toher hand, stated in her cross-examination that when Shawala Nand and Keshru came back after chasing the accused, they sat near her and Shanta at the place of the occurrence.(13) The above statements can hardly be said to be discrepancies, and any case, they are very trivial and nto material discrepancies at all.(14) The discrepancies pointed out by Shri Thakur in the evidence of P. W. 5, Keshru, aie the following :- (A)Keshru stated in cross-examination that the girl, Shanta, vas senseless when he and Shawala Nand returned after chasing the appellant.No toher witness stated that she was senseless.(b) He stated in Chief Examination that the mtoher, Ranpati, carried the girl Shanta upon her back and took her to their Dohgri, while according to Ranapati, she took the girl to their Dohgri by holding the girl's arm while the girl was walking.(e) Keshru stat( din cross-examination that the appellant and Shawala Nand were running towards opposite directions at the time of the chasing of the accused, and that when Shawala Nand caught the accused by the shoulder, they were facing each toher.The counsel suggested that this was improbable as the appellant would be running away from Ranpati and nto towards him.(d) He stated in Chief Examination that at the time of the alleged incident he was with his sheep upon a hillock and from there he saw that the girl who was crying was lying underneath the body of a male, that he knew the girl Shanta and the accused (appellant) who were buth present in the court, and that when he had run down the hillock for about 30 feet, he saw that the accused (appellant) left the body of Shanta and started runing.In cross-examination also he stated that when he shouted from the hillock the accused looked towards him while the accused was lying upon the body of Shanta, and that he did nto know what the accused did to Shanta when he was lying upon her body, and he was nto told by anybody as to what the accused did to the girl.These statements of the said witnesses corroborate each toher.Thus, it is clear from the .evidence of the said witnesses that the appellant with his pyjama stripped down up to his kness lay upon the body of Shanta, whose pyjama also was stripped down up to her knees.(17) The question then is as to whether the appellant committed sexual intercourse with the girl.P. W. 4, stated that the accused remained on the body of Shanta for a lesser time than what one would take to smoke out one cigarette.The girl, Shanta, told her mtoher immediately after the incident that she was raped by the person who was being chased by Shawala Nand she also told the same to her father, Shaligram, when he came to their Dobgri in the evening.P. W. 8, Dr. N. C. Jain, Civil Hospital, Nahan, conducted the medical examination of the girl Shanta, on 24th January, 1966, and issued a certificate, Exhibit P. F. He stated in his Chief Examination as follow? :- "EITHERon the back of pyjama or on the front there is nto any kind of blood stain.No hairs on the private part.

['Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This revision is not likely to come up for hearing in near future.As regards I.A. No. 2875/2017 awaiting admission an application under Section 397 (1) Cr.P.C, it is directed that jail sentence of petitioner will remain under suspension on the petitioner furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of CJM Shivpuri, for his appearance before CJM concerned on 31st of August, 2017 and all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the CJM in this regard.

['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

P No.762/2014 Page 1 of 14The petitioner had lodged a written complaint on 17.12.2012 alleging that his neighbours Suresh Chand @ Mast Ram and Daya Nand Aggarwal insisted upon him for purchasing an agricultural land situated in a village at Haryana, which land stood in the name of Smt. Bina (Respondent no.2), who was stated to be the sister-in-law of Suresh Chand.The petitioner agreed for purchasing the plot of land in question and in order to fix the deal, issued one cheque of Rs.20 lacs and two cheques of Rs.10 lacs each dated 15.06.2010 drawn on HDFC Bank, Gopi Nath Market, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi.The aforesaid cheques were issued in the name of Narender and Surender as Bina (Respondent no.2) was not having any bank account.Two more cheques of Rs.15 lacs each were also issued by the petitioner.Believing the assertions of the accused persons, the petitioner paid Rs.35 lacs in cash to Respondent no.2 and Suresh Chand at his residence in the presence of Daya Nand Aggarwal and others.Later, the petitioner learnt that the property which was agreed upon to be purchased by him and against which the petitioner had made payment of Rs.45 lacs to Respondent no.2 and Suresh Chand, did not belong to them and they were not the rightful owners of the said property.P No.762/2014 Page 3 of 14On detection of such fraud, and on being confronted, a promise was made by the accused persons that the amount accepted by them would be returned in three installments.The petitioner had no option but to acquiesce.Later Respondent no.2 entered in the scene and executed an agreement to sell the property for a large sum of money as consideration.The Crl.Babu Lal Aggarwal, the informant of FIR No.58/2013 (PS Palam Vihar) challenges the order dated 25.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, in Criminal Revision Petition No.89/2014 whereby the charges framed against Respondent no.2 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, on 26.02.2014 has been set aside and Respondent no.2 has been discharged.After the completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted on 07.05.2013, sending up Respondent no.2 for trial.A supplementary chargesheet was also filed.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

...for the petitioners.Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, PP Mr. Mainak Gupta, Adv....for the State.The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Dum Dum Police Station Case No. 123 of 2018 dated 21.02.2018 under Sections 366A/370/370B/109/120B of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 3/4/5/6/7/9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and under Sections 4/17/21 of the POCSO Act.The State opposes the prayer and says that the petitioners are the owners of the hotel where minor girls would be taken and abused.The petitioners claim that the hotel was under the control and custody of a designated manager and the petitioners could not have known of the illegal activity conducted thereat by the manager.The petitioners say that none of the victims has named the petitioners.Considering the material and the gravity of the offence, it may not be fair to excuse the petitioners from custodial interrogation notwithstanding the charge- sheet being filed.If necessary, the investigating officer can file a supplementary charge-sheet.Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioners for anticipatory bail is rejected.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)

['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(1) Being dissatisfied with the investigation carried on by the Delhi Police in Case Fir No. 127/95 dated 26th April, 1995 registered at Ps Kotla Mubarak pur, New Delhi under Sections 302/ 120B/IPC, the petitioner has filed this petition for transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other independent agency.(2) One Praveen Malhotra was the son of the petitioner and was residing on the first floor of House No. A-lll, defense Colony, New Delhi.The petitioner and his wife i.e. the parents of Praveen Malhotra were residing on the ground floor of the same house.In the night intervening 19/20th December, 1994 Praveen Malhotra was found dead in suspicious circumstances in room No. 2 of South Delhi Guest House, NDSE-I, New Delhi.The petitioner made a complaint to D.C.P.(South) on 20th December, 1994 staling inter alia that he suspected foul play in the death of his son at the hands of certain persons whose names had been mentioned in the petition.(4) That on 19th December, 1994 at about 8.30 p.m. a driver came at the guest house in a red Maruti Gypsy and told the man at the reception that the room of Praveen Malhotra had not been cleaned.At this, the receptionist told him that the room had been cleaned 2-3 times in the day.Certain instances of the said persons having got blank papers signed from Praveen Malhotra and having tried to grab the properties have also been given in the petition.On the complaint of the petitioner and after some investigation which was entrusted to Special Investigation Unit, South District and on receipt of the post mortem report, a case under Sections 302/102-B Indian Penal Code was registered at Ps Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi.However, after obtaining a second opinion on the postmortem report, it was stated that in view of the investigations carried out so far, it appeared to be a case of accidental death due to the head of the deceased having impacted in the plastic dustbin which resulted into asphyxia.It was further stated that the matter was still under investigation.(3) Being dissatisfied with the investigation carried out by the police, this petition was filed for transfer of investigation of the case to Central Bureau of Investigation or to any other independent agency.Some of the facts which are relevant for purposes of deciding this petition and which are admitted by the State are:Further, the driver told him that he was coming from the room and Praveen Malhotra appeared to have fallen down; there appeared to be some injury in his mouth and blood was coming out of his mouth to the floor of the room and the receptionist should have the same cleaned.10 or 15 minutes thereafter the receptionist went into the room of Praveen Malhotra and found his head leaning out of the bed and his left hand was totally smeared with blood and he was trying to clean the blood from his mouth with the right hand.The receptionist asked him as to what had happened on which Praveen Malhotra tried to speak but failed in his efforts.The receptionist came back at the reception and telephoned the driver to inform him that the condition of Praveen Malhotra was very bad.After about 7-8 minutes, the driver reached the Guest House and the receptionist along with the driver went to the room of Praveen Malhotra where they cleaned his mouth with a towel.After opening the mouth, the driver told the receptionist that it appeared that the tongue of Praveen Malhotra had been cut as a result of which the blood was coming out.When the driver wanted to take Praveen Malhotra to Golf Links to the Doctor, he was told by Praveen Malhotra that he was all right and he wanted a peg of whisky to be given to him.A bottle of whisky was lying in the room and the driver made a peg from out of that and the receptionist came back at the reception.After about 20-25 minutes, the driver came at the reception where he told the waiter Anand Singh to take care of Praveen Malhotra.At about 10.30/10.45 p.m. some lady telephoned at the guest house and asked the receptionist to call the person from room No. 2 where Praveen Malhotra was staying.However, nobody responded to the phone in room No. 2 whereupon the lady asked him to go to the room and find out as to why nobody was responding.When the receptionist went in the room he found that Mr.Malhotra was vomiting blood.The receptionist immediately informed that lady on the phone about the same.After about 8-10 minutes, the driver came at the guest house and he was taken to the room and they found that Praveen Malhotra was already dead and while the lower portion of the body was on the bed, the upper portion was leaning from the bed and his head was in the plastic dustbin.Thereafter, the receptionist telephoned at the same number where he had spoken to the driver earlier and informed the person who had picked up the receiver about Praveen Malhotra.As nobody came at the guest house in spite of the information having been given on telephone, nor the driver came back, police was called at the guest house and was informed about the incident.(6) About the second post-mortem report which had been obtained by the police, the case of the State is that as the statement of witnesses did not tally, a request was made for constitution of a Medical Board for giving opinion on the postmortem report.(7) On a perusal of the material before me, I find that certain aspects of the matter appear to have not been investigated by the police inasmuch as while the receptionist at the guest house states that the driver when he came at about 11.00 p.m., was taken to the room of Praveen Malhotra and he was found already dead, the driver left the guest house immediately thereafter to come back shortly, however, he did not come back.Thereafter the information of the death was also given on telephone number available with the guest house from where a lady had earlier telephoned to enquire about the deceased, however, nobody came at the guest house.As to why the driver did not return and why did he leave immediately for Allahabad is a matter which requires investigation.Even a matter of urgent nature could wait the departure of the driver to Allahabad when he had already seen the dead body of the person to whom he was attending upon daily and to whom he had spoken only two hours earlier.The persons who had booked the room for Praveen Malhotra in the guest house having been informed about the death at about 11.00 p.m. did not bother to visit the guest house and it appears that the police had not investigated that angle.Though it has been stated by the driver that the deceased before his death was drinking alcohol, the post-mortem report suggests that there was nothing to "suggest intoxication or influence of alcohol/phenytoin /any other common poisons".There is nothing in the report to show as to why the deceased was vomiting blood as there was a pool of blood on the floor.(8) Be that as it may, on a cumulative reading of the statements recorded by the police and the material placed before me, I feel that the investigation so far carried out was not satisfactory and certain vital aspects of the case have not been investigated.Mr. Aggarwal has no objection if the matter is transferred to the Crime Branch, Delhi Police for further investigation.(9) For the foregoing, I transfer investigation of the case to the Crime Branch, Delhi Police which will carry out further investigation without in any manner being influenced by the investigation carried out earlier.With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

After marriage complainant had problems with the family members of her husband.She wished to live separately and she shifted to a rental accommodation along with her husband and daughter.However, the marriage perhaps did not click and she took away her daughter and other articles except bulky one and went to USA.Her allegations were that since her marriage, she was subjected to unwarranted remarks in the garb of jokes about standard of her family and every accused person stated that she had not brought sufficient dowry.They among themselves used to speak of "physically handling" her.On one occasion, her in laws verbally abused her parents.Her saas (mother-in-law) and nanad (sister-in-law) Crl.MC No.162/2010 Page 2 of 3 assaulted her when she resented abuses to her parents.The allegations were very vague.No occasion, date, month or year of demand of Rs. 50 lac was stated by complainant.MC No.162/2010 Page 3 of 3MM would show that the Ld. MM considered the material available on record, gave the details of the fact and came to the conclusion that no charge under Section 498A IPC or 406 IPC was made against the accused persons and discharged the accused.In revision, the Ld.MC No.162/2010 Page 1 of 3MC No.162/2010 Page 1 of 3In a revision against charge, if an accused has been discharged, the revision Court cannot brush aside the order of the Trial Court in a casual and mechanical manner as has been done by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this case.A charge is liable to be framed against an accused by the Court if the material placed before the Trial Court is such that if entire admissible evidence collected by the police was considered true, commission of offence was made out.Her saas demanded Rs. 50 lac.The other complaint of complainant was about her husband taking to drinking and smoking and in insulting her in presence of others whenever she tried to check his habits.She alleged that heavy drinking and smoking of her husband created havoc in the peaceful living of her married life - to such an extent, that she thought of committing suicide.In respect of these allegations, the Trial Court observed that heavy drinking and smoking of her husband would not fall under Section 498A IPC.The Trial Court found that all her allegations about other facts were so vague that no case was made out under Section 498A and 406 IPC.I consider that the Trial Court rightly judged the material available on record in order to find out whether the charge should be framed against the accused person or not.The Ld.Additional Sessions Judge did not appreciate that even if all allegations made by the complainant were considered true, no case under Section 498A or 406 could have been made out.This petition is allowed.The order dated 16th November, 2009 of Ld.Additional Sessions judge is set aside.The order dated 11th March, 2008 of Ld. MM is restored.

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

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

On a close scrutiny of the entire evidence of P.W. 4, we have no hesitation in affirming the finding of the learned trial Judge that P.W. 4 and the first accused were on inimical terms for sometime prior to the occurrence, although, they were distantly related to each other.On the date of the occurrence 16th April, 1970 at about 4 P.M. P.W. 4 Palaniandi Servai and one Kandaswamy (not examined) were returning from Kottampatti to their village, Chinnakottampatti.The distance is stated to be about one mile.Malaichamy, the first accused, accused P.W. 4 on the road.He kicked him (P.W. 4) down and attempted to spear him with a vel kambu.P.W. 1 and the deceased Subbiah went to the field house of P.W. 4 to enquire about this incident and on the way Subbiah (P.W. 3) son of Karuppiah was taken along by them.P.Ws. 1 and 3 and the deceased Subbiah found P.W. 4 weeping and after hearing about the details of the assault, the deceased Subbiah told P.W. 4 that he should make a complaint to the Police about the assault.P.W. 4 agreed.P.W. 3, Kannusamy, and deceased Subbiah accompanied P.W. 4 to the Police Station of Kottampatti.They got a complaint (Exhibit P-5) prepared by a local petition-writer at Kottampatti and P.W. 4 presented it at the Police Station before P.W. 10 the Station-Writer of the Police Station, since the SuB-1nspector was not available.They had some coffee at Kottampatti later; they were returning to their village, Chinnakottampatti, at about 2-30 P.M, along the Trichy main road.There is a diversion road branching off from the main road to the village of Chinnakottampatti, and P.W. 4 and Kannusamy parted company from the deceased Subbiah and P.Ws. 1 and 3, who were proceeding on the branch road to their village.This was at about 9 P.M. and there was undoubtedly bright moonlight at that time.It emerges from the recorded evidence that all the five accused as well as.P.Ws. 1 and 3 (the two eye-witnesses) and also P.W. 4 and the deceased Subbiah belong to the same village of Chinnakottampatti.JUDGMENT K.N. Mudaliyar, J.After killing the deceased Subbiah, the five accused returned to the road.P.Ws. 1 and 3 saw them and quietly hastened towards their village.P.W. 1 asked P.W. 3 to go to the village and inform the family of the deceased about the occurrence.P.W. 1 himself left the place to give a report to the Village Munsif, residing at Kottampatti.On the information given by P.W. 3 to the relations of the deceased, they all came crying to the scene of crime, which is about one and a half furlongs away from their house.After recording the said complaint, Exhibit P-1,' P.W. 6 accompanied by P.W. 1 and the Village Vettian, got a petromax light and reached the scene of occurrence.He saw the dead body of the deceased with multiple injuries in the garden of Kaliappan.P.W. 6 prepared the routine reports to the Police and the Magistrate and despatched them through his Vettian at 11 P.M. which were received by P.W. 10 at about 11-50 P.M. Naturally P.W. 6 continued to stay at the scene of occurrence till the arrival of the SuB-1nspector of Police (P.W. 13) on 17th April, 1970 at 10 A.M.P.W. 13 the SuB-1nspector of Police of Kottampatti Police Station was on special bandobust duty at Maduraiin connection with the visit of the Vice-President of India.P.W. 13 received from P.W. 12 an express tapal regarding the crime at about 6 A.M. on 17th April, 1970, when he Was on duty near St. Mary's High School.Dr. Abdul Gafoor Adamsa (P.W. 2) conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased Subbiah on 18th April, 1970 at 10-45 A.M. It is unnecessary for us to elaborately describe the multiple injuries found on the body of the deceased as paragraph 6 of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge contains all the details.Suffice it for us to observe that the deceased had received at least eight injuries which were necessarily fatal.The head was virtually severed from the body except a portion of the skin :over the right side sticking to the body.According to the doctor, death Would have been instantaneous on receipt of the injuries.The plea of the accused was one of denial.The learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence adduced by the prosecution that the First Information Report was given within one hour after the occurrence and that Exhibit P. 1. contained the names of all the appellants.The learned Judge further found that the motive was quite sufficient for the accused to commit the offence in question.The learned Judge, while accepting the testimony of P.W. 1, found that his evidence marked under Section 288 of the Criminal Procedure Code, taken along with the evidence of P.Ws. 3: and 6, clearly established that all the five accused committed the offences charged against them and that they murdered the deceased Subbiah in cold blood.He even admits that Exhibit P-1 was read over to him.He admits further that all the recitals in Exhibit P-1 are true.He admits that he was examined in the committal Court.He further admits that Exhibit P-2 is his deposition The learned Sessions Judge records as-follows :Public Prosecutor requests the Court to mark it under Section 288, Criminal Procedure Code.Marked as requested.Exhibit P-2 was read over to the witnesses.Accused informed.P.W. 1 further stated that prior to his deposition in the committal Court he gave a statement under Section 164,, Criminal Procedure Code, in the Court of the Sub-Magistrate, Madurai.He further states that the SuB-1nspector held the inquest on the morning of the next day.P.W. 3 stated that there was bright moonlight, that all the five accused intercepted the deceased and that the second accused instigated the first accused to murder the deceased Subbiah, since the latter was supporting P.W. 4 Palaniandi as against the first accused.P.W. 3 swears that immediately the first accused dealt a cut with his aruval on the deceased, but the deceased tried to obstruct the cut and received it on his left hand.After receiving the cut the deceased Subbiah must have run for his life into the neighbouring field of Kaliappan.All the five accused chased him into the field and cut him indiscriminately as a result of which Subbiah died instantaneously.P.W. 3 was with the deceased Subbiah when the first cut was delivered by the first accused.He was standing on the side of the road near the fence and when the accused came he ran towards the village to inform the near relations of the deceased about the occurrence.No motive has been suggested against P.W. 3 as to why he should implicate the five accused-appellants.Some attempt has been made at suggesting some misunderstanding between P.W. 3 and the first accused in regard to their engagement as tope kavalkars.At any rate we find a total absence of any suggestion to P.W. 3 as to why he did implicate falsely accused 2 to 5 at all.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

On 17.03.95 at about 10.00 p.m. appellant/ accused Balakram entered into her house and committed rape on her.According to prosecutrix, she tried to shout but the appellant threatened her and said that if she disclose this incident to any one then he will desert her from the house.It is, further alleged that after half an hour of this incident, appellant/accused further committed rape on her and when she resisted, she was assaulted by the appellant.Therefore she received the injuries on different part of her body.It is further, alleged that due to the threat given by the appellant/accused she did not disclose this fact to any one for next two days.The prosecutrix was sent to medical examination.She was examined by lady doctor and examination 3 report(Ex.P-9) was prepared.Appellant/accused was arrested.He was also medically examined.As per G.S. Solanki,J.:The Sessions Judge, Betul passed the impugned judgment dated 20.09.95 in S.T. No. 85/95 by which the appellant/accused has been convicted under Section 376 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years.Being aggrieved the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.It is undisputed that prosecutrix Suganti bai (P.W.-1) is a sister-in-law(bhabhi) of appellant/accused 2 Balakram and witness Bhure (P.W.3) is a brother-in- law(jeth) of prosecutrix.The prosecution case in short is that husband of prosecutrix(P.W.1) was in Bhopal Jail therefore she was living separately along with her 4 years child in village Gyaraspur.After usual investigation appellant/accused was charge-sheeted.Learned Session Judge framed the charges against the appellant under Sections 451,506 Part- II,376,323 of I.P.C.The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded that he is falsely implicated and further pleaded that prosecutrix is having illicit relation with one Ramadhar, being a near relative of prosecutrix appellant/accused objected and beaten her therefore, he was falsely implicated.After completing trial, on appraisal of evidence of record Learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant/ accused under Sections 451,506 Part-II,323 of I.P.C. but convicted him under Section 376 of I.P.C. and sentenced as mentioned above.Hence, this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective and committed error in passing the impugned judgment.On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer supported the impugned judgment and finding of the trial Court.I have perused the impugned judgment, evidence and other materials on record.Prosecutrix(P.W.1) deposed that on the fateful night she was sleeping, after closing the door of her house.At about 10-11 p.m. in the night appellant/accused entered in her house after broken the door of house and caught hold her.She tried to ran away, then appellant/accused assaulted her by stick and then committed the rape on her.She further deposed that witness Bhure(P.W.3) came over there on her hue and cry and he saved her.She further deposed that she narrated the incident to Sarpanch Ramsingh and on the very same night Sarpanch sent him to Kotwar, but Kotwar was not available therefore, she lodged the report after 2-3 days.Later on she added that her brother-in-law(jeth) Bhure and father-in-law threatened her not to report the matter, therefore, she reported the matter belatedly.But this fact not found place in F.I.R., therefore explanation for delayed F.I.R. can not be said to be reliable.Soorat lal(P.W.2) is a village Kotwar.He did not support the prosecutrix therefore, he was declared hostile by the prosecution.Further, he deposed that prosecutrix came to him in the fateful night and told 5 him that appellant/accused beaten her.Bhure(P.W.3) is a brother-in-law of prosecutrix also not supported her and was also declared hostile by the prosecution.In these circumstances, only statement of prosecutrix remains on record.No doubt if statement of prosecutrix found to be truthful and there exist no circumstances which cast on shadow of doubt on her veracity, conviction can be based on single testimony of prosecutrix.Keeping in mind aforementioned principle of appreciation when I carefully peruse the cross- examination of prosecutrix, I am of the view that single testimony of prosecutrix can not be said to be reliable because prosecutrix herself stated in her examination- in-chief that at the time of incident witness Bhure(brother of appellant/accused) came over due to hue and cry made by her and he saved her.In her cross-examination, para 9, she categorically admitted that as soon as appellant entered in her house and assaulted her, she made hue and cry, therefore his brother-in-law Bhure(P.W.3) came over there and he saved her.She further deposed that immediately appellant/accused went from her house, she immediately rushed to the Sarpanch Ramsingh to 6 narrate the incident.There is material omission brought on her cross- examination from her police statement(Ex. D-1) in regard to the fact that appellant/accused entered the house after broken the door of the house.Trial Court also not believed her in regard to broken of door,therefore appellant was acquitted to the charge under Section 451 of I.P.C.On perusal of FIR(Ex. P-10) it reveals that according to prosecutrix she narrated the incident to witness Bhure, brother-in-law(jeth) of the prosecutrix after two days of the incident but in the statement before Court she deposed that Bhure came over there at the time of incident and saved her.In these circumstances, defence of the appellant/ accused appears to be probable that prosecutrix was entangle with one Ramadhar by taking the advantage of absence of her husband who was in jail.Being a near relative appellant had assaulted her and according to prosecutrix on the same night Bhure(P.W.3) brother-in-law(jeth) of the prosecutrix also saved her.This fact is also precepeted from her cross- examination, para 9 that as soon as appellant accused entered in her house he beaten her, she made hue and 7 cry and Bhure(P.W.3) came over there and saved her.In these circumstances, single testimony of prosecutrix can not be said to be reliable.Because her statement is not corroborated by medical evidence and FIR.F.I.R. appears to be product of after thought.In these circumstances, prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. against the appellant/accused and trial Court has committed error in not appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective.Thus appeal succeed.(G.S. Solanki) JUDGE 24 /01/2011 Ba 8

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

[Order of the Court was made by P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J] The petitioner is the father of the detenu, viz., I.T. @ RamKumar, S/o.Thangaraj, aged about 22 years.The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.167/BCDFGISSSV/2015 dated 27.11.2015, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f)of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, taking note of the ground case in Crime No.888of 2015 on the file of E2 Madhichiam Police Station registered for allegedoffences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code@ 147, 148, 341, 392, 506(ii) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code r/w 34 and 397of the Indian Penal Code.The Detaining Authority, expressing subjective satisfactionthat the detenu conformed to the definition of the "Goonda" and that hispresence at large would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order andalso expressing subjective satisfaction that it was very likely that thedetenu would come out on bail in the ground case, passed the impugned detention order.The said order is challenged in the present Habeas CorpusPetition.The submissions made by the learned Additional PublicProsecutor in reply to the above said contentions raised by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner are also heard.In Paragraph No.4 of the grounds of detention, the DetainingAuthority, expressing his subjective satisfaction regarding the possibilityof the detenu coming out on bail, made the following observation:"I am aware that Thiru.Thangaraj is in remand inthe ground case in E.2 Madhichiam P.S. Cr.No.888/2015 for the offences undersection 147, 148, 302 IPC @ Sec.147, 148, 341, 392, 506(ii) & 302 IPC r/w 34and 397 IPC at the Central Prison, Madurai; and I am also aware that his bailapplication filed in the above said ground case was dismissed by theJ.M.No.II, Madurai in Crl.I am also awarethat Thiru.M.P.No.3084/2015 dated 03.09.2015 to an accused Thiru.Pandi @ Kamma Pandi s/o Sakkarai Thevar concerned in C2 Subramaniapuram P.S. Cr.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and thisCourt sets aside the order of detention dated 27.11.2015, made inNo.167/BCDFGISSSV/2015, by the second respondent, the Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai and directs therelease of the detenu by name I.T. @ Ram Kumar, S/o.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..

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

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

The case of the prosecution is that the first accused is the husband of the deceased Mookkayee; the accused 2 and 3 are the parents of the 1st accused.Prior to one year from 19.11.2003, the first accused has married the deceased Mookkayee and after the marriage, both of them has lived as husband and wife in the house of the accused.All the accused have joined together and demanded dowry from the deceased in the form of jewels, cow and other articles.Since the deceased Mukkayee has not been able to brook the demand made by all the accused, she committed suicide.The complaint given by P.W.12 has been marked as Ex.On receipt of Ex.Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the convictions and sentences dated 20.12.2006 passed in Sessions Case No.47/2006 by the District and Sessions Court, Mahila Court, Perambalur.The Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur, after considering the facts that the offences alleged to have been committed by all the accused are triable by sessions court, has committed the case to the court of sessions, Perambalur Division and taken on file in Sessions Case No.47/2006 and subsequently, made out to the trial court.The trial court, after hearing both sides and upon perusing relevant records has framed a 1st charge against all the accused under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as IPC); second charge against all the accused under Section 306 of the IPC and the same has been read over and explained to them.The accused have denied the charge and claimed to be tried.On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 16 have been examined, Exhibits P.1 to P.12 and Material Object 1 have been marked.When the accused have been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against them, they denied their complicity in the crime.No oral and documentary evidence have been let in on the side of the accused.The trial court, after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing relevant material on record has found all the accused not guilty under Section 306 of the IPC and ultimately acquitted them.Likewise, accused 2 and 3 are not found guilty under Section 498-A of the IPC and subsequently, acquitted them.The trial court has found the first accused guilty under Section 498-A and sentenced him to undergo 25 months rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- with usual default clause.Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the present criminal appeal has been preferred at the instance of the 1st accused as appellant.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/1st accused has contended vehemently to the effect that the specific charge framed against the appellant/1st accused is that he and remaining accused have used to torture the deceased by way of demanding gold jewels, cow and other articles, by means of dowry and since she has not been able to meet out their demand, she committed suicide, but for the purpose of proving the said aspect, there is no evidence on the side of the prosecution and the trial court, without considering the lack of evidence on the side of the prosecution, has erroneously found the appellant/1st accused guilty under Section 498-A of the IPC and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is liable to be interfered with.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that in the instant case, the parents of the deceased have been examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and apart from their evidence, one Karuppaiah has been examined as P.W.16 and all of them has spoken about the torture made by all the accused and the trial court has rightly found the first accused guilty under Section 498-A of the IPC and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court do not warrant interference.In fact, this court has perused the entire evidence given by P.W.3, mother of the deceased and she has not spoken about the demand of dowry, whereas P.W.3, father of the deceased, in his chief examination stated to the effect that the first accused has demanded dowry.But during the course of cross examination, he has given evidence to the effect that he does not know anything and his wife alone knows everything.Therefore, the evidence given by P.Ws.2 and 3 does not support the version of the prosecution.The prosecution has examined P.W.16, after examination of the Investigating Officer.The specific evidence given by P.W.16 is that prior to occurrence, he met the deceased and other accused and effected Panchayat in connection with the alleged harassment and that itself would not be sufficient for coming to a conclusion that the appellant/1st accused has tortured her in connection with dowry demand.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the first accused has been examined by the Revenue Divisional Officer, where, he deposed that prior to occurrence, he attacked his wife and only due to that, she might have committed suicide.In fact, the entire statement given by 1st accused has been scanned by this court and he merely stated that prior to occurrence he simply attacked his wife and further he opined, that may be the cause for committing suicide and that itself would not be sufficient for coming to a conclusion that only due to dowry torture, the deceased committed suicide.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/1st accused, virtually on the side of the prosecution, no evidence is available so as to attract penal provision of 498-A of the IPC.The trial court, without considering the lack of evidence on the side of the prosecution has erroneously convicted the 1st accused/appellant under the said section.In view of the discussion made earlier, considering the subsisting force in the contention made on the side of the appellant/1st accused, this criminal appeal is liable to be allowed.Fine amount paid by him is ordered to be refunded forthwith.07.09.2015Index:Yes/nonvsri To1.The Deputy Superintendent of PolicePerambalur DivisionPerambalur District(Kaikalathur Police StationCr.2.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur.Crl.A.No.35 of 2007

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

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

Cbi Office, Cgo Complex, New Delhi, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.He was.He is an influential person of the area and is capable of organising huge rallies with a view to prevent the concerned persona not to be witnesses in the case.One of the eyewitness has in fact been threatened or serious consequences in case he attempted to depose against the petitioner.(7) In order to appreciate the submission- of the learned counsel for the respondent, one has to keep in mind the circumstances leading to the registration of the present case.The assassination of late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on 31-10-84, was an unfortunate incident, but still more unfortunate were the events which took place thereafter, as a result of which a large number of anti-social elements came out of their houses in anger and indulged in incidents of rioting, looting, arson, assault and killing of innocent persons and burning their property throughout India.On first of November, 1984, such like incidents also took place in the locality of Sultanpuri, Delhi.Information of this incident was received at the Police station at about 2.10 p.m. It was recorded in the D.D. Register at serial No. 11-A and the same was handed over to Si Sukhbir Singh for immediate action.Sukhbir Singh went to the spot and made preliminary enquiries.Later on, he sent a Ruqa to the police station for the registration of a case uss 147, 148, 149, 395, 196 Indian Penal Code .Then he recorded the statements of various witnesses who were the target of looting, arson and' assault.The Si collected the MLCs from the hospital and in view of the medical reports, further recommended the inclusion of Sections 307, 324 and 302 Indian Penal Code .(8) On the demand of the victims that competent, responsible and experienced police officers be deputed to investigate these cases, the Government of India transferred the investigation to the Vigilance Department of the Delhi Police.Si Raj Singh was deputed to thoroughly investigate the case.In this petition, affidavits of number of persons were filed who in fact were the sufferers of the riots.This Cwp was finally dismissed.(10) However, keeping in view the persistent demand of the so called voluntary organisation, the Government of India on 26th April, 1985, appointed Mr. Justice Ranganath Misra, sitting Judge of the Supreme Court to thoroughly investigate the happening after the death of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, and to find out, as to whether there was any organized mob violence at the behest of Congress workers and if there was, then suggest ways and means to punish the guilty.The short span of time that intervened would not have permitted scope for any organising to be done.The gloom that had spread and affected the Congressmen in particular would not have permitted any such organisation to be handled.The reaction appears to have come as a flutter and sparked everywhere in a similar pattern."(11) The Commission further concluded that no responsible person in authority of Congress-1 hatched any conspiracy or organized large scale rioting, looting, killing, etc. in various parts of Delhi.In fact, the anti-social elements had taken the lead.The treatment meted out to the officer, of the Cbi who had gone to the residence of the petitioner for search and his arrest on 11-9-90 by Itself is an example of his influence.(2) The investigation of this case where the accused is alleged to have organized a mob in targeted them to murder and burn the houses of a particular community is, at a crucial stage and the petitioner being at large, will certainly hamper the investigation.(3) Most of the witnesses in this case are either widows, destitutes or uprooted persona and they are under the constant threat of the petitioner and his associates.Because of this terror, they are not coming forward to make the statements even though have been shifted to safer places.(4) The Poti-Rosha Committee having found a prima facie case against the petitioner, has recommended the registration and investigation of the case by the Cbi and keeping in view the nature of the offence and the persons involved, anticipatory bail should not have been granted.(5) The prosecution has still to take into possession 6 swords which were found in the house of the petitioner and were not allowed to be taken into custody.During this search, the petitioner has also been found in possession of the documents which in the ordinary course should not have been there; (6) In this case, this court has granted the petitioner a blanket order of bail which is not in accordance with law and is liable to be cancelled.(3) In order to demonstrate the seriousness of the offence, learned Additional Solicitor General referred to the affidavit and the statement of Aawar Kaur which formed the basis of the registration of the case uss 147, 148, 149, 247, 430/34 Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and 5 others at police station Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi In brief, her case is that at the time of the assassination of the late Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi, the petitioner Along with her husband Shri Navin Singh, and children was living in her house No. A-4, Sultanpuri, Delhi.On 1-11-84, while she Along with her other family members was present in her house, she saw thousands of people of the area armed with lathis, dandas, iron-rods and knives, looting the house of Sardars end setting them on tire.This mob was being led by Mp Sajjan Kumar who was instigating them that all male folks be burnt to death and their property be looted.Under that instigation, her husband was dragged out and attacked with a sharp-edged weapon and burnt to death after pouring kerosene oil on him.Thereafter, her house was also burnt.She took refuge in the house of her daughter Film Kaur, who was residing in D-Block Sultanpuri.Late at night, some people came there and removed the burnt dead body of her husband, which till date i not tracesble.Superintendent of Police, Cbi, the search of the house concluded at 8.45 Am, but in the meantime, the petitioner managed to organise a huge crowd, which made it impossible for the officers to leave the premises of the petitioner.During the course of search, the respondent officers have seized few documents and six swords but they could' not be removed on account of the law and order problem created by the petitioner outside his house.By the time the search was concluded, the mob outside the house inflamed, and was raising slogans against the Cbi and in favor of the petitioner.The mob in fact had barred the exit gate which made difficult for them to leave the premises.With the lapse of time, the mob continued to swell and provocative slogans were chanted through a loudspeaker system installed by the mob.The mob then became violent and smashed and damaged the Maruti Jipsi and Ambassador car of the CBI.The search party tried their best to call for reinforcement from the local police but it could not be arranged.In fact the information conveyed to the search party by the high police officials was that it was impossible for the police to come to their rescue without inflicting heavy casualities, which in turn, may also endanger the safety of the search parly.Uutimately, the search party could only be allowed to leave the premises after the anticipatory bail order from the High Court was received and conveyed to the persons waiting outside, on makeshift public address system by the petitioner.(6) The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner is politically a powerful and influential person who can directly or indirectly interfere in the course of investigation.During the investigation he associated responsible persons of the public with a view to enthuse confidence in the mind of the persons who have been subjected to and were the victims of this incident.Statements of large number of witnesses were recorded.As a consequence thereof a large number of persons were arrested.For that demand the representatives of People's Union turn Civil Liberties (hereinafter referred to as PUCL) filed a writ petition in this court.During the commission proceedings, Justice Misra accorded recognition to the Pucl and the Citizens Justice Committee.The members of the said two committees personally went to places of incidents, to the camps where the inmates had been shifted and to various other places where many inmates had taken refuge.They collected many affidavits of the eye-witnesses and of the victims of assault including the next door neighbours of Anwar Kaur.On thorough examination of the affidavits, and other material placed on record, the commission came to the conclusion :- "The news shows in clearest terms that rioting in proper sense had started in a very big way in several parts.of the city on 31st evening and except for killing which came into process from 1st November, 1984, every other form of attack on Sikhs had begun.The massive scale on which the operation had started so soon after the fact of death was circulated is clearly indicative of the fact that it was the spontaneous reaction of the people at large.The Commission recommended new committee be appointed to go through the individual cases of omission of non-registration of cases by the local police.(12) Pursuant to the report of the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission, Delhi Administration by notification of February 21, 1987 constituted a Committee comprising of M. L. Jain.201, and 211 of the Indian Penal Code .The Committee consequently by letter dated 14-10-1987, wrote to the Delhi Administration proposing that the Fir in this regard maybe registered and investigated in accordance with law.While issuing notice, the court restrained the registration of cases upon the direction of the Jain-Banerjee Committee.After hearing the parties at length.This court vide judgment and order dated October 4, 1989 allowed the writ petition.(14) On March 22, 1990, the Delhi Administration appointed another Committee comprising Mr. Justice P. S. Poti, former Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court and Shri P. A. Rosha, a retired officer of the Delhi Police service for the same purpose.The Administrator after due consideration accepted the recommendation and directed the Cbt vide his letter dated 5-9-90, to take further action in accordance with law.Upon the receipt of the said letter, the Cbi on September 7, 1990, registered the Fir in question against 6 accused persons, including the petitioner.Immediately thereafter, the respondent-CBI recorded the statements of three so-called eye-witnesses of the occurrence and on 11th September, 1990, organized a raiding party to search the house of the petitioner and arrest him.(15) In this background, let us examine the.contentions of the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent CBI.(16) The detailed narration of facts' has been given with a view to how that even though the killing of Navin Singh the husband of Anwar Kaur had taken place on 1-11-84, she did not make any report to the police.Before that, she had an ample opportunity to approach not only the police station Sultan Puri for registration of the case involving the petitioner, as is now sought to be made out, but also making a grievance before Ranganath Misra Commission that in spite of her complaint, the local police has not registered the case.Instead on 17-12-84, she had approached the Sho of the police station and moved an application only for the grant of compensation for the loss which she had suffered due to the burning of her house.(17) Thereafter, very respectable, responsible and public Spirited members of the Pucl and Citizens Justice Committee, including Mr. Justice S. M. Sikri, a retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. V. M. Tarkunde.a former Judge of the Bombay High Court, Mi.Soli J. Sorabji, Sr.At that point of time Anwar Kaur was admittedly living in the camp.Even though the statements of neighbours of Anwar Kaur, namely, Dhoan Kaur resident of A-4175, Sultanpuri, Padmini Kaur, A-41164, Ram Kaur of A-41162, and Sumer Singh resident of A-4/129, were recorded but she did not come forward to make any statement.Smt. Anwar Kaur did not make any complaint before the police or before the Ranganath Misra Commission, against the petitioner responsible for the killing of her husband.Even her immediate neighbours who claim to be, the eye-witnesses of the killing on 1st Nov., 1984, in the area of Sultanpuri, and whose statements were recorded at the earliest point of time, did not name the petitioner responsible for holding any meeting or instigating them to kill or burn the houses of Sardars.He was not an unknown person of the area.Witnesses could not have omitted his name, if in fact be was there.This statement does not bear her signature or thumb mark.It has an endorsement of one Shri Atma Singh in whose presence the said statement of Anwar Kaur was recorded.We do not know nor it has been made clear by the Cbi as to who, when.where and whether in fact this supplementary statement was ever recorded.Whatever may be the explanation in my opinion, the delay of 3 years in the filing of the affidavit and the recording of her statement at least is a circumstance for which the benefit must go to the petitioner for the confirmation of his anticipatory bail.No doubt the petitioner was the Member of the Lok Sabha on the date of the alleged incident and has a following.They had an ample opportunity to straightway arrest the petitioner and bring him to the police station.In the meantime, well wishers of the petitioner started collecting at his house, in the normal course as he used to receive the persons of his constituency from 7 A.M. onwards.(24) At this stage, we may note that immediately thereafter the officers of the Cbi filed two FIRs at the local police station.In none of these two FIRs, the petitioner is accused of organizing the mob or making any inflamatory slogans or instigated the crowd to take revenge against the CBI.(25) As regards the recovery of the six swords, from the house of the petitioner, the respondent intentionally did not take them, to avoid any confrontation with the mob.It is stated at the bar that the said six swords have since been handed over to the officers of the CBI.These swords appeared to have been presented to the petitioner as Saropas by the Sikh community in recognition of his services for organising blood donation and rehabilitation camps for the victims of 1984 riots.It is only for that reason that the respondents have not so far registered any case against the petitioner for the illegal custody of the swords.(26) The Cbi raised a lot of hue and cry for the recovery of certain documents alleged to have been found from the house of the petitioner.Those documents in fact formed pan: of the file of the writ petition in Gupta's case.These very documents were the basis of the challenge in the writ petition.Its copies were duly supplied by the State to the counsel for the parties.(28) Against this order of bail, admittedly, the Cbi has not filed an appeal or revision for the cancellation of the bail order.The present petitioner is similarly situated as those of his coaccused.The blanker order of anticipatory bail thus is bound to cause serious interference with the right and duty or the police, to arrest the applicant even if he commits another offence.(30) The argument has only to be mentioned and rejected summarily.The investigating officer then recorded the statement of i'.2 wi'nesses on 8-9-90 and immediately thereafter on 11-9-90, set ovt to arrest the accused persons.As observed earlier, there is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner who has a status in the society, and enjoys good reputation, love and affection from the persons at large, is likely to repeat the offence, abuse the trust placed in him by the court, or avoid the trial.Even otherwise, the CBl does not appear to be serious in interrogating the petitioner.On 27-9-90, when the case was taken up, learned counsel fur the respondent frankly conceded that from the day when the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail, he has not been summoned for interrogation.It was only thereafter that the petitioner was summoned once on 28-9-90, and thereafter no attempt has been made to further interrogative him.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Ex. PW7/A records that a dead body was found in a park near Palam Railway Station.As per the post mortem, the dead body had external and internal injuries.Ligature mark was present all around the neck and horizontally placed below the thyroid cartilage, measuring whole circumference of the neck with ill-A. 187/2012 Page 1 of 19defined margins, with contused underneath tissue of the neck, with collection of scattered blood clots into the soft tissue of the neck.PW-13, his neighbour, had friendly relations with the deceased and he used to sit with him.On 26th April, 2009 at 7.30 PM, he was sitting with deceased at his shop in Raj Nagar when the deceased received a missed call on his mobile phone and went out of the shop to talk.He did not know about the contents of the conversation.Deceased came back and gave him the key to his office and instructed him to shut down the shop because he had to go somewhere on personal business.He closed the shop at about 7.45 PM and as instructed gave the key at the residence of Giriraj.In cross- examination, he admitted that he was a Constable in Delhi Police and was posted in Vikas Puri, Delhi.He had reached the shop of the deceased at 7.00 PM and in his presence only one missed call was received by the deceased.PW-13 did not know the appellant though he accepted and stated that he knew the deceased and his family.He did not know where the deceased had gone and what was the reason why the deceased asked him to close the shop and take the key home?Amit (PW-6) has stated that on 26th April, 2009, the appellant had taken his phone and made a missed call.He had come to know the appellant only 4/5 days prior to the incident, as the accused appellant also used to ply rickshaw outside Metro Station, Sector 9, Dwarka.He did not know with whom Pramod had talked and what the conversation was about.A. 187/2012 Page 6 of 19Vijay Singh (PW-10), son of the deceased, had stated that on 26 th April, 2009 at about 9.30 PM, he had made a call on his father's mobile phone but the phone was switched off.He went to sleep.At about 3.30 AM, he was woken up by his mother who told him that his father had not returned.He informed his neighbours, cousin and brother-in- law Raja Ram.He called up relatives but without any success.Next morning at 10.30 AM, they went to Police Station, Palam and met ASI Radha Kishan and the SHO.They called back on the said number and came to know that this phone number belonged to one Amit who plied rickshaw at the Metro Station.Amit told them that the appellant, another rickshaw puller, had made the call.Amit had stated that Pramod was introduced to him by one Jai Bhagwan, who was a sweeper at the Metro Station and who knew him.They met Jai Bhagwan and Pramod at 7.30 AM, on 28th April, 2009, along with several persons.Pramod confessed to Vijay Singh (PW-10) that he had murdered Vijay's father.No police officer was with them.Appellant volunteered to take them to the dead body of Vijay's father and took them to the park at Sector 20, Dwarka, opp.CNG filling station where he showed them the dead body.Appellant, Amit and Jai Bhagwan were beaten up by the public persons present there.Thereafter, police officers came.From the spot, police seized one spectacle, pieces of broken glass bottle and one pair of black colour leather slippers lying near the dead body.PW12 has stated that the appellant Pramod had told them that his father was murdered pursuant to a plan hatched by him with Amit and Jai Bhagwan.All three of them were arrested by the police.However, on 30th April, 2009, appellant Pramod gave another statement PW10/H, Crl.A. 187/2012 Page 7 of 19 stating that he had falsely implicated Jai Bhagwan and Amit so that they would save him, as they were local residents of the area.On the basis of the said disclosure statement, the appellant voluntarily led them to the pit in the same park and from the right side of the spot, he took out one black coloured purse which had Rs.2500/-, driving Licence of the deceased, one note of foreign currency and one slip of State Bank of India of Rs.40, 000/- marked Ex. PW10/K. On 5th June, 2009, a NOKIA mobile was recovered from Vinod Kumar and he identified that it belonged to his father.Kishan, a sweeper at the school, had sold him a mobile phone for Rs.500/-.He did not give any bill or phone charger.19. PW-18, SI Amar Pal had stated that he was on day emergency duty from 8.00 AM to 8.00 PM, at P.S. Dwarka.On receipt of DD entry No. 13B, he along with Constable Bajrang Lal reached the spot i.e. Sector 20 Park opp.CNG filling station, Dwarka where one male dead body was lying.Public persons had gathered there.On verification, the name of the deceased was disclosed as Giriraj.One spectacle, one pair of lakhani leather slippers, broken pieces of glass liquor bottle and one plastic bottle were lying.Crime team and other officers reached at the spot.The said articles were seized and lifted.Post mortem was conducted.Appellant was arrested at about 11.45 AM.He was at the park.In his cross-examination, he admitted that appellant Pramod and Jai Bhagwan were at the spot but he could not tell whether Amit was also present.PW-17, Constable Bajrang Lal had stated the ASI Amar Pal had received DD Entry No. 13B and he along with ASI Amarpal reached Sector 20 Park, Dwarka where huge crowd had gathered.A dead body of a male was found in a pit.There were injuries on the dead body.Police officers and crime team reached there.Two persons, namely appellant and Jai Bhagwan were held by the crowd gathered there.Jai Bhagwan and appellant were interrogated.In the cross-examination, he admitted that both of them had been beaten by the public and were only Crl.A. 187/2012 Page 10 of 19 wearing underwear on their bodies.Narender Singh (PW-19) had stated that after DD No. 13B was recorded, they reached the spot at about 8.20 AM.Constable Bajrang and SI Amar Singh were also present there.One decomposed male dead body was lying in the park.Two boys, i.e. appellant and Jai Bhagwan, who had been beaten by the public, were produced before the police.But he did not remember whether the appellant and Jai Bhagwan were only in underwear or not, as they were busy controlling the public.Surprisingly, no further details regarding this recovered SIM were filed/produced before this Court.The call was made by some unknown person.He was not aware of the address of Pramod but stated the Pramod used to come to Jai Bhagwan who was working at Sector-9 Metro Station, Dwarka.He along with Vijay Singh and some relatives went to the Metro Station and met Jai Bhagwan and made enquiries about Pramod.Jai Bhagwan had stated that he did not know Pramod's address but would help them in tracing Pramod.Next day he came to know that dead body of Giriraj was found.A. 187/2012 Page 13 of 19Moreover Amit (PW-6) had stated that he was a rickshaw puller and Jai Bhagwan was working as a sweeper in the Metro.The charge sheet to his extent is contrary to the statements of PW-10, PW-12 and PW6 as it states that Jai Bhagwan was the rickshaw puller and Amit PW6 was working in the metro.It appears that the family of the deceased was well connected and knew several persons in the police force.(PW-13) Satish Lamba was constable in Delhi Police and was well known to the deceased.As per PW-12, police officers were with them when he, along with Vijay Singh (PW-10), had gone to the house of the appellant Pramod.PW-10 has also stated that somebody had informed local police station about the dead body in the park.By order of sentence dated 16th May, 2011, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.12,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.Further, the sub scalp haematoma of size 5x4 cms was present at occipital region of the head, with cherry red coloured blood clot, with fracture of occipital bone of skull.The body was highly decomposed, swelled up, bloated, emitting foul smell, with peeling of skin.The mouth was partially open with protruded tongue.White colour pyjama was encircled around the neck with two fold in situ.The cause of death was stated to be asphyxia caused by ligature strangulation using the block present in situ.The real question is whether the prosecution has been able to show and establish that the said injuries or the "act" was caused and done by the appellant Pramod? The prosecution version is that the deceased had received a missed call from mobile No. 9958293716 belonging to (PW-6) Amit.The deceased thereupon spoke to the appellant Pramod on the said telephone number, and thereafter met Pramod, the rickshaw puller, and was with him in his rickshaw.The appellant rickshaw puller purchased liquor from the liquor shop and both of them, i.e. the appellant and the deceased, drank liquor together in the park.Thereafter, the appellant killed the deceased.There are no eye-witnesses.The prosecution's case is based purely upon circumstantial evidence.It is primarily based on circumstances of last seen, extra judicial confession and recovery.To establish the evidence of last seen, the prosecution heavily relies upon statement of PW-12, Gajanand.He went to the house of Giriraj, met his son, and informed him that he had seen Giriraj on 26th April, 2009, near the liquor shop in Sector 20, Marble Market, on a rickshaw and that "........... I had also seen the rikshaw puller purchasing some liquor and a water bottle and handing over the same to Giriraj and further that I had asked Giriraj as to where was he going on which he had told me that he was going to attend a party and thereafter Giriraj had gone towards CNG filling station in the same rikshaw, after which I had returned to my house after purchase some usable articles for my house.A. 187/2012 Page 2 of 19On this information being given to me by Vijay, I along with Vijay, his cousin Kamal and his relative Raja Ram went to PS Palam where one Satish Lamba, friend of the deceased was already present.He told us that on 26.4.2009 Giriraj had received a missed call on his mobile phone at about 7.30 PM and after receiving the said missed call he had gone out of his shop................."Is PW-12 a chance witness or a planted witness, who had last seen the appellant with the deceased? PW-12 has been disbelieved by the trial court and in our opinion rightly.The said witness has not stated that he knew the rickshaw puller from before or that Giriraj and rickshaw puller were going to drink liquor together.As discussed below, PW-12 was very close to family of the deceased.This creates a grave doubt on the statement of PW-12 that he had seen deceased Giriraj with the appellant rickshaw puller.It is difficult to perceive and believe that Giriraj, a property dealer and a man of means, would like to have liquor with a rickshaw puller in a park.PW-12 seems to be a planted witness to this extent.There is a grave suspicion that the Crl.A. 187/2012 Page 3 of 19 aforesaid statement has been made to plug in the gaps in the prosecution version.It is difficult for us to place reliance on PW-12 Giriraj's aforesaid statement to implicate the accused appellant.A. 187/2012 Page 3 of 19This number belongs to Vijay Singh (PW-10), son of the deceased.PW-10 in his examination in chief had stated that on 27th April, 2009, he had made a call on number 100 and also called the police station.The DD entry records that the caller from the said number had stated that some people had abducted his father Giriraj "uthakar le gaye".PW-12's statement that he had an occasion and had seen the deceased with the appellant and had also spoken to PW10 on 27th April, 2009 is not supported and is contrary to what PW-10 had informed on telephone and was recorded in DD No. 44 B. PW-12's statement that he had seen a rickshaw puller purchasing liquor and water bottle etc. does not aspire confidence and is not believable.As per PW-12, Giriraj had remarked that he was going to a party and thereafter he had gone towards CNG filling station in a rickshaw.In case Giriraj had gone or was going to a party, then the evidence of last seen viz. the appellant has to be disbelieved.The deceased could have gone to the party and his death may be subsequent.These and other gaps, contradictions and improbabilities in the prosecution version and statements have been discussed below.In the cross-examination, Vijay Singh (PW10) had first stated that the mobile phone of his father was recovered from the accused Pramod, in his presence.He, however, immediately changed the statement and stated that the purse was recovered from possession of Pramod but not the mobile phone.This is contrary to what PW10 had stated in examination in chief that on 5 th June, 2009 he was called to the Police Station where one Vinod was present, from whom mobile phone was recovered.A. 187/2012 Page 7 of 19Vinod Kumar appeared as PW14 and had stated that he was working as a teacher in a school, at Delhi Cantt.He had used his Idea SIM card No. 9812170312 on the said phone.On 5th June, 2009, he received a call from his brother-in-law Naveen inquiring if he had purchased a mobile phone and/or had used his SIM card in some-one's mobile phone.In the cross-examination, PW-14 had stated that he did not know that the value of the new Nokia mobile phone in question Crl.A. 187/2012 Page 8 of 19 was Rs.5000/-.He also accepted that his brother in law was working as a Constable in Delhi Police.A. 187/2012 Page 8 of 19He had stated that on 29 th April, 2009, he received a call from mobile No. 9812170312, which belonged to his brother-in-law Vinod Kumar.2-3 days later, police officials from PS Dwarka came to him and made enquiries about the said call.He immediately called Vinod who confirmed having purchased the said mobile phone.He along with Vinod Kumar had gone to the police station Dwarka, with one Kishan.Kishan was, however, not produced and his statement in the court was not recorded.As per order sheet dated 9th July, 2010, Kishan had reportedly left the given address.Order dated 20th September, 2010, again states that Kishan was not available and had left the given address.By order dated 25th October, 2010, prosecution evidence was closed recording that several opportunities had been granted.It was also recorded that Kishan was unserved on the ground that his latest address was not known.By order dated 9th November, 2010, application moved by the prosecution for summoning of Kishan at his permanent address was allowed giving one last opportunity.Kishan Kumar could not be served and on 27th November, 2010, the trial court denied further opportunity for summoning Kishan Kumar.The call details of mobile number 9812170312 were not produced and filed.PW-9 was not Crl.A. 187/2012 Page 9 of 19 asked and called to file the same.The Investigating Officer did not collect the said details and place them on record, inspite of the prosecution version that they reached PW-15 and then PW-14 through the call details.There is no explanation and reason why these were not produced and filed in court.This creates doubt about the recovery of the phone of the deceased.This aspect has been also referred to below.A. 187/2012 Page 9 of 19A. 187/2012 Page 10 of 19A. 187/2012 Page 11 of 19It is not very clear how ASI Radha Krishnan (PW-1) got the call details of the telephone number of the deceased.There is no evidence or material to show that any application was made to the service provider, i.e. Bharti Airtel for providing the said details.No evidence or material has been produced on record to show that Bharti Airtel had informed and given the said details.As per the prosecution case, mobile phone of the deceased was not with Vijay Singh (PW-10).ASI Radha Krishna (PW-1) has stated that the number was an unknown number.This causes grave suspicion and doubt regarding the prosecution version about how they reached Amit and then Jai Bhagwan and the appellant Promod.PW-12 had stated that ASI Radha Krishan (PW-1) had got the call details of mobile phone of Giriraj, the deceased, from ACP's office.This is not stated by PW-1, ASI Radha Krishan.The call details placed on record for 9971551348 (Exhibit PW-11/A) for 26th April 2009 was generated, as per the printout from the system on 28th April 2010 at 4:35:44 PM.After the phone call to telephone no. 9958293716, there were two more phone calls.Prosecution has not placed names and details of the person to/from whom these calls were made and received.What was the conversation between the deceased and the said person is not stated.If the call details were obtained on 27th April, 2009, then the same should have been placed on record.This was relevant and important in the present case keeping in view the nature, type, character and quality of evidence relied and collected by the prosecution.When the prosecution states that part material and details have been selectively brought on record or Crl.A. 187/2012 Page 12 of 19 investigated, it takes a risk when there is a substantial degree of doubt on quality and credibility of the said evidence.In such cases, the failure to place material/evidence or fully investigate and collect evidence can result in the accused getting benefit of doubt.On the same ground, four other aspects were noticed:-A. 187/2012 Page 12 of 19(a) The appellant is an illiterate person and a rickshaw puller.He did not even have a mobile phone.How did he come to know about the telephone number of the deceased is not stated or indicated? The application form and the subscriber details of the telephone number 9958293716 have not been produced and brought on record by the prosecution.We do not know who the recorded subscriber of this telephone number is.(b) Photographs of the deceased marked Exhibit PW8 A7 and PW8 A8 show wound on the back side of the head and substantial blood had oozed out.On the said aspect there is no investigation.(c) As noticed and considered above, PW-12's statement u/s 161 was recorded on 28-4-2009 after the dead body had been recovered and not before recovery of the dead body and arrest of the appellant.(d) The charge sheet filled before the trial court states that, Jai Bhagwan and Amit, alleged accused persons were thoroughly interrogated in front of the complainant and his relatives but they were let off as Amit was Crl.A. 187/2012 Page 13 of 19 working and Jai Bhagwan was present in his house.The charge sheet records that Amit was working as a sweeper at Sec-9 Metro Station up to 10 PM that day.Charge sheet further goes on to state that his presence in CCTV footage was seen.The prosecution did not put forth these footages for the Court to examine.If accused Pramod had approached Amit, to borrow a phone, CCTV recording of Amit's movement on the said day at the relevant time was material and crucial evidence.CCTV recording of Amit, it is apparent, was seen but either not taken on record or filed/produced before the Court.In these circumstances, it is not understandable, why and for what reasons, police officers have denied and have stated that they did not go in search of appellant Pramod after they were able to speak to Amit (PW-6) and had been able to locate Jai Bhagwan at the said metro station.PW-12 Gajanand who was with the police throughout and Vijay Singh (PW-10) on 27 and 28th April, 2009, has stated as under:-"After that I along with ASI Radha Krishan, Vijay, Raja Ram, Kamal and some other public persons went to Sector- 9, metro station Dwarka.Amit met us in the parking of Crl.A. 187/2012 Page 14 of 19 Metro Station.He was interrogated by ASI Radha Krishan who told us that accused Pramod was introduced to him by one Jai Bhagwan and with his assistance Jai Bhagwan, an employee in Metro Station Sector-9, Dwarka was located.On interrogation, Jai Bhagwan disclosed that he had arranged a rickshaw for accused Pramod on hire basis and he was residing somewhere in Pochanpur village.A. 187/2012 Page 14 of 19Next day with the help of Amit and Jai Bhagwan, we along with police officials reached house of accused Pramod present in court today (currently identified by witness) who was found present at his room.On interrogation, accused Pramod gave his disclosure statement already Ex-PW10/F bearing signature at point B. Then accused led us to the place where dead body of Giriraj was lying in an open park Sector-20, Dwarka, opposite CNG Filling station.In the meantime, someone informed local police at PS Dwarka about the dead body lying in the park on which local police also reached there.Statement of Vijay was recorded by SI Narender and got the case registered against accused Pramod."This creates a doubt about discovery of the dead body pursuant the alleged statement of the appellant.Examination of site plan Ex. PW5/A shows that the recovery of the dead body was made from the park adjacent to the main road having a foot path.The body had decomposed.A foul smell was there.Body was found after one and a half day on 28th April, 2009 morning.It is difficult to accept and believe that no one had noticed the said body during this period and for over 24 hours in a park and when there was a foul smell.A. 187/2012 Page 15 of 1925. PW-12 has stated that on 28th April,2009, they with the help of Jai Bhagwan, Amit and the Police Officers went and arrested Pramod.As per Vijay Singh (PW-10), he along with Raja Ram, Kamal, Gajanand and other neighbours had gone and apprehended Pramod and no police officer was present.Police officials have denied their presence but the statement of PW-12 is clear and categorical.He was not declared hostile and cross examined on the said statement on this vital aspect.In case a police officer was present at the time when the appellant was apprehended from his home in the morning on 28th April, 2009, then the extra judicial confession is not admissible except to the extent permitted by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Thus the alleged extra judicial confession by Pramod to Vijay Singh (PW-10) and Gajanand (PW-12), that he had murdered his father, is not admissible.There is evidence on record that the appellant Pramod and Jai Bhagwan were badly beaten up.As per the statement of Amar Pal Singh (PW-18), they were not wearing any clothes except underwear when they were arrested/detained on 28 th April, 2009 in the morning.PW10/F and PW10/H. In the disclosure statement PW10/F, dated 28th Crl.A. 187/2012 Page 17 of 19 April, 2009, as per the prosecution, the appellant had stated that he along with Jai Bhagwan and Amit, had hatched the plan and killed Giriraj.This part of the disclosure statement is not admissible but PW-10 had stated that the three of them were arrested by the police.Further on the basis of the second disclosure statement dated 30 th April, 2009 ExPW10/H vide seizure memo PW10/I dated 1st May, 2009, one purse, Rs.2500/-,driving licence and one bank receipt of the deceased it is alleged were recovered from the park and seized.In this purported statement dated 30th April, 2009 ExPW10/H, the appellant, as per the prosecution version, had confessed that he was the only one who had committed the crime and Amit or Jai Bhagwan were not involved.Recoveries were made only after the names of Amit and Jai Bhagwan were deleted and they were not suspected.Another reason to suspect the said recovery is that there was no reason for the appellant, a rickshaw puller, to leave behind Rs.2500/- in the purse in the park.As per the prosecution case PW-14 had purchased the said mobile phone of the deceased from Kishan, father in law of the appellant on 29th April, 2009 for merely Rs 500/- without the phone charger.PW-14 in cross-examination had stated he did not know that the market price of the said model was Rs 5,000/-.However, one day earlier, on 28th April, 2009, the appellant had been arrested and had made a disclosure statement.

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

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

By the order of sentence dated 06.03.2012, the appellant has been directed to suffer imprisonment for life, fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, undergo simple imprisonment of 2 months for the offence under Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 1 of 29 section 302/34 of the IPC.He has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for 5 years, fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months for offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.Additionally, the appellant has been directed to suffer simple imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.A No.730/2012 Page 1 of 29It is relevant here to mention that the appellant was made accused along with S (name withheld), a juvenile, Pappu and Raja @ Rakesh, who have been declared proclaimed offenders.Only the appellant was tried for the offence.The prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence to connect the appellant with the crime as there was no eye witness to the occurrence.The circumstances relied against the appellant are that he was last seen with the deceased; the dead bodies of Tej Ram Saini and Hans Raj (the two deceased persons) were recovered at the instance of Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 2 of 29 the appellant; the truck bearing registration number HR 55 B 7572 (which the accused person had robbed) was recovered on the disclosure of the appellant; the knife, the weapon of offence was recovered at the instance of the appellant and the homicidal death of the aforesaid two persons.A No.730/2012 Page 2 of 29To trace the brief facts it is necessary to set out as to what happened in sequence.On 26.8.2008 at about 12-12:30 PM, Head Constable Kirpal Singh (PW.7), whilst on patrolling duty, noticed foul smell emanating from somewhere nearby.On inspecting, he found two dead bodies, wrapped in quilts lying amongst bushes nearby at Majnu Ka Tila, opposite metro yard near DDA park.He forwarded this information to Head Constable Rakesh Kumar (PW.6) who was posted as a duty constable at P.S. Timarpur.PW.6 recorded the said information vide DD No.17A (Exhibit PW.6/B) at 12:45 PM.The said DD entry was Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 3 of 29 marked to SI Sahab Singh (PW.13) who reached the spot.Inspector K.S. Rawat PW.23, (IO) also reached the spot along with Constable Anil Kumar (PW.11) and other police officials.A No.730/2012 Page 3 of 29After reaching the spot, the quilts were removed from the dead bodies.It was found that the dead bodies were of two adult males.Upon examining, words of "Tej Ram Singh" was found tattooed on the right arm of one of the deceased.The shirt that the deceased was wearing had the label of Kotputli (a place in Rajasthan).These clues and evidence as noticed below were the starting points and became crucial material which has helped the police trace and solve the case.The mobile crime team was requisitioned.A report was prepared by the crime team (exhibit PW.12/A).Blood stained earth, earth control and hair of the deceased persons were lifted.From where the second dead body was lying, dry blood from footpath was lifted.The above items were seized vide seizure memo exhibit PW.13/A. Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 4 of 29 Blood stained quilts, trousers, shirt, gamcha and a piece of dhoti were also lifted from the spot and seized vide seizure memo exhibit PW.13/B. One nylon rope was also seized (exhibit PW.13/C).A No.730/2012 Page 4 of 29On 27.08.2008, police officials including PW.23 (Inspector K.S. Rawat), PW.13 (SI Sahab Singh) went to Kotputli, Rajasthan, for investigation as also for ascertaining the identity of the deceased.IO had taken photographs of the deceased persons who were later identified by the relatives to be of Tej Ram Saini and Hans Raj.A No.730/2012 Page 5 of 29 we dwell on the said aspect, we would like to affirm the identifies further and refer to the medical opinion on the cause of death.A No.730/2012 Page 5 of 29On 28.08.2008, the relatives of the deceased persons came to Delhi and identified the dead bodies.Dead body of Tej Ram Saini was identified by Hanuman, younger brother (PW.3) and Nav Ratan, a cousin (PW.4).The dead body of Hans Raj was identified by Mohan Lal, Uncle (PW.1) and Munna Lal, Uncle (PW.2).Thereafter, the investigating officer made an application for conducting the post mortem of the deceased persons.After the post mortem was conducted the clothes, viscera, blood etc. were seized in packets and were sent to the malkhana.Left Zygomatic arch was fractured.Effusion of blood was present beneath the ligature mark.left lamina of the thyroid cartilage showed outwards fracture with effusion of blood.With respect to the injuries on the person of Hans Raj, it was opined that he died due to asphyxia because of ligature strangulation.Timing of death of Hans Raj also was opined as about 3 to 4 days prior to the post mortem report.From the deposition of PW.22 it is further revealed that on 7.10.2008, he had received a request for examining the weapon of Crl.As has been noted earlier there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the prosecution has rested its case on the testimonies of PW. 24 (Pramod Pandey), PW.9 (C.P. Sharma), PW.5 (Ram Vilas), PW.8 (Sushil Vilas), PW.10 (Pradeep Kumar), PW.17 (Prashant Sharma) and PW. 15 (Ram Karan), to establish that the appellant was last seen with the deceased persons.A No.730/2012 Page 9 of 29A No.730/2012 Page 9 of 2924 Pramod Pandey stated before the Court that he was looking after Jai Mata Enterprises godown.On 24.08.2008, a truck loaded with stone powder arrived at the godown along with its driver and helper/cleaner.He deposed that as labour was not available it being Janamastmi, it was not possible to unload the consignment.24 came back to the godown at about 5 PM when he found the driver and cleaner present at the godown.After about half an hour two workers namely Raja (proclaimed offender) and S (juvenile) came there.24 told them to unload the consignment.They suggested that more workers were needed and could be arranged from the nearby godowns.PW.24 thereafter went to attend Janamastmi celebrations and returned at 12 midnight.At that time the driver and the cleaner were present.On enquiry, he was made to understand that they would leave after unloading the consignment or in the morning.Thereafter, PW.24 went to his house located nearby.At about 4:30 AM in the next morning, i.e. on dated 25.08.2008, PW.24 claims that he had only seen Sanjeev at the godown.The Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 10 of 29 consignment had been unloaded and the truck driver and the cleaner were not there.The material was sold by one Prashant (PW.17) and the consignment had to come from Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan.A No.730/2012 Page 10 of 29C.P. Sharma, (PW.9), owner of the godown, has deposed that Pramod Pandey (PW. 24) was looking after his godown on the relevant day.In the intervening night of 23rd and 24th August, 2008, a truck loaded with mineral powder had come from Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan at his godown.He had telephonically informed PW. 24 to get the material unloaded with the help of workers.He was informed by PW.24 that only two workers were available and that he had asked Raja @ Rakesh to arrange for some more persons for unloading the consignment.Next morning, when he reached the godown, the driver, cleaner, truck or the workers were not present.Prashant Sharma, (PW. 17) affirmed having placed an order for consignment of Feldspar powder to be delivered at his godown from the supplier namely Pradeep Kumar (PW.10) of Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan.PW.17 was telephonically informed by the consignee that the Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 11 of 29 truck had arrived at the godown but the consignment could not be unloaded at that time because of non-availability of the labour/loaders.A No.730/2012 Page 11 of 29The aforesaid witnesses have testified that they had employed Tej Ram Saini as the driver and Hans Raj as helper in the said truck and that they had been working with them for about two years.It was further stated by both the witnesses that on 22.8.2008 the said truck was loaded with consignment from Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan for the delivery to be made at Sonia Vihar, Shahdara, Delhi.Since the vehicle belonged to PW.5, the driver Tej Ram Saini (one of the deceased persons) on reaching Delhi on 24.8.2008 in the morning had called him on telephone at about 8 AM and apprised him that because of non-availability of labour at the godown, it was not possible to unload the consignment and the same would be done only when the labour would be arranged.Thereafter nothing was heard from the driver and the cleaner.It was argued that the deceased Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 13 of 29 persons were last seen with the appellant on 24.8.2008 at about 12 in the midnight whereas the post mortem of the dead bodies, which was conducted on 28.8.2008 at 11 to 11:30 PM, set the time of death as 3-4 days prior to the post mortem.A No.730/2012 Page 14 of 29 PW.9 and the appellant was seen with the deceased persons, the driver and the cleaner of the truck.The appellant Khalid along with others (who, it is alleged, are also involved), had unloaded the consignment.Thereafter, the truck, the driver and cleaner went missing.Two unidentified dead bodies were recovered on 26.8.2008 and on 27.8.2008 identified it to be of Tej Ram Saini and Hans Raj.A No.730/2012 Page 14 of 29We have noticed that the recovery of the dead bodies was fortuitous.On 26.8.2008, PW.7, on sensing a foul smell, found dead bodies wrapped in quilts.As has been narrated earlier police officials reached the spot and some clues with respect to the identity of one of the deceased persons could be collected.The truck could not be recovered and was untraceable.The appellant Khalid was absconding.On 29.8.2008, Head Constable Rakesh Kumar, (PW.6) while on duty along with PW. 23 (Inspector K.S. Rawat) and PW. 13 (SI Sahab Singh), received secret information as to the whereabouts of the appellant.The appellant Khalid was apprehended by the police party and he was taken to the Jai Mata Godown, Sonia Vihar.On the question of recovery of the truck, we would begin with the statement of the police officers.Head Constable Rakesh Kumar Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 15 of 29 (PW-6) has deposed that the appellant-Khalid was arrested on 29th August, 2008 and disclosure statement Exhibit PW-13/F, which was signed by PW-6 at point 'B' was recorded.On 1st September, 2008, appellant-Khalid was produced in court and police remand was taken.The truck owner Ram Vilas (PW-5) had joined them in Tis Hazari Courts and thereafter the appellant-Khalid took them to an isolated place in Faridabad where truck No. HR55B 7572 was found parked and seized vide seizure memo Exhibit PW-5/B, which was signed by PW-6 at point 'C'.In his cross-examination, PW-6 deposed that the appellant-Khalid was arrested on 29th August, 2008 between 7 to 8 P.M. The appellant- Khalid was produced in the court on 30th August, 2008 sometime during afternoon and was sent to judicial custody.Further, they had gone in a private vehicle to Faridabad and the police team comprised of Inspector K.S. Rawat (PW-23) and SI Sahab Singh (PW-13) and the truck owner.No intimation was given to the local police about the visit to Faridabad.The truck was found in an isolated place ahead of Faridabad chowk.It was parked on a kachcha on the left of the main road.Inspector K.S. Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 16 of 29 Rawat (PW-23) had physically checked the truck and had informed that he had seen blood stained clothes lying at the top.However, PW- 6 did not remember whether the said clothes were seized.The truck was towed to the Police Station Timarpur by using a crane.A No.730/2012 Page 15 of 29A No.730/2012 Page 16 of 29SI Sahab Singh (PW-13) has deposed that on 26th August, 2008, two unidentified dead bodies were found and that on 27th August, 2008, he along with other police officers had gone to Kotputli, Rajasthan, with the photographs of the deceased, who were identified as Tej Ram Singh and Hansraj.One Ram Niwas, owner of the truck confirmed that they were working in his truck No. HR 55 B 7572 as driver and helper, respectively.On 28th August, 2008, he again joined investigation and had taken the relatives of Tej Ram Singh and Hansraj to the mortuary where the bodies were identified by them and post-mortem was conducted.The bodies were thereafter handed over to the relatives.On 29th August, 2008, the appellant-Khalid was apprehended and arrested vide arrest memo Exhibit PW-13/G-1, which was signed by PW-13 at point 'A'.Khalid made a disclosure statement regarding the fact that the truck was abandoned at a distance of two kilometres in the right side of Faridabad chowk.The appellant- Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 17 of 29 Khalid was produced before Metropolitan Magistrate on 30th August, 2008 and has been remanded to judicial custody.Ram Niwas, the truck owner joined the investigation and the truck was found abandoned at a distance of about two kilometres from Faridabad chowk.The truck HR 55 B 7572 was identified by the owner and was taken into possession vide memo Exhibit PW-25/C. The truck was brought to the police station Timarpur driven by a private driver.PW- 13 clarified that on 27th August, 2008 from Kotputli they had not made any telephone call at No. 100, Control Room, Wireless Telegraph, National Crime Record Bureau, State Crime Record Bureau, Central Record Bureau and State Transport Authority about the vehicle in question.He denied the suggestion that they, i.e. the police, were aware about the whereabouts of the truck in question after they had come to know about the registration number and the recovery of the truck is deliberately attributed at the instance of appellant-Khalid.A No.730/2012 Page 18 of 29A No.730/2012 Page 17 of 29A No.730/2012 Page 18 of 29Inspector K.S. Rawat, the Investigating Officer, who has deposed as PW-23, has encapsulated the visit to Kotputli on 27 th August, 2008 and how they were able to identify the dead bodies.Thereafter, on 8th August, 2008, inquest proceedings, post-mortem was conducted and the dead bodies handed over to the relatives.On the said date, they had also gone to Sonia Vihar where the truck was unloaded and inquiries were made from Pramod Pandey (PW-24) and C.P. Sharma (PW-9).On 29th August, 2008, appellant-Khalid was arrested and had made a disclosure statement Exhibit PW-13/F, which was signed by PW-23 at point 'C'.However, on 1st September, 2008, police custody remand was taken for three days and the appellant was interrogated when he made a further disclosure statement Exhibit PW-5/D. Thereupon, the police team proceeded to Palwal-Faridabad road and the truck HR 55 B 7572 was found by the side of the road ahead of Faridabad chowk.The same was seized vide seizure memo Exhibit PW-15/C. In his cross- examination, PW-23 has deposed in some detail what had transpired at Crl.The truck owner Ram Vilas had met them at 10 P.M. The recovery memo was prepared at Faridabad.The truck was in a running condition and they had engaged a private driver to bring the truck to Delhi.The keys of the truck were in the truck itself and he volunteered that duplicate keys were with the owner.A No.730/2012 Page 19 of 29At this stage, we would like to deal with the testimony of Ram Vilas (PW-5), the owner of the truck.A No.730/2012 Page 20 of 29Ram Vilas (PW-5) in his deposition recorded on 20th May, 2010 has stated that they were called to Police Station Kotputli on 26 th August, 2008 and officers from Police Station Timarpur were present and he was shown photographs.They came to Delhi on 26 th August, 2008 and reached at about 11 P.M. On the way to Delhi, they were informed that one of the offenders had been apprehended.They met the police team near Ashram Chowk, Delhi and the offender was with the police team.Thereafter, they went to Faridabad and found one truck, which was identified by him.The truck was released to PW-5 on superdari after about fifteen days vide Exhibit PW-5/A. He was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor.In his cross-examination, PW-5 accepted that he had visited the Police Station at Kotputli on 27th August, 2008 and photographs of the deceased person were Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 21 of 29 shown to him for identification by the police from Police Station Timarpur.He had earlier given the date 26th August, 2008 due to some confusion.He had joined investigation on a few occasions.He could not remember whether the truck was in fact recovered on 1 st September, 2008, since he did not remember the date.Towards the end of his cross-examination by the public prosecutor, it is apparent that PW-5 again got confused, as he had deposed that after 26th August, 2008, he had stayed in Delhi as he was associated with the investigation.In his cross- examination, PW-5 accepted that appellant-Khalid had pointed out the place of recovery of the truck and a pointing out memo of the spot was Crl.In his cross-examination by the counsel for the accused, PW-5 asserted that he had visited Police Station Kotputli on 27th August, 2008 with some friends and had met police officers from Police Station Timarpur.He was shown photographs of Tej Ram Singh and Hansraj, and not photographs of his truck.He accepted as correct that he had come to Delhi with the police officers and had reached Police Station Timarpur on same day.However, he saw the offender, who had been caught by the police.On 30th August, 2008 and he had returned to Kotputli with the dead bodies.He had come to Delhi with a driver on 1st September, 2008 and was taken to Faridabad, where they reached the spot ahead of Faridabad chowk and the truck was found at the instance of the appellant-Khalid.Someone had driven the truck back to the Police Station, but the said person was not his driver.However, he claimed that no documentation was done by the police in his presence at the spot.A No.730/2012 Page 23 of 29Rakesh Kumar (PW-6), SI Sahab Singh (PW-13) and Inspector K.S. Rawat (PW-23).They had not located the truck before the recovery was made.There is no ground or reason whatsoever to hold to the contrary.A No.730/2012 Page 29 of 29Appellant Khalid stands convicted by judgment dated 02.03.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge II (North) Delhi in sessions case no. 62/2011 (FIR No. 423/2008 P.S. Timarpur) for the offence under section 302/201/392 with the aid of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 ('IPC' for short).Rukka (Exhibit PW23/A) was prepared by the IO and was sent through PW.7 for recording the FIR.Thereafter, FIR bearing No. 423/2008 was registered under Sections 302/201 IPC.The Statements of the aforesaid witnesses namely Ram Vilas (PW-5) and Sushil Vilas (PW-8) support and affirm the prosecution case on this aspect.Having identified the dead bodies, on the basis of further clues, investigation returned to Delhi to identify and nab the culprits.Before Crl.The dead bodies were thereafter handed over to the relatives for performing the last rites.On the same day the police officials went to Sonia Vihar where the godown of C.P Sharma (PW.9), consignee was located.Statements of Pramod Pandey (PW.24) and C.P. Sharma (PW.9) were recorded.We shall be referring to their statements later.PW.22, Dr. Vijay Dhankar, conducted the post mortem on the body of Tej Ram Saini and found the following injuries:i. Incised wound 2x0.5cm present over left side of front root of neck.A No.730/2012 Page 6 of 29Incised wound 2x0.5cm present over right side of front root of neck.Stab wound 1x0.5 cm present over right lateral portion of lower part of neck.Stab wound 4x1.5 cm present over back of root of neck on the right side.Stab wound 3x1 cm present over back of root of neck on the right side lateral to injury no.5 vii.Stab wound 3x0.8 cm present over right side of upper part of back of chest.stab wound 3x1 cm present over right side of upper part of back of chest below and lateral to injury no.7 ix.Stab wound 3x1 cm present over right side of upper part of back of chest below and lateral to injury no.8 x. Stab wound 4x1.5 cm present over right side of upper part of back of chest lateral to injury no.9 xi.Stab wound 2x1 cm present over right side of upper part of back of chest below injury no.9 xii.Stab wound 2x0.6 cm present over right side of upper part of back of chest below injury no.11 xiii.Stab wound 1.5x1.5 cm present over right side of upper part of back of chest below injury no.12 xiv.Abrasion 13x8 cm present over back of right arm xv.Multiple abrasion in a area of 6x3 cm over the right side of back if abdomenIn the opinion of PW.22, the death was due to hemorrhage and shock consequent upon penetrating injury to the neck and chest.All the injuries were found to be ante mortem and the nature of injuries No.1 to 13 were such that they could have been caused by one side sharp edged weapon.Injuries Nos. 14 - 15 were found to have been Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 7 of 29 caused by blunt force.PW.22 opined that the injury No.1 independently as well as injuries nos. 2 to 13 cumulatively were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.The time fixed for death was about 3 to 4 days.A No.730/2012 Page 7 of 29On the same day, PW.22 conducted the post mortem of Hans Raj and found the following injuries:i. An abraded ligature mark was present over the front and sides of neck, 9 cm below the chin in the midline and 6cm from the left and right angles of jaw on either side.The mark was 2-3 cm in width and 16 cm long.Total circumference of neck was 42 cm.The mark was interrupted and horizontally placed at the level of thyroid cartilage.Abrasion 18x6 cm was present over outer aspect of left hand.On internal examination effusion of blood was present over left parietal region of the head.A No.730/2012 Page 8 of 29 offence and opine regarding the injuries found on the dead bodies.A blood stained steel knife was received by him and he prepared the sketch of the same.After examining the knife, PW.22 opined that injuries nos. 1 to 13 on the body of Tej Ram could have been caused by the knife which he had examined.A Blood stained nylon rope was also sent to him for examination and report about the injuries on the person of Hans Raj.After examining the rope, PW.22 opined that the ligature strangulation on the body of the deceased Hans Raj could have been caused by the rope.A No.730/2012 Page 8 of 29Thus it is apparent that Tej Ram and Hans Raj died a homicidal death.Tej Ram Saini was killed by means of a knife, whereas deceased Hans Raj was throttled to death.On 27.8.2008, PW.5 received a call Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 12 of 29 from the police station Kotputli where he reached along with 3-4 of his relatives and met the police officials from PS Timarpur, Delhi.The later part of his deposition would be referred to by us later when we deal with the recovery of the truck in question.A No.730/2012 Page 12 of 29Pradeep Kumar (PW.10) confirmed that Prashant Sharma (PW.17) had asked for the mineral powder.From the deposition of the aforementioned witnesses, it is apparent that the truck of which the deceased persons were the driver and the helper/cleaner, was brought to the godown of PW.9 and the consignment was unloaded at night.The testimonies of PW.24, read in conjunction with that of PWs.5, 8, 9, 10, 15, 17 make it very obvious that the appellant Khalid was at the godown along with others to unload the consignment and thereafter the deceased persons as well as the appellant were not seen.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the evidence with respect to the appellant being last seen with the deceased could not be treated as material as there was a large time gap between the appellants having been seen with the deceased persons and the approximate time of death.A No.730/2012 Page 13 of 29Such a contention does not have any force as the dead bodies were kept in Subzi mandi mortuary for nobody came forward from 24.8.2008 till 28.8.2008 for their identification.Subsequently the bodies were identified.The other contention of the appellant that in the absence of any documentation with respect to the employment of PW.24 at the godown, he cannot be believed and be treated as a reliable witness with respect to his having last seen the appellant with the deceased, also has no force.It is a matter of common knowledge that under a private employment such formalities are not adhered to and executed and it would be too much for PW.24 to have produced any document suggesting that he was under the employment of PW.9, the owner of the godown.Oral depositions on these aspects should be accepted.Thus there is no reason to disbelieve or doubt the aforesaid witnesses with respect to the vehicle having come to the godown of Crl.The application for police remand had remained pending.On 31 st August, 2008, police custody of appellant-Khalid was taken for three days but on the said date the appellant did not cooperate.On 1 st September, 2008, the appellant-Khalid was taken from the police lock up.A No.730/2012 Page 19 of 29 Kotputli on 27th August, 2008 and that on 29th August, 2008 they kept on looking for the accused, including those, who have not been arrested.On 30th August, 2008, they had produced appellant-Khalid in the court.Khalid was sent to judicial custody.On 1st September, 2008 at about 4 to 4.30 P.M. the court granted police custody of the appellant-Khalid, and thereupon the appellant-Khalid was interrogated before being taken to Faridabad in a private car.A No.730/2012 Page 21 of 29A No.730/2012 Page 22 of 29A No.730/2012 Page 23 of 29What is clear to us from the testimony of Ram Vilas (PW-5) that the said witness got confused about the dates, apparently because of passage of time and also because of the fact that he came to Delhi on several occasions.In case the stolen vehicle had been recovered or found by any police team, it would have been flashed and uploaded on the police network.Faridabad police, had they taken the truck in their custody, would have necessarily made and recorded entries in the police diary.Intimation or inquiries would have been made from the State Transport Authority.The truck was examined by Sh.V. Shankaranarayanan (PW.21) and Sh.PW.21 in his report, which is exhibit PW21/A, has stated that blood was detected on the rooftop of the drivers cabin, truck cover, rope and towel.The said blood stains were lifted and sent for chemical examination.However no conclusive blood grouping could be recovered from the aforementioned samples.The biological report is exhibit PW26/A and serological report exhibit PW26/A No.730/2012 Page 24 of 29Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is in the nature of partial removal of ban placed on the reception of confessional statement under section 25 of the Evidence Act. It lays down that where any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 25 of 29 information received from a person accused of an offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of the information, whether it amounts to confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.We have noticed that the truck was parked at a lonely/desolate place and in presence of PW.5, the same was recovered at the instance of the appellant.A No.730/2012 Page 25 of 29The other incriminating evidence sought to be relied upon against the appellant as one of the perpetrators of the crime, is the recovery of knife, the weapon of assault, used by the appellant.The appellant took the police officials at a place near Chandi Ram Amhara towards ISBT, and on his pointing out a knife was recovered.PW.6, PW.20 and PW.23 have testified with respect to recovery of knife.The recovery has been challenged on the ground that no public witness at the time of recovery joined the investigation, despite the place of recovery being a crowded one and that the recovery memo discloses the knife to be blood smeared, whereas FSL report (Exhibit PW26/A) is to the contrary and it says that no blood could be detected on the knife.A No.730/2012 Page 26 of 29A No.730/2012 Page 26 of 29There is no reason for us to doubt that the disclosure leading to the recovery of the truck, was not voluntary.A No.730/2012 Page 28 of 29Once the evidence of the appellant having been last seen with the deceased and the recovery of the truck is found to be true and proved, the appellant loses his right to be set free.TCR be returned forthwith.A No.730/2012 Page 29 of 29

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

a) Appellant - Kasim is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years for the offence under Section 307 of IPC with fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous Crl.A. No. 536/2001 Page 1 of 14 imprisonment for three months;A. No. 536/2001 Page 1 of 14All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The facts as emerging from the impugned judgment are that on 06.08.1998 at about 11.10 AM near red light, Constable Ripu Daman who was on beat patrolling duty in E. F, G, H Block, Shastri Park, Kaithwara, found that the accused Yunus was beating one rickshaw puller - Shakeel Ahmed.Ripu Daman intervened, whereupon accused Yunus started pulling out a country made pistol from his armpit.Ripu Daman gave him a danda blow.Thereafter, accused Kasim who was standing at a distance, shot a fire from another country made pistol held by him which hit against the back of Ripu Daman.When Ripu Daman turned back and found that Kishan Lal was trying to apprehend accused Kasim.Accused Yunus came there running and shot a fire at Kishan Lal but it did not strike him.Thereafter, Yunus Crl.A. No. 536/2001 Page 2 of 14 gave a blow with the butt of his country made pistol on the head of Kishan Lal.In the meantime, other public persons and vehicle of PCR arrived at the spot and accused Kasim was overpowered by Kishan Lal alongwith one country made pistol, eight live cartridges, one empty cartridge, besides one dagger.Inspector Maharaj Singh, of PCR apprehended the accused Yunus alongwith country made pistol, one cartridge, one fired cartridge.The officials of PCR took Ripu Daman to GTB Hospital.In the meantime, Inspector Tej Pal Singh, SHO of Police Station Seelampur arrived at the spot.Both the accused were arrested and challened for offences under Section 307/308/186/353/34 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The facts as emerging from the impugned judgment are that at about 11.10 AM near red light, Constable Ripu Daman who was on beat patrolling duty in E. F, G, H Block, Shastri Park, Kaithwara, found that the accused Yunus was beating one rickshaw puller - Shakeel Ahmed.Ripu Daman intervened, whereupon accused Yunus started pulling out a country made pistol from his armpit.Ripu Daman gave him a danda blow.Thereafter, accused Kasim who was standing at a distance, shot a fire from another country made pistol held by him which hit against the back of Ripu Daman.When Ripu Daman turned back and found that Kishan Lal was trying to apprehend accused Kasim.Accused Yunus came there running and shot a fire at Kishan Lal but it did not strike him.Thereafter, Yunus gave a blow with the butt of his country made pistol on the head of Kishan Lal.In the meantime, other public persons and vehicle of PCR arrived at the spot and accused Kasim was overpowered by Kishan Lal alongwith one country made pistol, eight Crl.A. No. 536/2001 Page 3 of 14 live cartridges, one empty cartridge, besides one dagger.Inspector Maharaj Singh, of PCR apprehended the accused Yunus alongwith country made pistol, one cartridge, one fired cartridge.The officials of PCR took Ripu Daman to GTB Hospital.A. No. 536/2001 Page 3 of 14The appellant - Kasim before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. deposed that he had been lifted from his brother's house situated at Seelampur and the alleged recoveries were planted upon him.On the other hand, Appellant - Yunus explained that he had come to Seelampur for playing, where a quarrel took place and he received injuries.He went to his uncle's house wherefrom he was lifted by the police.They are; Head Constable Jabar singh (PW-1); Constable Charan Lal (PW-2); Dr. B.Narain, CMO GTB Hospital, Delhi (PW-3); Kishan Lal (PW-4); Head Constable Dinesh (PW-5); Constable Mohar Singh (PW-6); Constable Inderjeet Singh (PW-7); Rajiv Jain, LDC (PW-8), Constable Ripudaman (PW-9); Inspector Maharaj Singh, (PW-10); ASI Samander Singh (PW-11); Constable Rishi Pal (PW-12); Constable Karamvir Singh (PW-13); Inspector Tej Pal Singh (PW-14); Dr. R. Dayal, CMO, GTB Hospital, Delhi (PW-When he looked to the boy who had fired at him, he saw one other person trying to apprehend the assailant.At the same time, the boy whom he had seen beating another boy - fired a shot on the person who was trying to apprehend the second assailant (who had fired on him) but the fire shot did not hit that man.Thereafter, that boy hit the katta butt (handle) on the head of that person.The crowd gathered there succeeded in holding him down.The other assailant had already been apprehended by the person who had earlier been hit with butt of the katta.Thereafter, PCR van came and removed him to GTB Hospital.Through: Mr. Pannal Lal Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with Inspector Ram Avtar Tyagi, SHO, with Sub-Inspector Manoj Tomar, Police Station Seelampur, Delhi.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, JBy this appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr. P.C., the appellants seek to challenge the impugned judgment dated 21.05.2001, passed in SC No.164/1999 in a case registered as FIR No. 548/1998 under Section 307/308/186/353/34 of IPC read with Section 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act, at Police Station Seelampur, Delhi.The appellant also seeks to challenge the order on sentence dated 24.05.2001, whereby they have been sentenced as follows:b) Appellant - Yunus is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years for the offence under Section 308 of IPC and payment of fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each; andc) Appellants - Kasim and Yunus were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each for offences under Section 186/353/34 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act.In the meantime, Inspector Tej Pal singh, SHO of Police Station Seelampur arrived at the spot.Both the accused were arrested and challened for offences under Section 307/308/186/353/34 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.A. No. 536/2001 Page 2 of 14However, both the appellants did not lead any defence evidence in their support.To prove the charges against the appellant, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses.A. No. 536/2001 Page 4 of 1415); Shakeel (PW-16); Sh.A.R. Arora (PW-17); Dr. Satish Mishra, Surgery Sr.Resident, GTB, (PW-18); and Dr. S.D. Bisht, Sushrut Trauma Centre, LNJP Hospital (PW-19).Upon considering the facts, evidence led and the material on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant - Kasim guilty for offence punishable under Sections 307 of IPC read with Section 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act and appellant - Yunus guilty for the offence under Section 308 IPC read with Section 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act, by impugned judgment dated 21.05.2001, and vide order on sentence dated 24.05.2001 and the appellants were sentenced as indicated above.Hence, the appellants have filed the instant appeal against the impugned judgment and order on sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge.The main grounds of challenge are that there are contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.Even the prosecution witness Shakeel (PW-16) who was allegedly being beaten by the appellant has been declared hostile; Constable Ripu Daman (PW-9) in his cross-examination deposed that he could not see the faces of the appellants and on the other hand he deposed that he had seen Yunus first time in the hospital.Even the star witness Kishan Lal (PW-4) has denied having made any statement before the police and in his cross-examination stated that he had caught the accused Kasim at a Crl.A. No. 536/2001 Page 5 of 14 distance of 15 minutes running.It is further contended that as per the prosecution case the appellants were arrested at the spot, but the DD No.11A states that an information was received from wireless Operator through intercom that somebody had fired a shot on a police constable, he was taken to the hospital and the assailants had run away.It is further contended that the Head Constable Dinesh (PW-5) who belongs to PCR and arrived at the spot first of all and deposed that one public witness had told him that one constable had been fired.He stated that they found the constable at the spot lying and removed him to the hospital, but he nowhere stated that accused were arrested on the spot.It is further argued that PW-6 Constable Mohar Singh who was accompanying with Inspector Maharaj Singh (PW-10) to the spot, did not state a word regarding the arrest of the appellants on the spot.It is further argued that no documentary evidence was produced to show that constable Ripudaman was on duty at the place of incident.Regarding medical evidence, it is argued that Dr. R. Dahal (PW-15) and Dr. S.D. Bisht (PW-19) who medically examined and gave their opinion regarding Constable Ripudaman in his cross- examination, Dr. R. Dayal admitted that he had not removed the Crl.A. No. 536/2001 Page 6 of 14 pellets, rather he admitted that there would be blackening and tattooing on the body if the short is fired from a short distance.The X- ray taken is also not on record.Similarly, Dr. S.D. Bisht in his cross- examination deposed that he could not remember the length and breadth of the injuries received by the patient and without going through the records, he could not give an opinion about the nature of the injuries as the same were made simple or grievous.He further deposed that without record, he could not tell the distance of firing.Therefore from the deposition of the doctors, it is clear that the prosecution is of a simple hurt, which falls at best within the purview of Section 323 of IPC.Therefore, in such a situation, the appeal filed by the appellants be allowed and they be given the benefit of doubt.A. No. 536/2001 Page 5 of 14A. No. 536/2001 Page 6 of 14Per contra, argument advanced by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State is that the accused/appellants were rightly held guilty, the appellant - Kasim under Section 307 of the IPC inasmuch as he had inflicted a gun shot at the complainant and the appellant - Yunus for the offence under Section 308 of IPC as he had given a blow with the butt of his country made pistol on the head of Kishan Lal.More so, there is recovery of pistol, eight live cartridges, one empty cartridge, one dagger at the instance of the appellants.Therefore, the prosecution has successfully proven the offence of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and in such circumstances, the impugned judgment and order on sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge do not call for any interference and the same are liable to be upheld.A. No. 536/2001 Page 7 of 14I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the State and gone through the petition, impugned judgment and order on sentence and the material available on record.Constable Ripudaman (PW-9) had deposed in his statement that on the date of incident i.e. 6.8.1998 at about 11.40 am, he was present near Red light, Shastri Park and while on patrolling duty, he saw a boy being beaten by another boy.He tried to separate them and rescue the boy, but the boy who was bearing the other one, took out a desi katta from one side of his body.He immediately gave a danda blow to him.Another boy who was standing near by, had fired at him from a desi katta of which the bullet hit him on his back.It was subsequently revealed that the person who had been hit on his head was Kishan and the boy who was beating that boy was Yunus.During his deposition, he identified both the assailants in the hospital, who fired a shot on Crl.A. No. 536/2001 Page 8 of 14 him and had hit Kishan on his head and beaten another boy.A. No. 536/2001 Page 8 of 14Kishan Lal (PW-4) who was the eye-witness to the incident had deposed in his statement before court that on 6.8.1998 at about 11/11.30 AM, he was standing outside his house and heard a sound of DHAMAKA.He looked to the right side of the road and saw one constable falling.He went there and enquired as to what had happened.He was told that two boys had run after firing a shot on the constable.He further deposed that one of the accused was having katta in his hand and pointed out towards the appellant - Kasim.He deposed that he held Kasim and snatched the katta from his hand.When he was snatching the katta, he shouted and told the other accused - Yunus to kill him whereupon the witness pointed out towards the appellant - Yunus.He deposed that the appellant - Yunus took out a katta and fired a shot aiming at him but he fell down and was saved from the shot and thereafter Yunus hit the butt of the katta on his head.He further deposed that he handed over accused Kasim to the SHO as well as the katta.It has further come in his deposition that from the search of appellant - Kasim, eight live cartridges from his pocket were recovered.Apart from this, appellant - Kasim was having one chhura kept in his leg with the help of his socks.He deposed that he had sustained injury on his head on being hit with the katta butt by accused Yunus.He alongwith two accused where taken to GTB hosital and he was medically examined by the police.Dr. B.Narain, CMO GTB Hospital, Delhi (PW-3) deposed in his statement that he had examined Kishan Lal and prepared his MLC Crl.A. No. 536/2001 Page 9 of 14 (Ex. PW-3/A).Resident Surgery, he had given the opinion on the MLC (Ex. PW- 15/A and Ex. PW-18/A) as being grievous.A. No. 536/2001 Page 9 of 14This court also perused the MLC of Krishan (Ex.PW-3/A) and according to that, injured had swelling and tenderness in occeptal area of scull and the injury was opinied by the doctor to be of simple in nature with blunt object.Another MLC of Constable Ripu Daman (Ex.PW-15/A) was also perused by this court, which shows that the patient was having injury of gun shot with multiple pellets, one and half inch diameter at lower back; no blackening and tatowing of area.The doctor has opined the injury to have been caused by gun shot.Perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge reveals that the appellant - Kasim has been convicted for 307 IPC on the basis of statement of injured and eye- witness as well as of independent witness Kishan Lal and on the basis of the MLC of the injured upon which the doctor has opined the injuries being inflicted through gun shot.For ready reference, Section 307 of the IPC which reads as follows is provided hereunder:"Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be Crl.The determinative question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not the Crl.A. No. 536/2001 Page 11 of 14 nature of injury.A. No. 536/2001 Page 11 of 14Likewise, vide Crl.A. No. 536/2001 Page 12 of 14 impugned judgment the appellant - Yunus has been held guilty for the offence under Section 308 IPC and Section 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act on the premise of the statement of Kishan Lal who in his deposition speicifcally stated that appellant - Yunus gave a blow with a butt of his country made pistol on the head.Now on the quantum of sentence, this court observes that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has awarded the sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment to the appellant - Kasim for the offence under Section 307 IPC and 5 years rigorous imprisonment to the appellant - Yunus for the offence under Section 308 of IPC.Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, and the fact that the incident in question is of the year 1998 and the appellants have faced the agony of trial for the last more than 19 years, this court is of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be met if the sentence imposed upon the appellant - Kasim is reduced to the period of 5 years for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and the sentence Crl.A. No. 536/2001 Page 13 of 14 imposed upon the appellant - Yunus is reduced to the period of 3 years for the offence under Section 308 of IPC years.However, the sentence under Section 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act awarded to both the appellants shall remain the same with direction of running all the sentences concurrently.It is ordered accordingly.A. No. 536/2001 Page 13 of 14Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed thereby upholding the impugned judgment dated 21.05.2001 and modifying the order on sentence dated 24.05.2001 to the extent indicated above.The appellants are on bail.They are directed to surrender before the trial court concerned within a period of 15 days to serve the remainder of the sentence of imprisonment.A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court for information and necessary steps.With aforesaid directions, the present appeal is disposed of.(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE JULY 04, 2017 pkb Crl.A. No. 536/2001 Page 14 of 14A. No. 536/2001 Page 14 of 14

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

They have challenged their conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.We have heard learned counsel for the applicants.We have also heard learned counsel appearing in the above two applications on behalf of the State.The sum and substance of the allegation on the basis of which the trial proceeded was that on 10.02.2016 at about 10.45 p.m. the victim requested for a lift in a Scorpio vehicle from Ultadanga Hudco more to Ruby and that the victim was permitted to enter the car on his agreeing to pay Rs.20/- for the lift; that thereafter, accused nos. 1, 2 and 3, of whom one was driving the vehicle, stopped the vehicle at a distant place en-route to Ruby and thereafter threatened the victim and also assaulted him by punching with hand and the victim was also threatened of harm using a screw driver; all intended to extract out of the victim his personal belongings including money and ATM cards.According to the prosecution appropos the threat, the wallet of the victim was taken by the three persons and they stopped in an ATM to draw money from the account of the victim.Though the victim did not share the ATM PIN, it was for the purpose of non-disclosure of ATM PIN that the accused persons further threatened the victim.It appears that in the T.I. Parade and in Court the victim identified the accused persons.The recovery evidenced by the search and seizure lists tends to indicate that the same material was recovered from the three accused persons.The possibility of the case in hand being one squarely falling under Sections 394 or 397 of the Indian Penal Code or one which could be tapered down to lower counts are matters that deserve to be examined.The applications being CRAN 4068 of 2019 and CRAN 4172 of 2019 are, thus, disposed of.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertakings.[Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, C.J] [Arijit Banerjee, J.]

['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT D.J. Moharir, J.The appellants here are the original accused Nos. 1 to 5 who were, alongwith seven others tried for commission under sections 147, 148, 307 read with section 149 of I.P.C. as also under section 37(i), (iii) read with section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. While accused Nos. 6 to 12 were all acquitted of the above stated charges as also the charge under 201 of the I.P.C. For the offence under section 307 read with section 149 of I.P.C., each of these appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 5 was sentenced to suffer R.I. For four years and a fine of Rs. 250/- i/d of each to undergo further R.I. for 6 months.For the offence under section 148 of the I.P.C., each of them was sentenced to R.I. for 6 months and no separate sentence was awarded for the offence under section 147 of the I.P.C. The substantive sentence were directed to run concurrently.The five appellants and seven others who were acquitted all came to be prosecuted of the following as case put forth by the prosecution:The accused No. 1 Rajabhau Rasal had an elder brother by name Sudhir.In the year 1980 Sudhir was murdered by Manohar Vir who is the victim of the attempt to commit murder in this case.Manohar Vir was tried by the Session Court at Solapur, for the offence under section 302 of the I.P.C., who apparently came to be convicted under section 304(ii) of the I.P.C. He was sentenced to R.I. for 5 years.The fact that Manohar Vir was lay off lightly for the murder of his brother, was not taken lightly by the accused No. 1 Rajabhau Rasal.The desire to wreck vengence upon him and punish him life for life, to crowd in the mind of the accused No. 1, when Manohar Vir was thus lay off lightly as considered by him.With revenge overwhelming him, he was on the look out to punish Manohar Vir appropriately i.e. by doing his murder also.It was with that object that the accused Nos. 1 to 9 all friends and associates of the accused No. 1, formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons.The accused No. 1 and 2 armed with swords, the accused No. 3 with a hockey stick, the accused No. 4 with iron bar, and the accused No. 5 with a hollow iron pipe, started on 9-10-1985 at about 12 noon, looking out for Manohar Vir.They went about in two autorickshaws of which the accused No. 10 and 11 were the drivers.They found Manohar Vir standing infront of the Bhagwat Petrol Pump and on citing him, the two autorickshaws stopped.The accused persons rushed out of the vehicles.The accused No. 1 in the lead armed with the sword, first struck a blow to Manohar on the head.Frightened at the suddenness of this attack on him, Manohar Vir, ran in the direction of the residence of the Police Inspector Atmaram Yadao.At a distance of about 1 k.m.He is a cousin of Manohar Vir.The accused Nos. 1 and 2 riding together in the third autorickshaw, passed by the restaurant of Madhukar Satarkar, while the two other autorickshaws carrying the accused persons sped away towards Latur.Slowing down the autorickshaw briefly, the accused No. 2 delivered a threat to Madhukar Satarkar also saying one is already finished and they will now burn down his hotel also.When Manohar Vir was attacked near the Bhagwat Petrol Pump and ran in the direction of the Police Inspector's bungalow, the accused persons while chasing him, raised shouts "catch him, beat him, kill him".The commotion thus caused a noise and the shoutings fell on the ears of Madan Bobde P.W. 9, who is the maternal uncle of Manohar Vir and an employee of the Municipal Council, Barsi, in the Boiler Department.His house is on the Latur Kurduwadi road in Shivaji Akhada area.At a short distance from where the incident of the attack on Manohar Vir at the Bhagwant Petrol Pump occurred, he, therefore, came out of the house all the while still taking his meal.He went upto the railway line which passes nearby and watched from there.He saw Manohar Vir running into the compound of the Police Inspector's bungalow and then the accused persons in not chased catching up with him, attacking him with swords and other weapons and then leaving him, considering him to be dead and speeding away in the autorickshaws.Like Madan Bobde P.W. 9, the occurrence was eye witnessed by Shivaji Parse P.W. 6 also.However, he had witnessed the entire occurrence starting with first attack on Manohar Vir at the Bhagwat Petrol Pump.He went on foot after the assailants, in the direction of the Police Inspector's bungalow and witnessed the entire incident including the accused persons leaving the place in the autorickshaws.Similarly Vishnu Vidhate P.W. 7, also saw the incident while he was returning to his Radio Repairing Shop, situated opposite the Police Inspector's bungalow, after taking his mid day meal at his house which is on the back side of the Bhagwat Petrol Pump.Madan Bobde, Shivaji Parse and two others by name Appa-Pappa Kandalkar and Bapu Raut then carried the injured and unconscious Manohar Vir to the Municipal Council Jawaharlal Hospital, Barsi.The Medical Officer Dr. Gaekwad P.W. 8, was no duty.He examined Manohar Vir in his unconscious condition, noted the several injuries, all incised wounds on his person and having regard to the critical condition advised that Manohar be taken to the Barsi Maternity and General Co-operative Hospital, where Dr. Hiremath P.W. 1 was the Chief Medical Officer.It was between 12-15 and 12-30 noon that the incident took place and it was by about 1-15 p.m. that Manohar Vir was finally admitted in the hospital of Dr. Hiremath.The Chief Medical Officer noted the critical condition and opined that immediate surgery was necessary.The necessary consent for surgery having been obtained on the case papers of the patient, Manohar Vir was operated upon successfully.The offence was registered against all these accused persons and wireless messages were immediately sent out as the culprit were reported to have sped away in the direction of Latur in autorickshaws.One of the message was also sent to the Pangari Police Station.P.S.I. Dange P.W. 18 having received the message, took steps to apprehend the accused persons.He first went to the village Kuslumb with his staff and learnt that autorickshaws and gone towards Yermala and, therefore, he want to Yermala also but there again he learnt that the rickshaws had gone towards a city of Bid.He requisitioned the services of motor truck for the pursuit.They were apprehended and the autorickshaws also seized and attached and sent to the Pangari Police Station.He further went ahead in search of the other accused persons upto Kunthalgiri and saw one Matador.The driver of the matador informed him that the he had taken some of the accused persons to the village Bhum in the said matador.He went to Bhum also and searched for the accused persons but they could not be traced.At Barsi the town Police Inspector Atmaram Yadao was out of station.He had gone to Pune in connection with the investigation of some other offence.He sent a Yadi to the Special Executive Magistrate for recording the statement of Manohar Vir.However, Manohar Vir apparently regained consciousness only on the 10th October 985 i.e. the next day in the morning.It was only then that his statement was recorded.P.S.I. Patil also drawn a panchanama of the scene of the offence, the spot at the Bhagwant Petrol Pump, and the premises of the Police Inspector's residence.At the spot near the Bhagwat Petrol Pump, he found one single chappal of the left foot and seized it.In the compound of the Police Inspector's bungalow, apart from observing the pool of blood, by the injuries received by Manohar Vir, he also found an iron bar (article No. 10) and the broken sword handle.These were also seized by him.By 10-30 p.m. Police Inspector Yadao, having received wireless message about the present incident, returned to Barsi from Pune.He then took over the investigation.On 10-10-1985 under the orders of Police Inspector Yadao, P.S.I. Patil seized the blood stained articles of clothing on the person of Manohar Vir under the panchanama Exh. 29 at Dr. Hiremath's Hospital (article Nos. 25 to 28).Obviously his object was to enter in the residence of the Police Inspector and seek protection against the accused persons who were after his life.To his misfortune the house was found locked.The accused persons, some of them through the gate of the compound, and some others through the wire fencing rushed at Manohar Vir and blows were struck to him, first by the accused No. 3 Somnath with the hockey stick, whereupon he fell down.He was then struck with the sword on the neck and else where on the body and lay bleeding and became unconscious.With victory thus achieved some one from these group of assailants loudly said, "he is dead, let us go now".So same the accused persons got into the autorickshaws and sped away in the direction of Latur.He also obtained a copy of Manohar Vir's statement recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate and handed over the same to the Police Inspector.Again under the orders of the Police Inspector Yadao, he also carried out the search of the accused Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 but nothing incriminating was found.The accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were all arrested on 16-10-1985 when they appeared at the Police Station which was after their application dated 12-10-1985 for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected on 15-10-1985 by the Sessions Judge.Police Custody remand of these accused persons had been obtained and during such police custody remand, following a statement duly recorded under section 27, the sword (article No. 7) was also recovered.The autorickshaw which has been used by the accused Nos. 1 to 4 for their escape was also attached and the accused No. 12 Gafar Saudagar as the driver thereof was also arrested.He visited Yermala to record the statement of the witnesses also.When the accused No. 1 was arrested, upon his surrendering himself at the Police Station at 2.45 p.m., he had found that the (accused No. 1) had injuries on the middle finger and the palm of the left hand.He, therefore, sent the accused No. 1 for medical examination and injury report to Dr. Gaekwad at the Municipal Council Jawaharlal Hospital.The chappal which had been found near the Bhagwat Petrol Pump, was found to fit on the left foot of the accused No. 2 Nagnath.During the interrogation all the accused persons, other a second sword, hockey stick and sticks etc. also came to be recovered following the statement of discovery of certain other accused persons.Eventually upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was presented against all the 12 accused persons as stated above.To the charge as framed at Exh. 2, all these 12 accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Their defence was of a total denial.Denying the truth of every so far as piece of evidence which came to be led against them, they also filed separate written statements to spell out their further defence.On arrival at Barsi, they learnt about this incident of the attack on Manohar Vir and feeling that since the accused No. 1 was the brother of Sudhir, who had been murdered by Manohar Vir, they would be suspected of having taken revenge upon Manohar Vir, and since they also learnt that complaint had been actually accordingly lodged against them, and further that the Police were in search of them, they decided to leave Barsi, using the motorcycle they went upto tourist hotel on the Latur road.They left the motorcycle there with instructions to the proprietor of the hotel that it be returned to Kanta Shalu.They then returned to Barsi, took their clothes in the bag and went to Solapur, where they met the accused Nos. 3 and 4 also.During the period between 12th and 15th October 1985, they submitted that Police Inspector Yadao had actually met them on some occasions.According to them, they had absolutely no concern whatsoever in the incident of the attack on Manohar Vir.No complicity therein could be attributed to them.The accused No. 1 also gave an explanation for the two cut injuries on his left hand, as caused while doing some household work.When they learnt about this incident, of the attack on Manohar Vir, they suspected that the accused No. 1 would be suspected and held responsible.They apprehended that being his friends, they would also come in trouble.Then they proceeded to Solapur deciding to apply for anticipatory bail.They denied like the accused Nos. 1 and 2 that they were still wearing any blood stained articles of clothing when they surrendered at the Police Station Barsi on 16-10-1985 or that such blood stained articles of clothing were attached from their person.Their contention was that on 9-10-1985 Wednesday, was the Bazar day at village Vasi, Taluka Bhoom.Live stock is sold in that market.Because of the severe drought conditions, cattle owners had been selling away their live stock.They had learnt that cows of jearsy breed which yield good milk in quantity were also being sold cheaply.Desiring to purchase that breed of cows, they had, therefore, decided to go to Vasi.They had intended to catch S.T. bus at 12 noon from Barsi.By the time they reached the Bus Station, bus for Vasi had already left.Apprehending that they would thus mis-unattending the cattle market, they engaged two autorickshaws driven by the accused Nos. 10 and 11 and proceeded towards Vasi from Barsi.On the way, between village Yermala and Vasi, their autorickshaws had tried to over take a bus at a road junction.In the attempt to over take, one of the two autorickshaws turned turtle.It was then that the Police Sub-Inspector Patil also came there and apprehended all of them and took them to Barsi.Their plea is that they have, therefore, been falsely implicated only because they were the friends of accused No. 1 Rajabhau Rasal.Even after taking into consideration the criticism levelled against each of these three eye witnesses, he found their evidence cogent and reliable, more particularly the evidence of the witness Vishnu Vidhate P.W. 7 was also found to be that of totally disinterested witness.It was upon such corroboration which the testimony of the victim Manohar Vir, P.W. 10, thus received that the learned Judge found the accused Nos. 1 to 5 has fully and inexplicably implicated.This was apart from the fact that the evidence from two medical witnesses Dr. Gaekwad and Dr. Hiremath also supported the eye witnesses.In his very detailed judgment exhaustively considering all evidence, the learned Judge observed that the first information report Exh. 53 came from Madan Bobde P.W. 9 as himself an eye witness to the incident.He noted that the incident had been witnessed by Shivaji Parse P.W. 6 right from the beginning i.e. when attack on Manohar Vir is started near the Bhagwat Petrol Pump and when thereafter he ran into the compound of the Police Inspector's bungalow, hotly chased by the accused persons.He had that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had used swords, the accused No. 3 a hockey stick and the accused No. 5 a hollow iron pipe for attacking Manohar Vir, when they caught up with him in the courtyard of the Police Inspector's residence.He also found that there was no person present in the bungalow of the Police Inspector Atmaram Yadao as the latter had gone to Pune for investigational work.He also noted that when Manohar Vir was taken to the Municipal Council Jawaharlal Hospital in the first instance, the Medical Officer Dr. Gaekwad there had immediately sent information to the Police Inspector at Barsi Police Station.It was received there at about 1 p.m. He also noted that Manohar Vir could not be properly treated there and was, therefore, on the advice of Dr. Gaekwad taken to and treated at the Barsi Maternity and General Co-operative Hospital headed by Dr. Hiremath, for appropriate urgent and special treatment.The learned Additional Sessions Judge dealt with the submission of the defence Counsel that the accused persons had come to be charged only a suspicion.The submission being founded on the fact though Manohar Vir's compliant Exh. 53 had come to be lodged only by 2 p.m. or before that, the message to the Pangari Police Station for catching specifically named suspects had already gone at 1.30 p.m. That submission though accepted by him as quite ingenious was not, however, tenable in his own.He also dealt with the submission only to reject it that Manohar Vir must have been quite conscious by the time a decision to operate upon him came to be taken for the reason that the consent to such surgery had been given by Manohar Vir himself.The argument was that even Manohar Vir was in a condition to understand the risk involved in a surgery and could yet give his consent to such surgery, then it was his complaint, that should and ought to have been recorded and not of Madan Bobde P.W. 9, for taking cognizance of offence if any.The evidence pertaining to the statements of discovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act made by the various accused persons, leading to the seizure of several weapon of offence, such as two swords, sticks iron bar and pipe etc. was unworthy to credit no doubt but the fact remained all the same a true one that the report of the Chemical Analyser at Exh. 31 established the presence of human blood of group 'B' on it, that being also the blood group for victim Manohar Vir.He also rejected as entirely artificial the prosecution evidence that the accused Nos. 1 to 4 had appeared at the Barsi Police Station on 16-10-1985 with blood stained articles clothing still on their person, so as to make use of the blood stained conditions of the clothes as providing a clue to the participation of the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in the commission of the offence.He rejected the accused No. 1's explanation as to the injuries on his middle finger and the palm of his left hand.He also noted that the evidence of P.S.I. Dange of the Pangari Police Station read even in the light of the written statements of the accused persons, established that they had been in a guilty flight after the incident.Thus the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion upon his detailed assumption of all the prosecution evidence that it unmistakably established the accused Nos. 1 to 5 as the persons who alongwith others also formed an unlawful assembly with the object of seeking revenge upon Manohar Vir for his committing the murder of Sudhir Rasal, indulged in a ferocious and concerted attack upon the defenceless Manohar Vir and had attempted to commit his murder.While against the accused Nos. 6 to 12, the evidence was unsatisfactory, while the participation of the accused Nos. 10, 11 and 12 as the autorickshaw drivers was a very negligible part, unaccompanied by their seeing of any such common object, the complicity of the accused Nos. 6 to 9 was also a fact which had remained far from established.It is, therefore, that the accused Nos. 6 to 12 came to be acquitted and their acquittal has not been, as stated at the bar by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, challenged either by an appeal against such acquittal.The accused Nos. 1 to 5 had, however, came to be convicted and sentenced as stated above and they have taken exception both to their conviction and the sentences as awarded to them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.Both the learned Counsel Shri Patil for these appellants and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State have taken me in almost a minute detail through the entire prosecution evidence.The finding of their guilt under section 147 and 148 as also under section 307 read section 149 of the I.P.C. is challenged by Shri Patil upon a variety of contentions and submissions.These may be briefly emnurated, before considering them in detail as under:Thirdly the evidence of the so called eye witnesses Vishnu Vidhate, Shivaji Parse and Mandan Bobde provided an indication that many persons had gathered infront of the Police Inspector's bungalow when the incident occurred and yet only interested and antagonistic persons had come to be examined as prosecution eye witnesses.These witnesses, it was also pointed out, atleast some of them were relatives of the injured Manohar Vir.It was next submitted that Manohar Vir must have been quite conscious on being taken to Dr. Hiremath's Hospital.The fact that the he gave consent to surgical operation, established that fact.Therefore, the complaint as lodged by Madan Bobde P.W. 9 was of doubtful merit as the first information report for implicating the accused.It was rather upon the suspicion which Madan Bobde must have had that the complaint was founded.It was also contended that the version of Manda Bobde P.W. 9 and Shivaji Parse P.W. 6 as to who reached first near the injured Manohar Vir in the courtyard of the Police Inspector's bungalow must lead to the disbelief of both of them as eye witnesses.It was next submitted that no specific overt act on the part of the accused No. 4 had been proved by any prosecution witness.The evidence as to the statement of discovery made by the accused persons and following such statements the recovery of any things and articles such as weapons was of a concoction.It was also contended that the injury to the middle finger and the palm of the accused No. 1 had been well explained by him but erroneously rejected by the Trial Court and lastly the incident of the murder of Sudhir Rasal having taken place as far back as in the year 1980, Manohar Vir having undergone the sentence of imprisonment thereafter and even a period of about 11/2 years or more having passed after Manohar Vir's release from imprisonment, no proximate cause for the attack on Manohar Vir could be attributed either by Manohar Vir or the other prosecution witnesses.It is upon these contentions the appellants claimed that the erroneous conclusions and findings of their guilt arrived at by the Trial Court, should deserve to be set aside to acquit them.Manohar Vir P.W. 10 as the victim of the murderous attack on him deposed that at about 12 noon on 9-10-1985 he was standing infront of the Bhagwat Petrol Pump when the accused No. 1 Rajabhau Rasal, accused No. 2 Nagnath, No. 3 Somnath and accused No. 4 Chandrakant alongwith four or five others suddenly came in two autorickshaws.The accused No. 1 armed with a sword struck him on the head from his front side, causing a bleeding injury.Manohar Vir stated that with this first blow struck with the sword and, therefore, quite terrified, more so because the number of assailants who were against him and remembering that the Police Inspector's bungalow admittedly at only a short distance from the Bhagwat Petrol Pump, he ran in that direction.He wanted to run into the Police Inspector's residence to beseech him from protection.He has specifically stated that at the time when he saw the accused persons first at the spot infront of the bhagwant Petrol Pump, he had seen the accused No. 2 Nagnath also armed with a sword and the others with sticks and iron bars.He ran into the compound of the Inspector's bungalow through the gate and to his consternation as also disappointment found that the bungalow was locked and no one present inside.It is not in the evidence that the Police Inspector Atmaram Yadao's family was residing with him at that time.So far as the Police Inspector Atmaram Yadao P.W. 17 is concerned, his unchallenged and uncontroverted version is that on 9-10-1985 he was at Pune in connection with some investigation and, therefore, away from Barsi.These, therefore, explained so to why Manohar Vir found the bungalow locked.For it is also the evidence of Police Inspector Yadao that it was only when he received a wireless message at Pune about the present incident, that he decided to return to Barsi immediately and accordingly caught the bus to reach to Barsi by 10.30 p.m. This part of the version of Manohar Vir is thus duly corroborated.He states that the accused persons eventually caught up with him and attacked him and the accused No. 2 struck him with the sword on the head while others dealt blows with sticks and iron bars.He thereupon fell unconscious and did not know what happened.It was only on the next day in the morning that the found himself in Dr. Hiremath's Hospital.It was then on 10-10-1985 that his statement came to be recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate.I find that a reference to what this statement was, has come to be made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in his judgment.Specifically he appears to have omitted to have mentioned the accused No. 2 Nagnath as dealt any blow to him on the head as such.He stated that he was frightened no doubt but denied the suggestion that on account of that terrified condition as such, he could not see and remember as to who his assailants were or that he had named the accused-assailants upon any tuloring by Madan Bobde.There appears no reason to doubt the prosecution evidence that Manohar Vir's statement was first recorded only by the Special Executive Magistrate and this was on 10-10-1985 by which time Madan Bobde's complaint Exh. 53 has already been recorded a day before and secondly there is so evidence to indicate that prior to the Special Executive Magistrate's recording Manohar Vir's statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. there had been any contact or conversation between Manohar Vir and Madan Bobde, That suggestion was, therefore, quite futile one. "Shivaji Parse P.W. 6 is an eye witness.He also admits that Manohar Vir had been convicted for the murder of Sudhir Rasal.Thus accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 also admit that Shivaji Parse knows them.He stated that at about 12 noon while going on his bicycle, he saw Manohar Vir near the Bhagwat Petrol Pump and the accused Nos. 1 to 2 armed with swords, accused No. 3 with a hockey stick and accused No. 5 with a iron pipe.There were five more persons with them who were also, according to him armed only with sticks though.What is to be noted here is, therefore, be significant absence of mentioning the name and presence of the accused No. 4 Chandrakant.At no stage of his evidence further also, Shivaji Parse would appear to speak about the presence of accused No. 4 Chandrakant.Shivaji Parse states that near the Bhagwat Petrol Pump he saw the accused No. 1 striking Manohar Vir on the head with a sword and the latter then starting running away in the direction of the Police Inspector's bungalow and entering the compound.He also saw the assailants then pursuing him.He saw the accused Nos. 1 to 3 entering the compound through the fencing.According to Madan Bobde P.W. 9 these person had entered, however, through the gate.He saw the first blow in the courtyard being delivered by the accused No. 3 with his hockey stick whereupon Manohar Vir fell down and saw the attack by the accused No. 1 and 2 with their swords and by the accused No. 5 with an iron pipe.When they apparently realised that Manohar Vir had become motionless, they left and escaped in two autorickshaws towards the Latur Road.It was after the assailants fled that he himself, Madan Bobde, Bapu Raut and Appapappa Kandalkar went near Manohar Vir and took him to the Municipal Council Jawaharlal Hospital and thereafter to the Hospital of Dr. Hiremath.Now reflecting to the contention that Manohar Vir if attacked from the front with a sword in the hands of the accused No. 1, could not have received the blow on the back side of his head, it is again asserted by this witness also that the sword blow by the accused No. 1 near the Bhagwat Petrol Pump had landed on the back side of Manohar Vir's head, which is confirmed by the injury certificate and case papers at Exh. 57 of Dr. Gaekwad and Exh. 33 of Dr. Hiremath.The hockey stick blow on Manohar Vir, while he was facing the bungalow of the Police Inspector, in the courtyard, was also given by him from his back side, had fallen down and had not thereafter got up again.While Shivaji Parse stated that it was he who had first reached near Manohar Vir, madan Shivaji Parse had asserted as such, that it was he who reached near Manohar Vir and that Shivaji Parse had come after him.According to Madan Bobde he had watched the incident near the passing from the bungalow of the Inspector, Shivaji Parse had followed these assailants upto the gate and had seen the incident from there and both Madan Bobde and Shivaji Parse had gone near the fallen Manohar Vir almost at the same time.The greater criticism of Shivaji Parse's is, however, that he must be considered to be a enemical witness.While he denied any knowledge of the fact that his brother Bhima alongwith Madan Bobde P.W. 9 was facing prosecution for an assault on the accused No. 4 Chandrakant, Madan Bobde has quite clearly admitted that fact.He stated that Shivaji Parse's brother Bhima was a co-accused in that criminal case alongwith him and certain other persons.Now the argument that Shivaji Parse cannot be relied upon as a disinterested witness for the reason that his brother Bhima under prosecution for an assault on the accused No. 4 Chandrakant becomes entirely hollow, when as observed earlier, Shivaji Parse has not implicated the accused No. 4 at all.Otherwise it is as observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, a case of Shivaji Parse became quite natural a witness, Madan Bobde P. W. 9 is employed with the Boiler Department with the Municipal Council Barsi.The incident occurred on Wednesday which was a working day.It is, therefore, contended in the first instance that in the absence of any specific evidence that he was on leave on that day he would have to be accepted as being on duty and, therefore, could not also have been present at his house to hear about the commotion and then to witness this incident.Madan's evidence that he had been to his house for taking meal which has rightly observed by the trial Court is the usual meals time when one may be during working hours also taken a short recess for meal.His house is on the Latur Kurduwadi road at the Shivaji Akhada area.The said road is to the west of that road on which the bungalow of the Police Inspector abuts and his house is just adjoining to this road and the railway line.His house is a part of City Survey No. 3805 which is comprised of as many as 50 house including his own.He had heard the shouting from the side of the bungalow which comes to be on the back side of his house.He was taking his meal and had, therefore, immediately got up and went near the railway line to stand there and saw the incident happened.All of them entered through the gate.He did not mention accused No. 6 though the latter has been implicated in the first information report, Exh. 53 which he had given.Manohar Vir had falled down and accused No. 1 and 2 had then struck him with their swords, the other with a stick, bars and iron pipes to hit him.Manohar Vir had bled very profusely.The accused had then all left fleeting from the spot.It was then that he went near Manohar Vir.Bapu Raut and Appa Kandalkar also came there and then Manohar Vir to the Municipal Hospital, Dr. Gaekwad had advised taking him to the Dr. Hiremath's hospital and that was also done.That report was quite correct and stands to corroborate him substantially and it is also to be noted that as between this F.I.R. and the testimony given in the Court, no variance whatsoever has been pointed out.As noted earlier Madan has admitted that though an assault on accused No. 4 Chandrakant may be relevant so far as the complicity of the accused No. 4 is concerned, but not others also.The suggestion made to Madan Bobde was that Wednesday being a working day, he was at his place of work, that 'somebody' had met him there to inform him of the incident and that he had then gone to the scene of offence.This suggestion was flatly denied by the witness.F.I.R. Exh. 53 of Madan Bobde mentions that he is a maternal uncle of Manohar Vir.However, it has not been suggested with reference to this relationship, anywhere during his cross-examination that it is for the reason of this relationship that he is falsely implicating the accused persons.Madan Bobde it will thus be seen, is the only witness so far who implicates all the five appellants here as present and participated in the attack on Manohar Vir himself does not mention the accused No. 5 whom he yet knows.His Radio Repairing shop is situated opposite the S.T. Bus Stop.His residence is behind Bhagwat Petrol Pump.The Police Inspector's bunglow is on the Solapur road facing the east while his radio repairing shop on the same road faces the west.He says that he had been to his house for his mid day meal and was on way back to his shop at about 12.30 noon when he heard the shouts and cries of Raja, "catch him, kill him" and saw Manohar Vir running towards the bungalow of Police Inspector.Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were armed with the swords, accused No. 3 with hockey stick, accused No. 5 with iron pipe and while others had sticks.Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were the first ones to enter the compound of the Police Inspector's bungalow.The accused No 3 wielded Manohar Vir on the head with a hockey stick from the back side whereupon he fell down and the others then attacked him with their swords, iron pipes.When Manohar Vir become motionless bleeding profusely, they said "he is dead, let us go".They had then left in the autorickshaws.However, the witness on cross-examination had stated that he had made the note on some piece of paper in which the names of the assailants and the particular weapons wieded by them were mentioned.He stated that he had referred to this note when his statement was recorded during the investigation.He has admitted that he had not handed over this note to the Investigating Officer.The Investigating Officer himself does not appear to have questioned on this part of Vishnu's statement.If anything this much only be construed as being embellishment on the part of the witness, a display of over enthusiasm in the matter but o more.For it is admitted by all the accused persons that and also stated so at the bar by their learned Counsel for the appellants that this witness harbours no enmity against them and they have no axe to grind against him.In the circumstances, it is rightly observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that Vishnu of all the witnesses is the most disinterested and independent witness, who duly corroborates the victim and also established the fact as to who were the assailants when after Manohar Vir fell down under the hockey stick blow of accused No. 3, the assailants in the attack.Thus from the oral evidence, that of the victim, Manohar himself and the eye witnesses Shivaji Parse P.W. 6, Vishnu Vidhate P.W. 7 and Madan Bobde P.W. 9, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 must be found to have been definitely and fully implicated as the assailants not so however, the accused Nos. 4 and 5 inasmuch as accused No. 4 is not mentioned by the complainant himself as even present when he first saw the group of assailants near the Bhagwat Petrol Pump or hereafter.Then again Shivaji Parse P.W. 6 has also mentioned that the hockey stick was wielded by accused No. 5 though according to P.W. 7 Vishnu Vidhate it was accused No. 3 Somnath who had wielded the hockey stick.Thus any specific over act by the accused No. 4 is not proved and the participation on the part of the accused No. 5 as such comes into doubt with the omission to implicate him on the part of the victim himself.There is more in the medical evidence which in my opinion brings into doubt any participation on the part of the accused Nos. 4 and 5 as such.Dr. Gaekwad who was the first one to examine the injured Manohar Vir only hurriedly has mentioned all only for injuries in the nature of wounds which further appeared to him to be incised in nature.It was Dr. Hiremath at the Barsi Maternity and General Co-operative Hospital, who dealt with a patient to the point of performing surgery also.Dr. Hiremath P.W. 1 found as many as 12 injuries on the body of Manohar Vir.of these each of the injuries as Sr. No. 1 to 11 was incised wound and only the injury No. 12 was a superficial abrassion on the right big toe.If the use of any such sharp edged weapon as a sword is attributed only to the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and if the injury No. 12 is only in the nature of abrassion on the right big toe of the right foot, then evidence of all these witnesses including the victim Manohar Vir about the use of an iron pipe by the accused No. 5 and stick by the accused No. 4 Chandrakant must come into doubt.For hitting either with an iron pipe or a stick, would certainly not cause injuries of a incised nature.The use of these weapons would at best cause contusion or swelling on the body.It might further at best cause injuries in the nature of laceration, particularly if an iron pipes were used with roughened ends.But no such injury was observed by Dr. Hiremath also and that is what in my opinion, brings into doubt the story about any overt act as such on the part of these accused.It has to be conceded by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that consistently with the evidence that accused No. 4 wielding a stick and accused No. 5 wielding an iron pipe no injury correspondently can be said to have been caused to Manohar Vir.This is as seen therefore, frequently brings the case of conviction of these two appellants into some doubt to the benefit of which they would have to be found entitled.As per the prosecution evidence about the seizure of blood stained articles on the person of the accused Nos. 1 to 3 or the accused No. 4 for that matter, is concerned, one must concur with the learned Judge of the trial Court that this evidence of such nature that the tending of it would be only at the peril of acceptance of even that prosecution evidence which would be otherwise considered genuine, truthful and reliable.One could not be deal more on this aspect of the evidence.It is, however, also pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the evidence of absconding on the part of these accused persons must deserve due consideration.In support plea of alibi no evidence was raised.It is their case that on 11-10-1985 they went to Barsi from Solapur.That means they were at Barsi on 9th and 10th of October 1985 and quite for some time on the 11th also.If their contention is that they have come to be implicated only on the suspicion that accused No. 1 was wanted to take revenge for the murder of his brother Sudhir, committed by Manohar Vir or for the reason that the accused No. 2 was accused No. 1's friend, then, it was quite open to them immediately approach the Police and establish their plea of alibi.They did not do so.They proceeded to Solapur for anticipatory bail, obviously to avoid arrest.It is difficult to appreciate their contention that their names have been taken only on suspicion, to falsely Implicate them.It is almost a well settled law that a injured person would not falsely implicate others instead of the real culprit.That apart Manohar Vir's testimony corroborated by Shivaji Parse, Vishnu Vidhate and Madan Bobde.The accused Nos. 3 and 4 have offered an explanation which like the learned Judge of the trial Court, 1 must also consider entirely unsatisfactory.They did learn about the attack on Manohar Vir in the evening that day and also that the assailants had then fled and disappeared.It is their say that accused No. 1 Rajabhau Rasal was their friend and as Manohar Vir committed the murder of Rajabhau's brother Sudhir, they suspected that they would be involved in the crime alongwith him.They got wind of the likehood of being so implicated by general talk amongst the members of the public.Therefore, they say that they remained hiding in their houses till 11-10-1985 and then went to Solapur to apply for anticipatory bail.The reasons for not considering the offences brought home to the accused No. 4 Chandrakant apart so far as the accused No. 3 is concerned, this explanation is entirely unsatisfactory.The incriminating testimony of circumstantial importance against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 also comes from two other witnesses Nagesh P.W. 11 and Madhukar Satarkar P.W. 12 Madhukar Satarkar is the owner of the Sital Restaurant on the Barsi-Latur road about a Kilometer away from the town proper.He is a cousin of Manohar Vir and knows all the accused.It is his evidence and that of Nagesh P.W. 11 that on 9-10-1985 at about 12-30 noon both of them were sitting in the open space in front of the restaurant taking tea.The Barsi Latur road adjoins this open space in front of the restaurant.Nagesh P.W. 11 has stated that at that time authorickshaws were halted near the restaurant and the accused No. 2 Nagnath had delivered a threat to Madhujar Satarkar P.W. 2 that his hotel would be set on fire.Accused No. 2 had delivered this threat while sitting in the authorickshaw.The accused No. 2 had said 'we have finished with one and we return to burn his hotel'.The first two authorickshaws, he stated that gone towards Latur in high speed and it was the third authorickshaw which came about 5 minutes later which had slowed down near him and the accused No. 2 sitting in it had given threats to him.This evidence of a guilty flight on the part of the accused Nos. 1 to 3, apart threats delivered by them, has been, however, disbelieved by the learned Judge of the Trial Court by observing that Madhukar Satarkar had thereafter remained complacent, he had not reported the threats to the police, when he went back to then town and came to know about the incident, he had gone to hiremath Hospital to see the injured Manohar Vir.He admitted that he disclosed this only to the Police Inspector when his statement was recorded that night.The silence about the guilty flight of the assailants of Manohar Vir in three authorickshaws and the threats given by accused No. 3, the learned Judge of the Trial Court observed so feeling enough to doubt the story given by this witness.In my opinion, however, when Madhukar Satarkar, is considered as one of the persons who was related to Manohar Vir, and had some connection with the murder of Sudhir, then the deliverance of such threat is not entirely improbable.The evidence that accused No. 3 remarked that one person had already been done away that becomes relevant when one appreciates that according to Vishnu Vidhate P.W. 7, the assailants after belabouring Manohar Vir in the courtyard of the Police Inspector's bungalow had remarked "he is dead" and had then gone away.It was on their way, fleeing from Barsi towards Latur that Madhukar Satarkar's restaurant is located and such an utterance by the accused No. 3 revelling in victory over the attack on Manohar Vir, prompts such an utterance.As noted earlier one of the contentions advanced in regard to the identification of the accused as the assailants, made by P.W. 10 Manohar Vir, victim, was that the suddenness of the appearances of the assailants, the suddenness of the sword blow delivered to him and the terror created thereby in his mind would all attribute to his being oblivious of the identity of the assailants.This contention is unacceptable because the incident occurred in broad day light, the assailants were all persons quire well known to Manohar Vir, and thirdly he must be assumed to have reminding away all the time by his doing murder of Sudhir Rasal, he had created a life long enemy in the accused No. 1 Rajabhau Rasal and his friends.The next argument was that the prosecution had chosen only interested witnesses as to give evidence against the accused.I have already dealt with this later aspect namely that Shivaji Parse has still not implicated accused No. 4 even considering the relationship between Manohar Vir and Madan Bobde the account as given by him, and subjected to close cross-examination stands substantially unshaken.What is of the highest importance is that there is atleast one witness who is totally disinterested and independently namely Vishnu Vidhate P.W. 7, notwithstanding that the embellishment which he has at one time admitted.The contention that Manohar Vir must have been conscious or must have regained consciousness upon being taken to Dr. Hiremath's Hospital is founded on the endorsement on the case papers of the said hospital.The endorsement is "I am prepared, on my responsibility to get my patient operated upon.In this respect I have no objection for such operation under any kind of An-aesthesia."Now it will be appreciated that Madan Bobde P.W. 9 must also to be found to have lodged his complaint very promptly, without loosing any time in deliberation and premediation (as to whom to implicate) because it is also stated by Dr. Hiremath that Madan bobde was not present at the time when he first examined Manohar Vir Madan Bobde had, immediately after reaching Manohar Vir to the Dr. Hiremath's hospital with the assistance of others, gone to the Police and lodged this complaint to implicate these appellants.Therefore, the plea the first information report.Apart from that the evidence shows that one of the tow swords on which as per the report Exh. 31 of the Chemical Analyser, human blood stains of Group B were found, was found to have dishandled in a broken condition and it is, therefore, more than probable that even in that broken condition the sword had been tried to be used by the accused No. 1 and, therefore, these injuries had been caused to him.The broken handle separated from the blade of the sword was found at the spot by the P.S.I. Patil, and seized and even on this handle the blood of Group B which is the blood group of Manohar Vir had been detected.Even alternatively, it has to be appreciated that Manohar Vir has stated that he had made some attempt to struggle with his assailants when he was attacked with the sword and it is that attempt that accused No. 1 could have sustained these injuries.For all these reasons, therefore, it must be held that so far as the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, they being members of an unlawful assembly which indulged in rioting and their attack on Manohar Vir was clearly with the intention of committing his murder, is more than well established.The very number of the incised injuries, as many as 11, all over the body bears testimony to such intention on their part.Having regard to the context of Manohar Vir being a person who was convicted and sentenced for causing the death of accused No. 1's brother Sudhir Rasal and the dissatisfaction experienced by the accused No. 1 at Manohar Vir's being lay off lightly and, therefore, his desire on his own to revengefully further punish Manohar Vir's a probably adequate sentence of imprisonment to him as also to the accused Nos. 1 to 3 who participated in the attack alongwith him, is in my opinion unavoidable in the interest of justice.Having regard to this and all other circumstances, the sentence would have to be modified as follows :The appeal so far as the appellants Nos. 4 and 5 are concerned, is hereby allowed.Their conviction for the offence under section 147, 148, 307 read with section 149 of the I.P.C. is hereby set aside and they shall stand acquitted of the said charge.Accordingly their bail bonds shall also stand cancelled.The appeal so far as the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, is hereby partly allowed.Their conviction for the offence under section 147, 148 and 307 read with section 149 of the I.P.C. is upheld and confirmed.The sentence of R.i.for four years awarded to each of them is, however, reduced to two years R.I. and the fine of Rs. 250/- imposed upon each of them is increased to Rs. 1000/-.The appellants have been on bail during the period of this appeal.They shall now surrender to their bail.At the request of their Counsel, they are granted one month's time to so surrender to their bail.The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Shri Rahul Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.Dr. (Smt) Anjali Gyanani, Public Prosecutor for the State.Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The petitioner has filed this first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C.The petitioner has been arrested on 13/11/2015 by Police Station Dharnabada, District Guna (M.P.) in connection with Crime No. 354/07 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 303, 506-B, 325, 307, 147, 148 and 149 of I.P.C.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.Charge-sheet has been filed where allegation of attempt to murder is made.The petitioner appears to be the main accused who has assaulted the injured on the head with the sharp-cutting object.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR which discloses his name as Kalia.The State counsel by perusing 2 Mcrc.13906/15 Hari Singh Vs.State of M.P.the case-diary informs that the petitioner is also known by the name of Kalia, Kelash and Hari Singh.Apart from the above, the petitioner has large number of criminal cases as criminal antecedents.In view of above, no case for grant of bail is made out.The application stands rejected.

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

PW 1 is a local resident and the de facto complainant in the instant case.He deposed that there is a stone quarry of Arun Babu by the side of the village.He works in the said stone quarry.All the villagers used the said well for collecting water.On 26.10.1990 he along with others was working in the said quarry.When they had gone to collect drinking water from the said well they found the appellant Jahangir Sk.throwing boulder in the said well.They raised protest and asked him why he was throwing boulders.He stated that he was throwing boulders to catch fish.They became suspicious and found a bloodstained boulder in the well.They asked the appellant to pull out the boulders.He refused to do so.He was detained and the villagers dried the well and found the dead body of the victim, Chabi Murmu.They informed the chowkidar who later informed the police.Upon questioning, the appellant stated that he along with Meherun Bibi murdered Chabi Murmu with a hensua in the bamboo grove and threw the dead body in the well.He stated that Chabi had a love affair with Farad, who is the husband of Meherun Bibi.The appellant thereafter stated that he along with Meherun Bibi and one Salam Sk.took the dead body from the nearby field and threw it in the well.The appellant was throwing boulders in order to conceal the dead body.The Police thereafter arrived at the spot.He wrote a written complaint which was signed by him (Exbt.1/1).The dead body was taken out from the well.PW 2 is another local villager.He signed on the seizure list (Exbt. 2/2).In cross-examination, he stated that he is also working in the said stone quarry.The well was full of water at that time.PW 3 and PW 5 were also working in the said stone quarry.PW 4 was tendered for cross-examination.PW 6 is a local villager who used to work in the said stone quarry.He deposed that the appellant was throwing boulders in the well and on questioning he refused to divulge anything.They drained out the well and found the dead body of Chabi Murmu.Appellant stated that to prevent floating of the dead body he had thrown boulders into the well.He stated that mother of Chabi was searching for her deceased daughter for the last two days.In cross-examination, he stated that 40/60 persons worked in the stone quarry.The water of the well was drained out within 3 to 4 hours.Several local villagers assembled there.Daroga babu arrived when they were draining the water.Daroga babu managed to extricate the dead body with the help of the appellant.They were present at the side of the well.The appellant did not state anything when they began to drain out the water.Chabi's village is one mile from their village.PW 7 was declared hostile and cross examined.PW 8 deposed that he knew Chabi.She had illicit relationship with Faraz, husband of Meherun.PW 9 also deposed that on the fateful day the appellant was found throwing boulders in the well.The appellant stated to him that he was throwing boulder to catch fish.PW 10 is the mother of Chabi.She stated that on 24.10.1990 Chabi went to Dolkata ghat at about 2.30 p.m. She was wearing a saya, sari, gamcha and blouse and had gold ornaments like ear ring, gold neckless, nakchabi on her person.She never returned.They searched everywhere.On Friday afternoon some people of Dolkata village informed her that her daughter might have been found in a well near the stone quarry of Arun babu.She proceeded to Dolkata and reached near the stone quarry of Arun babu.At that time daroga babu was also present.The dead body was lying by the side of the well.She identified the dead body of her daughter.The ornaments of the victim were not found on her person.She stated that her son-in-law is dead and her daughter used to work as a daily labourer in different places.She went with some boys while going for work.She did not inform the police about the missing of her daughter.PW 11 is a resident of Dolkata village.He stated that on 26.10.90 he found Jahangir was surrounded by various people and saw that the local people were draining out the water from the well and a dead body was found in the well.The appellant admitted that he killed Chabi along with Meher and Salem.Local chowkidar was also informed.Police turned up in the evening.Mother of Chabi identified the dead body.Daroga babu questioned Jahangir about the murder weapon and he led them to the residence of Jahangir and picked out the hensua from his thatched roof.Daroga babu seized the same and prepared seizure list (Exbt.4/2).In cross-examination, he stated that Jahangir is not related by blood either to Meherun or to her husband.PW 12 stated that there was a village salish over the illicit relation of Chabi and Faraz.Faraz accepted to desist from such association.In cross- examination, he stated that he never saw in the house of Faraz.PW 13 is the owner of stone quarry where the appellant and the other witnesses worked.He stated that there is a well near the stone quarry which was used for collecting drinking water.He had no knowledge whether the PW 1 was working there.5/1).He along with S.I. Avas Nandi (PW 15) went to the village.PW 1 lodged the written complaint.He reached the village at 19.35 hrs.He sent the FIR to police station through his driver Sannyasi Pal for starting PS case and upon his return he endorsed the case to S.I. A. Nandy.He kept A.S.I Ramapada Ghosh there and left.In cross- examination, he stated that he cannot say the name of the Chowkidar which is also not noted in the General Diary.The case was endorsed to him for investigation.PW 1 identified the place of occurrence.He prepared the sketch map with index (Exbt.6 and 6/1).The dead body was taken out of the well in his presence by some villagers.He prepared the inquest report in presence of the witnesses (Exbt.2).He collected bloodstained earth and controlled earth from bamboo groove (Exbt.3/2).He arrested the appellant and Meherun.The appellant made statement under Section 161 CrPC (Exbt.7).He recovered a Hensua from the residence of the appellant under a seizure list (exbt.4).He examined the witnesses.He seized wearing apparels of the deceased under a seizure list (Exbt.8).He made the seizure in the Thana.The accused was produced in Court and he sent the dead body for postmortem examination.On his transfer he handed over the charge to Officer-in-Charge.In cross-examination, he stated that he did not examine the chowkidar in the case.There is nothing in the case diary regarding whether the accused persons were present in the place of occurrence.Hensua was not sent for FSL examination.He could not say whether the appellant was a resident under Sikaripara P.S. PW 16 Sannyasi Ch.Paul, was a driver constable attached to Md. Bazar P.S. He took the written complaint from PW 14 to the thana and ASI Ramapati recorded the formal FIR.PW 17, A.S.I Ramapati Ghosh deposed that on receipt of written complaint from the Officer-in-Charge Chandan Babu he drew up the formal FIR.Thereafter he sent the FIR to Chandan Babu once again through the driver Sannyasi Paul.He entered the General Diary No.702 (Exbt.10).PW 18 was the second investigating officer who concluded the investigation and filed charge sheet.PW 19 is the Autopsy Surgeon who found the following injuries:-1) The body was in highly decomposed condition.IPC and in conclusion of investigation a charge-sheet was filed under the aforesaid sections against the appellant and the two other accused persons.The case was committed to the court of sessions and transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Second Court, Suri, Birbhum for trial and disposal.As Salem Sk absconded, charges were framed under Sections 302/34 IPC and Sections 201/34 IPC against the appellant and Mehrun Bibi.They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.19 and exhibited a number of documents.The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication.It was his specific defence that nobody has seen him with the victim prior to her death.There was no enmity between the appellant and the victim.There is also no evidence to show that the appellant had met the co-accused persons, namely, Mehrun Bibi and Salem Sk.The extra judicial confession relied upon in the instant case is highly dubious and the recovery of the hensua was not at his behest.However, in conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by the impugned judgement and order dated 15th July, 1997 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.By the self-same judgment and order, Mehrun Bibi, however, was acquitted from the charges leveled against her.Nobody appeared for the appellant.The extra judicial confession was procured under coercion after the appellant was detained by local villagers in the presence of a Chowkider and even the Officer-in-Charge, P.W. 14 was present in or about the time of recording of such confession.Hence, it cannot be said that the appellant was a free agent and have voluntarily made such confession.There was also no reliable evidence led by the prosecution to establish that there was an illicit affair between the victim and Faraz, the husband of acquitted accused, Mehrun Bibi, which is touted as the motive of crime.Recovery of hensua from the residence of the appellant is also not an incriminating circumstance as the said instrument was not sent for FSL examination.He accordingly prayed for acquittal.Ms. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the conduct of the appellant in throwing boulders into the well from where the villagers used to collect drinking water was most suspicious.Accordingly, the villagers asked the appellant to remove the boulders which he refused to do and upon draining the water the villagers found a dead body.On interrogation, the appellant made an extra judicial confession admitting his guilt which in the aforesaid circumstances is most natural and, therefore, was rightly relied upon by the trial court.Soon thereafter, on his leading statement the weapon of offence, namely, hensua was recovered.Medical evidence has also supported the aforesaid circumstances.Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.An analysis of the evidence on record would show that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence.The prosecution has essentially relied on the following circumstances to bring upon the guilt of the appellant:a) On 26-10-1990 in the morning, the appellant was found throwing boulders into a well from where the local villagers used to collect drinking water;b) The local villagers who had assembled to collect drinking water opposed the appellant in fouling the water by throwing boulders and asked him to remove the bounders;c) The appellant refused to do so and thereupon he was detained;d) The local people drained the water and found the dead body of a lady.e) This fact was informed to the local Chowkider who in turn intimated the local police station over the incident.f) In the meantime, the appellant made an extra judicial confession stating that he along with Mehrun Bibi (acquitted accused) had killed Chabi with a hensua in a bamboo grove over the issue of illicit relation between Faraz, the husband of Mehrun Bibi and the victim.Thereafter, the dead body was put into the well by the aforesaid accused persons and Salem Sk.and he was throwing boulders to conceal the body.g) The police arrived at the spot and the body of the victim was brought out from the well.The dead body was identified as that of Chabi.h) Police recorded the confessional statement of the appellant and pursuant to his statement a hensua was seized from his house.Mother of Chabi, her brother and sister identified the dead body.Police held inquest over the dead body.He signed on the inquest report (Exbt.2/1).Daroga Babu took all of them to the bamboo grove, seized bloodstained earth and controlled earth (Exbt.3/1).Police arrested Jahangir and Meher Bibi and took them into custody.Next morning at about 10/10.30 a.m. police arrived at the village with Jahangir and recovered one Hensua from the house of one Salam Sk.He identified the Hensua (Mat Exbt.4/1) and put his signature on the seizure list (Exbt.4/1).In cross-examination, he stated that he never saw Chabi roaming with Jahangir on earlier occasions.He accompanied the police since the recovery of dead body.They began to drain out the water of the well.After draining out the water they found the dead body of Chabi.On repeated questioning the appellant admitted his guilt.In cross-examination, he stated that Daroga babu arrived in the afternoon.PW 14 was the officer-in-charge of Suri Police Station at the material point of time.On the date of occurrence at 5.15 P.M., Chowkider of Dolkata village informed him about a dead body at Dolkata village.He diarised the information as General Diary Entry No.699 dated 26.10.1990 (Exbt.PW 15 Abhas Nandi was attached to Md. Bazar P.S. as SI of Police.PW 14 Chandan Mukherjee was officer-in-charge of Md. Bazar P.S. On receipt of information they proceeded to Dolkata village by jeep.On reaching Dolkata village PW 1 lodged a written complaint and the complaint was sent to the police for starting a PS case.2) He found one incised injury in the mid-region of the neck measuring 4"X3"X4".No other injuries were found.3) Larynx and trachea were cut off.He stated that the injuries were caused by Hensua.From the aforesaid evidence it appears that on 26.10.1996 PWs.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11 found the appellant throwing boulders into the well when they arrived at the same spot to collect drinking water.All of them claimed that they were working in the stone quarry of PW 13 immediately prior to assembling at the well for collecting water.This dichotomy throws doubt as to their simultaneous presence at the place and time of occurrence.However, all of them have said in unison that they were present there for collecting drinking water and had enquired the appellant as to why he was throwing boulders into the well.The appellant replied that he wanted to catch fish.The witnesses became suspicious and asked him to remove the boulders.When he refused to do so they detained the appellant and started draining the water and ultimately found a dead body in the well.They informed the chowkidar whose identity has neither been established nor has he been examined in the instant case.It is claimed that the said chowkidar, informed Md. Bazar Police Station and such information was diarized as GDE 699 dated 16.10.1990 (Exbt.5).Pursuant thereto PW 14, Officer-in-Charge of the police station and the PW 15, first investigating officer of the case, came to the place of occurrence.It appears from the evidence of PW 6 as well as the Officer-in-Charge (PW 14) that the latter arrived at the spot while the water was being drained out from the well.Thereafter the dead body of the victim was brought out.In the meantime it is claimed that the appellant had made a confessional statement that he along with Meherun Bibi had killed Chabi Murmu with a hensua in the bamboo grove.Thereafter, he along with Meherun Bibi and Salem Sk. had thrown the dead body of the victim in the well and he was throwing boulders in the well in order to conceal the dead body.Prosecution has essentially relied on this piece of evidence, namely, extra-judicial confession of the appellant to establish his guilt.It is, therefore, necessary to see whether the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant is voluntary and truthful so as to form the basis of his conviction.It appears from the evidence of all the witnesses that after discovery of the dead body in the pond they had detained the appellant.Hence, one can safely conclude that the appellant was not a free agent at the time when he made the extra-judicial confession casting serious doubt as to its voluntariness.Apart from that, it appears that the local chowkidar had been informed who intimated the discovery of dead body in the well to the police station.The identity of the chowkidar has not been established.He has also not been examined in the instant case.The examination of chowkidar in the instant case is most vital in order to ascertain as to whether he was present at the spot when the victim made the so-called extra-judicial confessional statement to the villagers.Evidence of PW 6 shows that police arrived there while they were draining water from the well.Under such circumstances, possibility of presence of the police personnel at the time when the so-called extra-judicial confession was made by the appellant cannot be wholly ruled out.The appellant was detained by an agitated mob while they drained water from the well for 3-4 hours.The village chowkidar was present and the police from the local police station who had been informed also arrived at the spot while the water was being drained out of the well.The appellant was, therefore, not a free agent when he purportedly made the confession.The witnesses who had detained him were most hostile and it is possible due to coercion and out of fear he was forced to admit his guilt.Presence of police personnel at the time of making such confession and the fear of immediate reprisal from persons in authority cannot be wholly ruled out in the aforesaid factual matrix.The genesis of the prosecution case shows that the said extra-judicial confession is claimed to have been made after the discovery of the dead body in the well.Soon thereafter, the appellant had been detained by the agitated local people and, in all probability, the extra-judicial confession had been procured under pressure in presence of persons in authority like the chowkidar and local police personnel of the police station who had arrived at the spot while water was being drained out from the well.In Sasanka Sekhar Kar vs. State of West Bengal, 1990 Cr.L.J. (NOC) 168 (CAL)], a Division bench of this court held that an extra judicial confession made by an accused when surrounded by a large mob cannot be said to be voluntarily.Coming to the corroborative evidence of recovery of hensua, it appears that such recovery had not been made in that night but on the next morning.PW 15 claimed that he had immediately recorded the confessional statement in writing of the appellant.There was no explanation offered as to why after recording the statement (exbt. 7) of the appellant at the place of occurrence, P.W. 15 took the appellant back to the police station and affected the recovery of the hensua purportedly pursuant to his statement only on the next day.This gap in time and the manner of recovery of hensua throws serious doubt as to whether the said recovery was, in fact, pursuant to the statement of the appellant as claimed by the police.It is also important to note that the hensua had not been sent for forensic examination so as to determine the presence of human blood on the weapon so as to connect it with the alleged crime.Hence, this piece of evidence is highly artificial and does not inspire confidence.Finally, coming to the issue of motive, I find that there is absolutely no involvement of the appellant in the so-called illicit relationship between Faraz, the husband of the acquitted accused Meherun Bibi and the victim Chabi.In the conspectus of the aforesaid evidence on record particularly, in view of the suspicious circumstances attending the purported extra-judicial confession which was procured from the appellant while he was in detention and where the possibility of presence of police personnel at the spot cannot be wholly ruled out, I am afraid that conviction of the appellant primarily on such piece of evidence is not justified.It is apposite to note that mere vague suspicion cannot take the place of proof and when the prosecution has not been able to show that the appellant had voluntarily made the extra-judicial confession free from any influence or coercion, I am of the opinion that conviction of the appellant essentially founded on such weak piece of witness is liable to be set aside.Accordingly, I set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.

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

(C) The house in which the dead body of Hatimtai @ Hakim Khan is said to have been found, was not occupied by the appellant alone and there were other inmates also.(D) There is no evidence to prove that the appellant gave a beating by a lathi and, therefore, there was no justification to hold him guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.(E) The charges have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and at the most the appellant could have been punished under Section 323 of the IPC.The short facts of the prosecution story are that on 28-8-2002 at about 10-11 P.M., some quarrel had taken place between the deceased Hatimtai @ Hakim Khan and the appellant and at that time, the appellant's wife Gulab Bai was also present.The appellant and his wife brought the deceased Hatimtai to their house.At about 1.00 A.M. on 29-8-2002, Suresh Mali and Gulab Bai came to the house of P.W. 5 Tejram who was chowkidar of Village Rupi Paretiya and informed him that Hatimtai is abusing Babloo in their house.On receiving this information, P.W. 5 Tejram went to the house of appellant and found that Hatimtai was tied with a pole with the help of rope.On his instruction, the appellant untied the rope but by that time Hatimtai had died.Thereafter, the chowkidar informed the villagers about this incident and after that he went to Police Station Harda and lodged Ex. P-6 merg intimation and Ex. P-7 FIR.After receiving this information, the Investigating Officer of Police Station Harda commenced the investigation and prepared Ex. P-3 inquest report after issuance of Ex. P-2 notice.He also prepared Ex. P-4 site plan.A plank and two pieces of nylon rope were seized from the possession of appellant upon his information and Ex. P-9 memorandum and Ex. P-9-A seizure memo were prepared.JUDGMENT A.K. Saxena, J.Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 30-4-2005 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Harda in Sessions Trial No. 446/02, the appellant Babloo @ Ganesh has preferred this appeal against his conviction under Section 302 of the IPC whereby he is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default six months rigorous imprisonment.The appellant Babloo @ Ganesh has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the following grounds:-(A) There is no evidence on record to suggest that the appellant gave a beating to the deceased Hatimtai @ Hakim Khan resulting his death.(B) The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence properly.The dead body of Hatimtai @ Hakim Khan was sent to the hospital for post-mortem where P.W. 13 Dr. S.K. Sengar conducted the autopsy.After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against appellant/accused.The Trial Court framed the charges under Sections 342 and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the present appellant and against co-accused Gulab Bai, who died during the trial.The learned Trial Court found that the offence under Section 342 of the IPC could not be proved beyond shadow of doubt and the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 342 of IPC but, he was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned hereinabove.On perusal of the record of Trial Court, it is apparent that there is no eye witness to prove as to what had happened in the house of appellant.The whole prosecution story is based on circumstantial evidence.As per prosecution story, initially, some quarrel had taken place between the appellant and the deceased near the temple where few witnesses were present and at that time both these persons were dragging each other in their presence.Thereafter, the appellant and his wife brought the deceased Hatimtai to their house and when P.W. 5 Tejram, Chowkidar went to the house of appellant upon receiving the information from Suresh Mali and Gulab Bai, he found that Hatimtai had already died.There is overwhelming evidence on the point of quarrel which had taken place near the temple and P.W. 2 Shankarlal, P.W. 6 Sakharam, P.W. 9 Hari Prasad, P.W. 10 Suresh, P.W. 11 Nanhelal and P.W. 12 Golu @ Omprakash have categorically stated that the appellant and Hatimtai were dragging each other near the temple.On this point, surprisingly, there was no cross-examination on behalf of appellant/accused on P.W. 9 Hari Prasad, P.W. 10 Suresh and P.W. 12 Golu @ Omprakash.The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt this circumstance that at the initial stage, some scuffle had taken place between the appellant and the deceased and then they went towards the house of appellant.There is sufficient evidence to prove that the deceased Hatimtai @ Hakim Khan was found dead in the veranda of the house of appellant and at that time the appellant was also present in his house.On this point, the statement of P.W. 5 Tejram is fully trustworthy.The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the dead body of Hatimtai was found at an open place where anybody can come and commit this offence, therefore, the learned Trial Court committed an error in holding that the appellant had committed this offence.We are not inclined to accept this argument because the statement of P.W. 5 Tejram, who is an independent witness, is totally trustworthy.He had no inimical terms with the appellant.Ex. P-4 site plan also shows that there is a veranda attached to the rooms belonging to the appellant where the dead body was found and this fact is also noteworthy that the appellant was present in his house at that time.Now, it becomes the duty of the appellant to explain as to how the dead body of Hatimtai was found tied with the pole.A heavy burden lies on the appellant to explain the above situation but he failed to explain it, which goes against him.The prosecution has also proved that two pieces of nylon rope were seized from the possession of appellant upon his information and Ex. P-9 memorandum and Ex. P-9-A seizure memo were prepared by the investigating officer P.W. 14 S.S. Udawat in presence of P.W. 5 Tejram.For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that prosecution has completed the chain of circumstances which leads to this conclusion that some quarrel near the temple and some kind of incident in the house of the appellant had taken place between him and the deceased and thereafter, the deceased was found dead in the house of appellant.Now most crucial point arises for our consideration as to whether the appellant had committed murder of the deceased Hatimtai @ Hakim Khan and can he be convicted under Section 302, IPC ? The leaned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no direct evidence to show that the appellant had any intention to commit the murder of Hatimtai @ Hakim Khan.There is no eye witness to prove that the appellant gave a beating to the deceased in his house.The appellant and the deceased were found in a drunken condition.In Mangu's case (supra), the story was that there was some altercation between the accused and his wife and accused caused some injuries to his wife and brought her to their house and after that the wife of the accused was found dead.No doubt, similar facts and circumstances are also prevailing in the present case.There is no evidence in this case also to show that the appellant gave a beating to Hatimtai by a plank though, a plank was recovered from the possession of appellant but, it is not a material evidence in this case as the plank can be found in anybody's house.Therefore, the fact that the plank was recovered from the house of appellant, is not sufficient to hold that the appellant caused any injury to Hatimtai by using this plank.To arrive on any conclusion on this point as to whether there was any justification to hold the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC, the statement of P.W. 13 Dr. S.K. Sengar and Ex. P-14 post-mortem report should be considered.P.W. 13 Dr. S.K. Sengar as per his statement and post-mortem report, while conducting the autopsy, found the following external injuries on the body of the deceased :-(1) Contusion cum ligature like marks starting from Thyroid Cartilage along the root of neck, below right side of chin up to right side of ear.(2) Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm below mid post of left chin.(3) Contusion on right side of neck from mid part of sterno mestoid extending up to back of neck at C2 level.(4) Contusion on back, left side in line of inferior angle of left scapula 7th I.C.S. to 9th I.C.S. 4" x 3".(5) Contusion from 10th I.C.S. on left side of scapula to left Iliac crest 5" x 3".(6) Abrasion 3" x 1" on left side below No. 6 obliquely lateral to mediul.(7) Contusion below left angle of scapula longitudinally 4" x 1/2"(8) Abrasion just below chin right side 3 cm x 1 cm.(9) Contusion from right Iliac crest to right side of nose.(10) Contusion 3" x 1" at the centre of injury No. 9 as shown in picture.(11) Multiple contusions four in number intermingled to each other 4"-5" x 6"-7" on the right thigh.The autopsy surgeon has also found that there was a fracture of 9th rib and the liver was ruptured and there was an internal injury 3" x 1/2" x 2" of size on the post surface of the liver.He opined that the cause of death is shock due to multiple injuries and injury to liver.P.W. 13 Dr. S.K. Sengar had admitted in his cross- examination that if a person fell down with force, rapture of liver is quite possible.He found that there was an abrasion on left side above the stomach on the person of Hakim Khan.Apart from that, Dr. S.K. Sengar had not opined that the deceased Hatimtai had died because of asphyxia due to pressure on his neck, though, the doctor found the ligature like mark at the root of the neck.There was some scuffle between the appellant and the deceased and at that time, they were in drunken condition.The Senior Scientist and Chemical Examiner of F.S.L. vide Ex. P-17 report also found the presence of alcohol in the viscera of Hatimtai @ Hakim Khan.All these facts and circumstances show that the appellant was not having any intention to commit murder of Hatimtai @ Hakim Khan.After considering abovementioned facts and circumstances, we are inclined to hold that the appellant had not committed either the murder of deceased or the offence of causing homicidal death not amounting to murder.At the most, his act falls under Section 325, IPC for causing grievous hurt to the deceased.There is no evidence to convict this appellant under Section 302 or 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC, but he can very well be convicted under Section 325 of the IPC for having caused grievous injury to the deceased.The learned Trial Court has totally failed to appreciate all the aspects of the case while holding the appellant./accused guilty of committing murder of the deceased.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

J U D G M E N TRAJU, J.These two appeals are at the instance of twelve accused, who remained convicted throughout after acquittal at different stages of the remaining accused out of the total number of 25 who stood charged before the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta, for offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code [for short `IPC'].The necessary facts for appreciating the grievance of the appellants are that the case had its origin initially with a G.D. Entry No.115 on 3.8.1989 registered at Barpeta Police Station at 6.30 P.M. on verbal information followed by a formal written FIR that was lodged by one Rupchan Mia, on the same day at 7.00 P.M. As per the version in the FIR, on the fateful day, i.e., 3.8.1989, at about 4.00 P.M. when three persons viz., Tara Mia, Saket Ali and Owaz Kha were fishing in the Dhaneswari Beel, the accused armed with sticks, spears and other deadly weapons attacked those persons inflicting serious injuries resulting in their death and thereafter dragged the dead bodies and threw them in the Pahumara River.At the time of occurrence, hue and cry was also said to have been raised attracting crowd, which included witnesses Manowara Begum and Hussain Mia and the accused were said to have attacked the above two and also caused injuries on their person as well.In the FIR, reference was said to have been made to 24 persons by name and others generally, as the accused responsible for the incident and after completing the investigation, charge was laid on them viz about 26 under the provisions noticed above to face trial before the Trial Court.During the trial, the prosecution examined about 11 PWs to substantiate the charge of whom PW.1, PW.2, PW.8 and PW.9 claimed to be the eyewitnesses for the occurrence and PW.5 and PW.6 were the Medical Officers, who conducted the post mortem examination.It appears that despite serious efforts, during the course of investigation, only the bodies of Saket Ali and Owaz Kha alone could be recovered from the Nakhanda river, but that of Tara Mia, could not at all be retrieved.The learned Trial Judge, after considering the materials on record, by his judgment dated 10.2.1999 in Sessions Case No.13 of 1994 found that the prosecution established its case against 16 enumerated accused and acquitted about 9 of the accused on the view that the evidence could not establish and prove the charges against them beyond reasonable doubt.The convicted persons were each sentenced to life imprisonment with a further fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment to further suffer six months R.I. under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC.For the conviction under Section 201 read with Section 149, IPC, they were sentenced to five years R.I. along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and three months R.I. in default of payment of the same.The convicted accused filed two separate appeals viz., a group of 10 - Crl.Appeal No.57 of 1999 and the remaining 6 - Crl.A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court by a common judgment dated 9.1.2002 chose to confirm the conviction and sentence in respect of 12 accused, who are appellants before this Court, acquitting four more by giving them benefit of doubt in addition to those acquitted by the Trial Court.Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent-State.Common object could develop eo instanti and being a question of fact it can always be inferred and deduced from the facts and circumstances of a case projected and proved in a given case.The evidence on record, in our view, sufficiently established that there was some prior animosity and there were faction-ridden groups in existence apparently over the exercise of right to fish in the area.From the nature of the weapons like lathi, dagger, spear like iron rods, which seem to have been liberally used by the appellants, the chasing of the victims who ran for their lives and killing the three of them by merciless attack and throwing their dead-bodies in the running river rendering it almost difficult to retrieve immediately their bodies and some of them absconding from the locality for nearly about twelve days, would go to inevitably prove that by their joint armed attack, the common object to murder the victims was obvious and stood proved by convincing and cogent evidence.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

By virtue of this Petition, the Petitioner who was the complainant before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) seeks setting aside of the order dated 04.02.2013 whereby the Petitioner's complaint for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was dismissed for non appearance of the Petitioner (the Complainant) and the accused was acquitted.The short ground submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner for setting aside of the impugned order is that the Petitioner's absence on the date the complaint was dismissed was not intentional and thus the learned ACMM erred in dismissing the complaint and acquitting the Respondents.After recording pre-summoning evidence, the Respondents were Crl.The learned ACMM noticed that the complainant absented on large number of hearings compelling the learned ACMM to dismiss the complaint in terms of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) by the impugned order.The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:-LP 179/2013 Page 1 of 5"As per the record, the complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant on 06.06.2006 and after completion of pre summoning evidence, vide order dt. 25.08.2008, cognizance of the offence u/s. 500 IPC was taken by Ld. Predecessor.Accursed Jai Karan Singh and Smt. Munesh were summoned.Both the accused persons appeared before the court and thereafter, vide order dt. 13.01.2010, notice u/s. 251 Cr.P.C. qua commission of offence u/s 500 IPC was given to both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The matter was accordingly adjourned to 03.03.2010 for Complainant Evidence.Again on 22.05.2010, the complainant was absent and counsel for the complainant moved an exemption application on his behalf which was allowed.On 21.08.2010, nobody was present however, no adverse order was passed and the case was adjourned to 10.11.2010 for Complainant Evidence.Further perusal of the ordersheet reveals that despite sufficient opportunities, the complainant has not led any evidence so far and last & final opportunities were also given to the complainant on two occasions.Today also the complainant is not present and the counsel for complainant has moved an application on his behalf seeking exemption stating inter alia that the complainant cannot attend the court as he has gone to Hastinapur, U.P. to attend a marriage.LP 179/2013 Page 2 of 5Counsel Sh.Nitin Garg is present on his behalf who has no Vakalatnama in his favour.In the entire facts and circumstances, I do not find any justifiable ground to grant exemption to the complainant.The application is dismissed.Since the complainant is absent without justifiable ground, I deem it fit to dismiss the present complaint case u/s 256 Cr.PC due to non appearance of the complainant.

['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

They were stated to have suffered custodial violence, torture and inhuman treatment.A2 obtained regular bail.Now A1 seeks anticipatory bail.He is an Head Constable.This petition is for anticipatory bail, in other words, issuance of a direction in the event of his arrest to release him on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.2. Offences alleged are under Sections 323, 330, 355 and 506 (ii) IPC and Sections 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act read with Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Petitioner is A1 in this case.This is his fourth petition for anticipatory bail.It all started with the missing of a cellphone from a woman.Case of theft has been registered by R1 Mambalam Police in Crime Nos.1895 and 1896 of 2014 under Section 379 IPC.In connection with the said theft case, certain juveniles, who were alleged to have contravened law (Juvenile in conflict with Law) have been taken to R1 Mambalam Police Station.It has become a hell for them.Even if they get bail, they continue to remain there because of their inability to produce sureties.There was outcry from various quarters to check the police power of arrest envisaged in Section 41 Cr.P.C.He has not responded to their notice.In view of the foregoings, I do not find any perceptible change of circumstances since the dismissal of his earlier anticipatory bail petition.O.P.No.30438 of 201529.02.2016

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Totally there are three accused.One Mrs.Jayalakshmi is Accused No.1 in the said case.The above said land was originally owned by their father Thomas Nadar.He died intestate leaving his three sons, the 2nd respondent herein and Sri.T.Shanmuga Sundaram and Sri.Therefore, both A1 and the 2nd respondent decided to enter into an agreement with the petitioners/A2 and A3 to develop the property.On the same day, The 2nd respondent has also executed two different general power of attorney deed one in favour of the petitioners and the other in favour of A1 to deal with the property in question.According to the 2nd respondent, A1 and the petitioners/A2 and A3 failed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.70,00,000/- within the time stipulated under the tripartite agreement and have sold out few flats to different persons.It is further alleged in the complaint by the 2nd respondent that despite cancellation of general power of attorney deeds and fact that the same was intimated to A1 to A3, still, they sold few more left out plots to Sri.B.Venkataraman and another and Sri.N.M.Sathish and others.Y.Jayashankar (A3) has been shown as Party of the Third Part and the parties have agreed upon as follows:"Whereas the sale could not be completed within the time frame stipulated in the Agreement dated 20.02.1997 and due to personal reason could not put up the said complex of flats and therefore approached the party of the third party, who are builders, for putting up construction in order to complete the agreement of sale by the party of the second part with the party of the First part.It is not in dispute that the petitioners were not parties to the earliest sale agreement.A perusal of the tripartite would go to show that A1 agreed to pay the balance sale consideration to the 2nd respondent.The petitioners are Accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.6264 of 2011 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant.A1 and the petitioners herein are said to have committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 418 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC.The learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 29.03.2012 framed charges against A1 and the petitioners for above said offences.Challenging the same, the petitioners are before this court with this criminal revision.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and also the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent/State.I have also perused the records carefully.When the 2nd respondent approached A1 to A3 for balance sale consideration, it is alleged that they threatened him with dire consequences.Hence, the complaint.Based on the above said complaint, a case in Crime No. 40 of 2008 came to be registered by the 1st respondent police for offence under Sections 406, 418 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC.When the contract could not get concluded, on 10.12.1998, the de facto complainant and A1 and the petitioners entered into the tripartite agreement for the purpose of putting up construction in the land in question wherein the 2nd respondent has been shown as Part of the First Part, M/s.Mega Construction, a registered Partnership Firm, represented by one of its partner namely Mrs.Vijayalakshmi (A1) has been shown as Party of the Second Part and that M/s.The extract from the tripartite agreement with regard to payment clause reads thus:"(2) The Party of the Second Part shall pay the remain sale consideration i.e., Rs.1,10,25,000/- to the Party of the First Part as to the time schedule that follows:-(i) on the date of execution of this agreement a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs only).(ii) A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) on or before one month from the date of this Agreement.(iii) A sum of Rs.78,25,000/- (Rupees Seventy Eight Lakhs and Twenty Fine Thousand only) within a period of 12 months from the date of this Agreement."As a matter of fact, the petitioners who are developers under the tripartite agreement agreed to place security deposit of a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- by way of different banker's cheques.It has been further agreed under the tripartite agreement as follows:-The party of the second part agreed to pay the above mentioned Rs.78,25,000/- (Rupees Seventy Eight Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand only) as per Clause 2(iii) to Party of the First Part in stages whenever the sale deeds are being executed / registered in favour of the nominees of the Party of the Second Part, however, the balance consideration of Rs.78,25,000/- is to be paid before 12 months period from the date of this Agreement.With regard to entrustment of the property, it has been agreed under the tripartite agreement as follows:The Party of the First Part has handed over possession of the scheduled mentioned property to the Party of the Second Part on the date of this agreement and it shall be open to the Party of the Second Part to develop the property as to their choice or may enter into any agreement with third party for such development.For the reasons best known to them, the contract could not get completed in time.Therefore, both A1 and the de facto complainant have mutually agreed to develop the property and to entrust the construction work to a third party.Only thereafter, A1 and the de facto complainant and the petitioners entered into a tripartite agreement for the purpose of putting up construction in the vacant land in question.Even as per the Tripartite agreement only A1 has agreed to pay the remaining sale consideration and these petitioners agreed to pay security deposit of Rs.60,00,000/- in favour of A1 and absolutely there is no connection or agreement between the petitioners and A1 in the money transaction.After completion of construction, it was only A1 who sold some of the plots.The property was entrusted as per the tripartite agreement only to A1, who, in turn, as per the very same tripartite agreement, entrusted only the construction work to the petitioner.The petitioners are being developers, they have no way connected with any money transaction with the 2nd respondent.Neither there is allegation against the petitioners that the property in question was entrusted to them and that they dishonestly misappropriated it for their own use.In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed and the case in C.C.No.6264 of 2011 pending on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, is hereby quashed insofar as it relates to A2 and A3, the petitioners herein.It is made clear that whatever the observations made hereinabove were only for the purpose of deciding the case against the petitioners/A2 and A3 and that the trial court shall not influence by such observations.The trial court shall proceed with further as against A1 in accordance with law.Since the matter has been pending for a long time, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.10..01..2017 kmk/vsi21.The XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.R.C.No.588 of 201210..01..2017

['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.

Case is listed today for admission.Case diary is available.With the consent of the parties, heard finally.C. No. 3552/2015 has been arrested on 05.03.2015 and sent to jail by order dated 06.04.2015 of the Trial Court.Learned counsel for the applicant / accused submit that the applicant is a labour and he had gone to labour work at Bhopal, and due to the illiteracy, he was not aware of the arrest warrant issued against him.It is further submit that in trial total 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined, only prosecutrix is to be examined.He further submitted that applicant was not involved in the offences and only on this ground he was released on bail by order dated 17.01.2005 in M.Cr.Therefore, prayed for bail.Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has opposed the application and prayed for dismissal of the same.Although the applicant was remained absent since last 9 (Raju Khan Vs.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Brief facts of the case are that on 22.04.2017 at about 12.20 PM, victim (PW-1) lodged a report at Police Station, Machalpur, District Rajgarh Biaora (MP) that she appeared in examination of Class-X. On the date of incident i.e. on 21.04.2017 at about 06.30 PM, when the victim went to attend a call of nature along with her mother (PW-2), at that time, respondent / accused came 2 there and caught hold her right hand with intent to outrage her modesty and forced her to come with him.She refused to give company to the accused and called her mother.When her mother rushed for help and asked to leave her daughter, then the respondent / accused pressed her breast and pulled her to come with him.When her mother shouted on accused and saved her daughter, then respondent / accused fled away from the spot, threatening that if she will narrate the incident to any one, then he will kill them.It is also alleged that earlier the respondent / accused follow her when she go to school.The matter was reported to the Police Station Machalpur, District Rajgarh (MP).On the basis of which, offence bearing Crime No.106/2017 for offence punishable under Section 354 (A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 was registered against the respondent / accused.During the investigation, Police obtained scholar register of the victim to verify her date of birth, according to which, she was minor at the time of incident.After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.The trial Court framed charges against the accused / respondent.Being aggrieved by which, the prosecution / State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred this petition for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal.Learned Panel Lawyer for the petitioner / State of Madhya Pradesh has submitted that from the statement of the victim, the alleged offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt, which has also found support from the statement of mother of the victim, who had seen the incident, but the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and wrongly disbelieved the statement of the prosecution witnesses and acquitted the respondent / accused for the aforesaid offences.Therefore, he prays for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal.I have heard learned Panel Lawyer for the petitioner / State of Madhya Pradesh and perused the impugned judgment as well as record of the case.After perusal of the statement of the victim (PW-1), her mother (PW-2) and the findings given by the trial Court, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case in which permission for leave to appeal can be granted against respondent / accused Mohanlal s/o Rai Singh Verma; meaning thereby, the matter has to be admitted for final hearing.Accordingly, the petitioner filed by the petitioner / State of Madhya Pradesh under Section 378 (3) of 4 Criminal Procedure Code, 1860 is allowed and permission for grant of leave to appeal is granted against respondent / accused Mohanlal s/o Rai Singh Verma.Appeal filed, as a consequence of this order, be registered and proceeded to as per rules, as admitted.Office is directed to issue bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) against respondent / accused Mohanlal s/o Rai Singh Verma to secure his presence before the Registry of this Court.He is also directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate / trial Court, for his regular appearance before the Registry of this Court on 04.11.2019 and on all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard.Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.43146/2018 stands disposed of accordingly.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2019.09.23 16:20:57 +05'30'

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

On refusal to vacate the house by Bhajan Singh, the accused assaulted him with axe, resulting into injuries on his head, left eye and face.(29.07.2020) This criminal appeal u/s 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.04.1998 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Session Trial No. 544/1995 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- also with default stipulation.Thereafter, on intervention of Bedi Lal (PW-6), Milan Singh (PW-5) and Gopal, the accused ran away from the spot.An FIR was registered on the same day for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.Medical Examination of the injured/complainant Bhajan Lal was also conducted by the police 2 Cr.A. No. 1308/1998 and performed by Dr. Girish Bajpai (PW-2).After completing all other formalities, the police filed the charge-sheet.The learned trial Court has framed the charge of Section 307 IPC against the appellant.The appellant abjured his guilt, hence, the Court proceeded with trial.The learned trial Court did not find the appellant guilty for the offence of Section 307 IPC but found sufficient evidence to convict him in lesser offence i.e. Section 324 IPC and passed the sentence as aforesaid.Learned amicus curiae for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court erred in passing the judgment of conviction whereas the appellant did not commit any offence and also there is no evidence available on record against him.The learned trial Court overlooked the fact that the evidence of the complainant Bhajan Lal (PW4) is unreliable and contrary to the FIR, police statement as well as medical evidence.Furthermore, his evidence is also not corroborated with the evidence of any other independent witness.The injury was sustained to Bhajan Lal due to falling down.He further submits that while recording the conviction against the present appellant, the learned trial Court did not consider the evidence in proper manner.There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of prosecution witnesses, therefore, it prima facie appears that the appellant was falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant with malafide intention.The prosecution has also failed to produce the seized axe before the Court which was alleged to be 3 Cr.A. No. 1308/1998 seized from the possession of appellant.Apart from that, the learned Court also erred in not giving the benefit of probation to the appellant as per Section 360 of Cr.P.C being first offender.In this regard, he also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilbag Singh Vs.With the aforesaid submissions, learned amicus curiae prays for allowing this appeal.With the aforesaid submissions, he prays for dismissal of this appeal.5. Heard both the parties and perused the record.On perusal of MLC report of complainant as well as statement of Dr. Girish Bajpai (PW-2), there were four injuries found which were 4 Cr.A. No. 1308/1998 simple in nature.The relevant paras of statement of Dr. Girish Bajpai (PW-2) are also quoted as under: -1- ^^&& eSus mldk ijh{k.k fd;k Fkk rFkk eSus ijh{k.k esa fuEufyf[kr pksVsa ikbZ %& 1- ,d dVk gqvk ?kko] lh/kh vka[k ds mij 2 ls-eh- x vk/kk ls-eh- lkbZt dk Fkk ftlls [kwu cg jgk Fkk] 2- ,d dVk gqvk ?kko] tks fd nkfgus xky ij 2 ls-eh- x 1 x 1 vkdkj dk Fkk A 3- ,d dVk gqvk ?kko] tks fd ck;sa vksj gksaB ij Fkk tks vanj ls ckgj dh vksj fudy jgk Fkk A mldk vkdkj 4 x 2 peM+h rd xgjk vFkkZr xky rd fudy x;k Fkk xky dh mij lrg ls fupyh lrg rd fudy x;k Fkk A vkj ikj 4- ,d dVk gqvk pksV tks fd ck;ha vka[k ds mij 2 x ls-eh- 2 x 2 lsa-eh- vkdkj dh Fkh A 2- ;g lHkh pksVas fdlh l[r ,oa /kkj/kkj oLrq ls igqpkbZ xbZ Fkh pksVsa mipkj ds 2 ls 4 ?kaVs dh vof/k ds vanj igqp a kbZ gS izxfr lHkh pksVa sa lk/kkj.k Fkh----------AFurther, in his cross examination, Dr. Girish Bajpai ( PW-2) specifically stated as under :-mijksDr pksVsa mipkj ds pkj ?kaVs iwoZ dh ugha gks ldrh A u'ks dh gkyr es ckj ckj uqdhyh oLrq ij ckj ckj fxjus ls ;g pksVas vk ldrh gS----------AIt is true, doctor Girish Bajpai has opined that due to intoxication and fallen down upon some pointed article, said injuries could be sustained but in the cross examination of complainant (Bhajan Lal), the appellant/accused did not give any suggestion in this regard so it can not be said that victim was fallen down in some pointed article and sustained injuries or at the time of incident he was intoxicated.Therefore, it is apparent that the injuries found on the person of the complainant were caused with hard and sharp object, however same were simple in nature.Cr.A. No. 1308/1998Now the next question for consideration is whether the appellant/accused inflicted injury to victim Bhajan Lal (PW-4) ?During trial, the learned trial Court has recorded the statement of six prosecution witnesses so also of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In examination in chief, the complainant- Bhajan Lal (P.W.-4) stated that when he was in the house of elder brother of his father (Bade Pita Ji), the accused was telling to the son of his father's elder brother to vacate the house.Then, the complainant requested the accused not to ask to vacate the house in rainy season.Thereafter, the accused assaulted him with axe.He further stated that after first assault, he became unconscious for three hours.Thereafter, he along with Bedi Lal, Milan Singh and Gopal Singh went to the police station to register the FIR.He also stated that he was sent to Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur, and thereafter was referred to Medical College, Jabalpur, where he was admitted for 7-8 days, The FIR was lodged promptly.In his cross examination, he admitted his relation of being maternal uncle of the accused.He narrated a different version than that of his chief examination saying that the accused was telling to his elder mother (Badi Maa) to vacate the house.He also admitted that the disputed house is in the name of mother of accused.Thus, some discrepancies are found in his statement and also on the point of his relation with the accused but it is well settled principle of law that it is difficult for witness to depose exact version of incident revealing every minute detail of incident.Cr.A. No. 1308/1998 The complainant is found stable on the point that the accused assaulted him with axe on the dispute arose from vacating the house.Further, according to the complainant, when the quarrel was going on, Milan Singh, Bedi Lal and Gopal Singh intervened and saved his life.Milan Singh was examined as PW-5 but he has turned hostile.He stated that he saw the complainant in injured condition in front of the house of Bedi Lal.He stated that when they reached Police Station, the accused was already there.In cross examination, Milan Singh has denied the fact that the accused assaulted the complainant with an axe in his presence.He has also denied the fact of intervention with Bedi Lal as well as seizure of axe from the possession of accused.He has also turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.He has denied all the facts put forth by the prosecution.Gopal Singh who was also said to have seen the incident, has not been examined by the prosecution.Such a witness comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone.the accused did not challenge his presence on the spot and the statement of the complainant and Milan Singh show that some quarrel took place between the complainant and accused due to dispute of house which belongs to mother of accused.The complainant did not want to vacate the same in rainy season.There is some family relation between the accused and complainant, hence, it can be presumed that the quarrel had taken place for the house and the accused hurt the complainant.

['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.

ORDER Subba Rao, J.One Desappa was murdered and Certain persons were prosecuted under Section 302, Penal Code, in connection with that murder, The petitioners gave statements in that case under Section 161, Criminal P. C, in connection with the death of Desappa before the Taluk Magistrate, Dharmavaram.They stated to the effect that they had actually witnessed the assault which eventually resulted in the death of Desappa and some of them bad been asked to watch over the injured persons.Later on, in the preliminary enquiry they denied the earlier story and stated that they made the statements before the Taluk Magistrate as the police threatened them and that the statements were really made at the dictation of the police.Subsequently these witnesses were given up in the Sessions Court.The accused were tried and acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Anantapur.The learned Sessions Judge held on a consideration of the evidence that the prosecution failed to prove the case set up by them.The application was filed before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Dharmavaram, in the latter part of the year 1946, Both the Sub-Magistrate and the District Magistrate held that in the interests of justice a complaint should be filed against the petitioners under Section 193, Penal Code.It is no doubt true that either the statement made before the taluk Magistrate under Section 161, Criminal P. C., Cr the evidence given in p. e, o. no, l of 1946 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Dharmavaram, is false and false to the knowledge of the petitioners.

['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In default of payment of fine, they have to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.On the aspect that the two deceased had suffered a homicidal death as a result of strangulation, we accept and believe the testimony of Dr. K.L. Sharma (PW-4), who had conducted post-mortem on the dead bodies of Shiv Pratap @ Raju and Rekha.The post-mortem reports of the deceased have been marked as Ex.PW-4/A (Rekha) and Ex.But, she has not supported the prosecution case and had stated that she was married, had children and used to reside at Sarojini Nagar.She was on friendly terms with the deceased Raju and he had been frequenting their house for about 1 years prior to the incident.She asserted that nothing as the regards the alleged offence happened in her presence and she did not remember anything.She was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor.During the course of her cross- examination, she resolutely stood by and remained committed to her earlier deposition.In view of the aforesaid factual position, the prosecution sought to build its case upon circumstantial evidence.In this regard, the prosecution primarily relies upon statements of Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12), father and brother, respectively, of the deceased-Shiv Pratap @ Raju.Head Constable Reshampal Singh (PW-3) had deposed about DD entry No.33A (Ex.PW-3/E) recording that an injured person was lying in the area of Police Station Vikas Puri.This DD entry was marked to Constable Manraj (PW-18) and ASI Mahinder Singh (PW-19).They have deposed about the visit to the site but nothing abnormal was noticed.We shall be referring to his MLC (Ex.PW-21/A) subsequently.It is evident from the testimony of Constable Manraj (PW-18) that appellant-Ram was injured.ASI Mahinder Singh (PW-19) had testified that at 3.35 A.M., the appellant-Ram came to the police station in an injured condition and told him about his quarrel with Raju, i.e. Shiv Pratap.He, i.e. ASI Mahinder Singh (PW-19), went to the house No.K-1C/161, Mohan Garden, Delhi.In the cross- examination, ASI Mahinder Singh (PW-19) accepted that he had not recorded any DD entry on or after arrival of the appellant-Ram to the police station.He accepted that Ram did not have any link with the DD entry No.33A. In other words, as per PW-19, he came to know about a quarrel for the first time from appellant-Ram at about 3.35 AM on 11th December, 1997 and had left for the spot in question within 4-5 minutes.However, the appellant-Ram was sent to the hospital.CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 1 of 12This common judgment will dispose of the present set of appeals, which arise out of charge sheet filed in FIR No.759/1997, Police Station Vikas Puri under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short).The impugned judgment dated 9 th December, 1999 convicts the four appellants for the charge of murder of Shiv Pratap @ Raju and Rekha in the intervening night of 10th/11th December, 1997 at House No.K-1C/161, Mohan Garden, Delhi.By the impugned order of sentence dated 10th December, 1999, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC.PW-4/B (Shiv Pratap @ Raju).As per the post-mortem reports, the cause of death of both persons was asphyxia caused due to repeated ligature strangulations causing mechanical obstruction of airways.The ligature material was something CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 2 of 12 hard and flexible like a belt.The aforesaid ligature strangulations were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death rapidly.CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 2 of 12Learned counsels for the appellants have submitted before us the testimonies of Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12) are on two aspects.Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12) had last seen the appellants with the deceased in the evening before the intervening night of the occurrence and that in the morning of 11th December, 1997, after they had seen the dead bodies of Shiv Pratap @ Raju and Rekha, they had heard the appellants accept their involvement in the offence.The appellants have contested the testimonies of Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12) as being make-belief, tainted on the ground that they are propped up witnesses.It is submitted that their statements cannot be and should not be CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 3 of 12 relied upon as the basis for convicting the appellants.CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 3 of 12Having perused the testimonies of Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5), Satpal (PW-12), as well as those of Constable Manraj (PW-18) and ASI Mahinder Singh (PW-19), we believe that two versions emerge regarding how and when the police and the said family members came to know about the occurrence.Upon returning to the police station, one of the appellants, namely, Ram came in an injured condition, who as per Constable Manraj (PW-18) informed them about the quarrel, which had taken place in premises No.K- 1C/161, Mohan Garden, Delhi.Ram, as per the police version and deposition of Constable Manraj (PW-18) and ASI Mahinder Singh (PW-19), was not taken to the site of crime but was taken for medical examination and treatment to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital.As per PW-19, the place of incident was hardly 2.5 or 3 kilometres from the police station.PW-19 deposed that he had gone there on his scooter but it took him time, i.e. around one hour and thirty minutes, to trace the place of incident.He blamed that the colony did not have proper roads and water had accumulated due to rains.CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 4 of 12It is noticeable that the MLC of appellant-Ram (Ex.Thus, on one hand, we have testimonies of Constable Manraj (PW-18) and ASI Mahinder Singh (PW-19) that they came to know about an occurrence at house No.It has also come on record that the place of occurrence was not far from the police station and was at a distance of hardly 3 kilometres.We have referred to the aforesaid facts as we have some doubts and reservation regarding how and when Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12), the father and brother, respectively, of the deceased Shiv Pratap @ Raju came to know about the occurrence.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has in this connection primarily relied upon CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 5 of 12 the testimony of Satpal (PW-12), who had deposed that on 10th December, 1997, Shiv Pratap @ Raju and Savitri along with the appellants had gone to the house of Savitri at K-1C/161, Mohan Garden.His brother Shiv Pratap @ Raju thereafter did not return and about 6/6.15 A.M. they had gone to the said house and had seen that the house was open and dead bodies of Shiv Pratap @ Raju and Rekha were lying there.In his cross- examination, Satpal (PW-12) had asserted that his brother, i.e. Shiv Pratap @ Raju had informed them on telephone at 9.30/10 P.M. that he was coming, i.e. returning.Satpal (PW-12) had further testified that Shiv Pratap @ Raju occasionally used to stay in the house of Savitri.In other words, the assertion made by Satpal (PW-12) was that deceased Shiv Pratap @ Raju used to reside with Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12) at their common residence.However, Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) in his court deposition had asserted and testified differently, virtually accepting that the deceased Shiv Pratap @ Raju used to reside at Mohan Garden.He in his cross examination on behalf of Shiv Prakash on 20th November, 1998, deposed:-CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 5 of 12"My deceased son resided with me as well as [at] Mohan Garden.My son stayed at night at Mohan Garden and day time he came to me.He came to me after 1/2 days."In his cross examination on behalf of Than Singh and Brij Mohan @ Toni, on 14th January, 1999, he testified:-"Savitri her sister Rekha, my son Shiv Pratap Singh resided in the house where the incident took place. ... My deceased son was having relation with Savitri for 2/3 years before the incident.My deceased son also came to us during that period off and on. ... My deceased son continued this practice by staying 2 or 3 days at Mohan Garden and then coming to us during 2/3 years."Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) had claimed that Savitri was a woman of loose character and his deceased son was allured by her, which was the reason CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 6 of 12 why the deceased used to reside with Savitri.CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 6 of 12We have referred to the deposition of Satpal (PW-12) and then the deposition of Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) on the aforesaid aspect in some detail as both of them have deposed on the aspect of last seen together story.However, we have grave reservations on accepting the testimony of Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12) on the said aspect.The reason being, that in case the deceased Shiv Pratap @ Raju and Savitri used to reside and live in house No.K-1C/161, Mohan Garden, Delhi, there was no reason or cause for the appellants to visit the residence of Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and thereupon ask the deceased Shiv Pratap @ Raju and Savitri (PW-2) to proceed to House No.K-1C/161, Mohan Garden, Delhi.PW-5s assertion that Shiv Pratap @ Raju and Savitri used to stay with them at day-time, i.e. during working hours, is unbelievable and not acceptable.Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) had also stated that the deceased Shiv Pratap @ Raju used to come after one/two days.Thus, the assertion by Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12) to the effect that the appellants had come to their residence on 10th December, 1997 at about 6/6.15 P.M. in the evening and, thereafter, all of them had left for house No.K-1C/161, Mohan Garden, Delhi along with Savitri (PW-2), is questionable and lacks credibility.It is clear and lucid as accepted by Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) that he knew the appellants since some time prior to the incident.Raghav Ram Singhs (PW-5) testimony was recorded first.He accepted that his deceased son, Shiv Pratap @ Raju used to reside with Savitri.The latter was described by him as a woman who had lured his son.The statement of PW-12, Satpal on the later date, has to be read and understood with caution and care.This makes the evidence of last seen rather weak and tenuous.We are conscious and aware of the fact that the evidence of last seen is also mentioned in Ex.PW-5/A, i.e. the statement CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 7 of 12 made by Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) to ASI Mahinder Singh (PW-19), which became subject matter or content of the FIR (Ex.PW-3/B).However, in spite of the aforesaid position, we are not inclined to unconditionally and unreservedly accept the version of Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12) on the question of last seen as deposed to by them.CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 7 of 12Also, it is not comprehensible as to why on a cold December morning at about 6/6.15 A.M., Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12) decided to visit the premises where the deceased Shiv Pratap @ Raju and Savitri (PW-2) used to reside.It is logical and apparent that they had information and knew about the unfortunate event.What is apparent is that Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) from the very beginning suspected involvement of the three appellants, namely, Brij Mohan @ Toni, Shiv Prakash and Than Singh.Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) had deposed that after coming back from house No.K-1C/161, Mohan Garden, Delhi, he went to the house of Shiv Prakash located opposite Bharat Properties at Vikas Nagar and there he had heard the aforesaid three appellants speaking with Savitri (PW-2).His description that he over- heard and learnt that the three and Ram had killed Shiv Pratap @ Raju and Rekha is rather stodgy and tedious.He has deposed to the effect that Savitri (PW-2) was also present there and had cried that these people had murdered Rekha and Raju.At the spot, he claimed that he had caught hold of Brij Mohan @ Toni and Satpal (PW-12) had apprehended Shiv Prakash.Police was called later on.The aforesaid assertion has been deposed in a CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 8 of 12 similar manner by Satpal (PW-12).However, the said version of over- hearing conversations at the house and candid confession and outspokenness does not inspire confidence and appears to be implausible.However, we accept that Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12) may have looked around and searched for the possible suspects Brij Mohan @ Toni and Shiv Prakash and others, who were thereafter detained and arrested by the police, but the suggestion that the accused divulged and acknowledged the involvement in the crime is contrived and constructed.Thus, we are inclined to discard and disbelieve the version given by Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12) that they had heard the conversations revealing the truth taking place inside the house in the morning.Mere arrest would not prove anything unless the involvement of the said two persons is proved by acceptable and cogent evidence on record.CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 8 of 12As per the testimony of Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12), Than Singh had managed to run away from the spot.Conviction against him would also fail for the same reason, as his involvement also has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.In the testimony of Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) it has come that the deceased Rekha was sister of Savitri (PW-2).This appears to be correct and it is also apparent that Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) knew and recognised Rekha, the second deceased.This is apparent when we read Ex.PW-5/A, which was the first complaint and became the basis of the FIR (Ex.PW-3/B).Name of Rekha, i.e. the second deceased, has been specifically stated by Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5).The second deceased, i.e., Rekha was also identified by Satpal (PW-12).CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 9 of 12This brings us to the case against the appellant-Ram, which is different and initially appeared to be unimpaired and sound.As per the police version deposed to by Constable Manraj (PW-18) and ASI Mahinder Singh (PW-19), appellant-Ram had come to the police station at about 3.35 A.M. on 11th December, 1997 and reported about his quarrel in which he had suffered injuries.As per ASI Mahinder Singh (PW-19), he had named Shiv Pratap @ Raju and had also given the house number where the quarrel had taken place, i.e. K-1C/161, Mohan Garden, Delhi.Constable Manraj (PW-18), as noticed above, had somewhat contradicted ASI Mahinder Singh (PW-19).He was also cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor but had affirmed that the appellant-Ram had not specifically informed him that he had received injuries from Shiv Pratap @ Raju.Apart from the aforesaid contradiction, which may not be fully material, we observe two circumstances which create serious and grave doubts about the actual involvement of appellant-Ram as the perpetrator who killed Shiv Pratap @ Raju and Rekha.The first circumstance is the conduct of appellant-Ram himself, in coming to the police station on his own.It was certainly not to confess the murders or out of repentance.It appears that he had suffered injuries, which are apparent from the MLC of appellant-Ram (Ex.PW-21/A).It records wounds on the parietal region, occipital region, forehead, mandible, etc. It is further recorded that the patient, i.e., appellant-Ram had consumed alcohol but was not under its influence.X- ray of the skull as well as left mandible was suggested but details are not available.What creates further doubt and suspicion on the appellant- Rams involvement is the second aspect, a written complaint which was made by Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) to the office of the Chief Minister CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 10 of 12 dated 20th December, 1997, marked as Ex.PW-5/DB.In the said complaint, Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) had expressed his apprehension that appellant-Ram has been wrongly implicated and Savitri along with other appellants, namely, Shiv Prakash, Brij Mohan @ Toni and Than Singh were involved.This complaint also records that at about 5.45 A.M. on 11 th December, 1997 appellant-Ram came to his house along with relatives and police men and informed them about the incident, i.e. the occurrence.It was claimed that Ram in fact was a prime eye witness and not a culprit.The aforesaid complaint when shown to Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) in his cross-examination was accepted.Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) admitted his signatures at point A. PW-5 also accepted that the aforesaid complaint was typed on his directions and then he had given the application to the office of the Chief Minister.This Exhibit, Ex.PW-5/DB is a document, which dents the allegations against the appellant-Ram.Thus, there is a doubt whether the appellant Ram was a perpetrator or was one of the victims of the violence by others, like the deceased, even if we accept that the appellant Ram was present in the House No.K-1C/161 at Mohan Garden, Delhi.CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 10 of 12This was a case of double murder in which two young persons had lost their lives, but the prosecution has not been able to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants herein.The primary reason, it appears, is that Savitri (PW-2) whose sister Rekha had also died in the said occurrence, did not support the prosecution case.PW-5/DB, in fact, raises suspicion about involvement of Savitri (PW-2) in the crime.The said doubt was expressed by none other than the father of the deceased Shiv Pratap @ Raju.Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) accepted that he had given the said complaint (Ex.PW-5/DB) which was neither contradicted nor explained by either Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) or by way of re-CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 11 of 12examination of Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) by the Additional Public Prosecutor.This could have thrown some light in case the complaint (Ex.PW-5/DB) had been made under a wrong impression or under a threat or coercion.Moreover, as noticed above, as per the prosecution case, Savitri (PW-2) was not involved in the actual offence, but her presence at the time of occurrence as an eye witness is asserted.It is not the prosecutions case that Savitri (PW-2) had suffered any injuries though her sister Rekha had died in the said occurrence.In view of the aforesaid discussion and factual position, we are inclined to grant benefit of the doubt to the appellants and their appeals are accordingly allowed.The LCR be sent back to the trial court.SANJIV KHANNA, J.ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.FEBRUARY 12, 2015 VKR CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 12 of 12CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 12 of 12

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

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

Two cartons of Sunlight Soap marked Exts.II and III containing the cakes in waxed paper bearing label "Sunlight Soap -- Lever Bros. (India) Ltd." were recovered.At the time of the search there was an Expert from Lever Bros. to help test whether the cakes were genuine or not.JUDGMENT Debabrata Mookerjee, J.The appellant was tried by a Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta upon two charges under Sections 420 and 486, Penal Code.He was acquitted of the charge of cheating under Section 420, but was convicted under Section 486 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.The facts briefly stated are that on 6-7-1954 the appellant's shop at Raja Katra styled Sinha Bros. was searched in the presence of witnesses.It appears the cakes were later sent for chemical examination and report was received in due course which revealed that they were not genuine Sunlight cakes it having been considered that they were inferior stuff and attempted to be passed oft as genuine Sunlight Soap of Lever Bros. Ltd.The appellant pleaded not guilty to the. charges and the defence was that there was no intention to cheat; furthermore on the evidence in the case the elements of an offence under Section 486 had not been established.No defence witnesses were examined.The learned Magistrate, however, believed the evidence produced by the prosecution and while acquitting the appellant of the charge of cheating convicted him of an offence under Section 486, Penal Code.The other witnesses from Lever Bros. proved how the spurious soaps were different from the real ones in colour, weight and smell.He deposed that the Magistrate's order made on 7-2-1955 discharging the appellant was made on the ground of absence of the complainant.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

a)P.W.1 is the wife and P.W.2 is the sister of the deceased Krishnan.He sold his landed properties to the third parties.Even after the sale, the accused made trespass into the said property and laid stones.The husband of P.W.1 removed the said stones and thus, all the accused along with one Mari, who was originally shown as the second accused in the F.I.R. and pending case died, were on inimical terms with the deceased Krishnan.b)On the date of occurrence, namely on 23.7.2000 at about 9.00 p.m., the deceased along with the family members, including his wife P.W.1 and sister P.W.2 and the other children, was witnessing T.V. and thereafter, they went for dinner and he took dinner early, while the others were taking.He went nearby betel shop to purchase betel.Within a short span of time, P.Ws.1 and 2 heard the distressing cry of Krishnan and they came outside.At that time, A-1 to A-6 and the other accused, namely A-1 to A-6 armed with vethukathi and the last accused with wooden log, were attacking him indiscriminately.On hearing the noise raised, all the accused fled away from the place of occurrence.c)P.W.1 immediately took the deceased in an auto to Tambaram Police station, where she was advised to take the severely injured Krishnan to Chromepet Government Hospital.Accordingly, P.W.1 took him to Chrompet Government Hospital, where she was advised to take him to the Government General Hospital, Chennai, since his condition was so serious.Accordingly, she took him to the Government General Hospital, Chennai, where the severely injured Krishnan was admitted by P.W.12, the Doctor at 10.35 p.m. and Ex.P.32, accident register in this regard was also marked.An intimation was given to Tambaram Police station.d)On receiving the intimation, P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, proceeded to the Government General Hospital, Chennai and recorded the statement of the injured Krishnan, which was marked as Ex.P.27, on the strength of which, a case came to be registered in Crime No.658 of 2000 under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 307 IPC.P.29, the FIR was despatched to the Court.Then, P.W.11 proceeded to the spot and made an inspection at 00.45 hours in the presence of the witnesses.He prepared Ex.P.30, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.31, the rough sketch.e)Then, P.W.13, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation.On receipt of the said intimation, the case was altered to Section 302 IPC and Ex.P.33, the alteration report was sent to the court.P.W.13 examined all the witnesses and recorded their statements.He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.34, the inquest report.Then, the dead body was sent for the purpose of autopsy.f)P.W.9, the Doctor attached to the Chennai Medical College, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.17, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.A-1 came forward to give confessional statement voluntarily, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.Pursuant to the same, he produced M.O.1, knife, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar.The confessional statement of the deceased accused Mari was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of which was marked as Ex.Following the same, M.O.2 knife was recovered under a cover of mahazar.A-3 also gave confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.Pursuant to the same, M.O.3, knife was recovered.A-5 also gave confessional statement, the admissible part of which was marked as Ex.Following the same, M.O.4, knife was recovered.Pursuant to the same, he produced M.O.5, knife which was recovered under a cover of mahazar.For Appellants : Mr.V.Gopinath, SC for Mr.L.Mahendran in CA.No.1013/2007 for Mr.G.Mohanakrishnan in C.A.No.1126 of 2007 For Respondent : Mr.P.Kumaresan, APP- - - -These appeals challenge the judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu made in S.C.No.466 of 2005, whereby the appelants 6 in number stood charged under Sections 148 and 302 r/w S.149 IPC, tried and found guilty as per the charges and awarded one year R.I. each under Section 148 IPC and life imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo one month S.I. under Section 302 r/w S.149 IPC and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.3.The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated thus:The accused were sent for judicial remand.On 19.8.2000, A-2, A-6 and A-4 were arrested.A-2 came forward to give confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.The confessional statement of A-6 was recorded, the admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.P.45, pursuant to which he produced M.O.7 wooden log, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. A-4 also gave confessional statement and admissible part of which was marked as Ex.P.47, pursuant to the same, he produced M.O.6 knife, wich was recovered under a cover of mahazar.These accused were sent for judicial remand.All the material objects recovered were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department, which resulted in Ex.P.24, the Biological Report and Ex.P.25, the Serological Report.On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report.4.The case was committed to the court of sessions and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and also relied on 48 exhibits and 11 M.Os.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.The trial court, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and looking into the materials available, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found A-1 to A-6 guilty as stated above and awarded punishments as referred to above.Hence these appeals at the instance of the appellants.5.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned Senior Counsel has made the following submissions:P.27, which according to the prosecution has come into existence at 10.45 p.m. on 23.7.2000, could not have come into existence as alleged by the prosecution; that according to P.W.1, the occurrence has taken place at about 9.00 p.m. and immediately, she took him to Tambaram Police station, but no statement was recorded and she was advised to go to the hospital and hence she went to Chrompet Government Hospital, but she was advised to take him to the Government General Hospital, Chennai and accordingly, she took him to the Government General Hospital and the severely injured was treated by P.W.12, the Doctor; that P.W.12 has categorically stated that he gave first aid to Krishnan at about 10.35 p.m. and noted the injuries in Ex.P.32, the accident register; that it is an admitted fact that the distance between the Government General Hospital and the Tambaram Police station is 25 Kms.; that according to P.W.12, he gave intimation immediately; that if P.W.11, the Inspector of Police has reached the Government Hospital only after receiving the intimation given by P.W.12, he could not have arrived at the Government General Hospital and recorded the statement at 10.45 p.m., i.e. within 10 minutes interval and that Ex.P.27 could not have come into existence as put forth by the prosecution.b)The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that Ex.P.27, the statement could not be believed for the simple reason that according to P.W.12, he has seen number of cut injuries and cut injuries also found on the leg; that the injuries were so much that he would have been unconscious stage and hence he could not have given any statement at all; that it is highly unnatural that he gave statement as found in Ex.P.27 and hence Ex.P.27 could not be given any credence at all; that the scene of occurrence is also highly doubtful; that according to P.W.1, she was actually inside the house; that immediately on hearing the distressing cry, she came out to see the occurrence and thus, from her evidence, it could be seen that the place of occurrence is outside the house of the deceased; that it is also seen from the evidence of P.W.12, the Doctor, who gave initial treatment and also from the post-mortem certificate that there were 29 injuries external injuries found; that if to be so, blood would have been coming out, but when the Investigating Officer has prepared observation mahazar and the rough sketch, nowhere the bloodstains found on the ground was noted; that the bloodstained earth was not recovered and thus, it would be quite clear that it is doubtful that the place of occurrence was in front of the house of the deceased as put forth by the prosecution.c)Added further the learned Senior counsel that P.W.2 could not have seen the occurrence at all; that her house is situated two streets away from the house of the deceased; that according to her, she came over there on the date of occurrence; that the reasons adduced by her is not convincing; that had P.Ws.1 and 2 been present at the time of occurrence, certainly, the deceased, who has come for treatment, would have referred about their presence, but he has not done so; that it would be quite clear that neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 could have seen the occurrence at all; that the learned Senior counsel assailed the case of the prosecution by stating that the occurrence has taken place at 9.00 p.m. on 23.7.2000, but the F.I.R. reached the court at about 12.40 p.m. on 25.7.2000 and thus, there was an inordinate delay, which was never explained by the prosecution and that all would go to show that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case.d)The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that originally, when the deceased has given statement under Ex.P.27, he has referred the names of A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 and the elder brother of Murugan and also a few others; that it was alleged by the prosecution that the elder brother of Murugan was A-2, but no evidence was adduced in this regard and hence so far as A-2 was concerned, identity was not fixed by the prosecution; that even in the F.I.R., the names of A-2 and A-6 were not shown; that P.W.1 would claim in her evidence that she knew all the seven accused; that if to be so, even at the earliest statement given by her, she has referred only A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 and a few others and hence it would be quite clear that there was discrepancy and she has also made an attempt to develop her evidence before the court from the statement what was originally given; that all would be pointing to the falsity of the prosecution case.e)Added further the learned Senior Counsel that according to P.W.2, within half an hour from the time of occurrence, the police came there and recorded her statement; that if the prosecution case is viewed from this angle also, so much falsity was given entry and that the lower court has not considered any one of these aspects, but has found the accused guilty as per the charges and awarded punishments and hence in view of all the above circumstances, it would be quite clear that the prosecution has not brought home the guilt of the accused and therefore, the appellants are entitled for acquittal in the hands of this court.6.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.Though the case was originally registered under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder and other provisions, on his death, it was altered to Section 302 IPC for murder.Following the inquest made by the Investigating Officer, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.9, the Doctor, who has given his categorical opinion that the deceased died out of shock and haemorrhage due to 29 external injuries sustained by him.Thus, the prosecution has proved that the deceased died out of homicidal violence.This fact was never questioned by the appellants before the trial court or before this court and hence without any impediment, it has got to be factually recorded so.It is true, P.W.1 is the wife and P.W.2 is the sister of the deceased.It is a well settled proposition of law that merely because the eyewitnesses happened to be the close relatives of the deceased, their evidence need not be discarded, but it must be subjected to careful scrutiny test.Even after applying the careful scrutiny test, as done by the trial court, the court is thoroughly satisfied that their evidence has inspired the confidence of the court P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased.According to P.W.1, she along with Krishnan and other family members was taking food and Krishnan took food early and he went outside to purchase betel leaves and within a short span of time, she heard the distressing cry and came outside the house to see that the accused persons armed with deadly weapons were attacking the deceased.Merely because the deceased has not mentioned the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 at the time when he gave statement to the police, it cannot be a reason to reject their testimony.Further, the court must also take into consideration the anxiety with which he has given statement to P.W.11, who has recorded the same.Hence on that ground, the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 witnessing the occurrence cannot be rejected.9.So far as P.W.2 was concerned, it is true, she was residing in a house situated two streets away from the house of the deceased.She has categorically deposed that one and half month before she gave birth to a child and hence she was staying in her brother's house and on the date of occurrence, she was also taking food along with the family members.Therefore, this explanation given by her would clearly indicate that she was actually available at the time and place of occurrence.Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve her evidence.P.Ws.1 and 2 as eyewitnesses have spoken to the fact.At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the case was registered by P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, Tambaram Police Station on the strength of Ex.P.27, statement recorded by him when the deceased was at hospital at about 10.45 p.m. Much comment was made by the learned Senior Counsel that P.W.12 has medically examined the severely injured Krishnan at 10.35 p.m. as could be seen in Ex.P.32, the accident register copy.P.W.11 would claim that he recorded the statement of the deceased Krishnan at 10.45 p.m., which was marked as Ex.If really P.W.11 on intimation from the hospital, which is situated 25 Kms.away from the Tambaram Police station, went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased, he could not have reached the hospital and recorded the statement of severely injured Krishnan at 10.45 p.m. This contention cannot be accepted for more reasons than one.According to P.W.12, he treated the deceased Krishnan at 10.35 p.m. According to him, he was conscious and was speaking to him and it was he who stated that he was attacked in front of his house by known persons.At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the place of occurrence at the earliest was mentioned by Krishnan.P.W.12, the Doctor has also recorded the same in Ex.P.32, the accident register copy and the place of occurrence has been mentioned that it was in front of his house.Hence so far as the scene of occurrence was concerned, no doubt would arise.10.It is true, P.W.11 has not recovered bloodstained earth from the place of occurrence, namely in front of the house of the deceased.11.It remains to be stated that immediately after the occurrence, P.W.1 took the severely injured to Tambaram Police station, where she was advised to take him directly to Chrompet Government Hospital, where not even treatment was given, but she was again advised to take him to the Government General Hospital, Chennai immediately in view of the serious condition of the injured Krishnan.Thus, it has got to be pointed out at this juncture that P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, who came to know about the same and advised P.W.1 to go to Chrompet Government Hospital, has directly proceeded to the Government General Hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased.Hence P.W.11 has proceeded from the police station to the Government General Hospital not on the intimation of the Doctor, but even prior to that, since P.W.1 has taken the injured directly to the police station after the occurrence.Therefore, the contention in this regard cannot be accepted at all.P.W.12, the Doctor, who was on duty at the Government General Hospital, has examined the severely injured Krishnan and found him to be conscious and according to his evidence, it was he who noted the contents in Ex.P.32, the accident register.Hence Ex.P.32 is the earliest document where the deceased has mentioned that known persons have attacked him with knives in front of his house and in the considered opinion of the court, it seems to be a vital document in the instant case.It was the case originally registered under Section 307 IPC and not under Section 302 IPC.It cannot be disputed that there was delay in sending the F.I.R. to the court.The case was subsequently altered to Section 302 IPC.The court is of the considered opinion that the delay that was noticed by the court by itself will not in any way affect the prosecution case, since the court is able to see necessary evidence to find out the assailants guilty.13.Originally, the statement was given by the deceased himself, which was marked as Ex.In that statement, he has stated that he was attacked by A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 and elder brother of Murugan and a few others.The prosecution urged before the trial court that the elder brother of Murugan was A-2 and the lower court has also accepted the same.At this juncture, it has got to be mentioned that the identity of A-2 was not at all fixed and there was no evidence at all that the elder brother of Murugan was A-2 and hence the finding of the lower court in respect of A-2 cannot be sustained.Even from the version given by the deceased under Ex.P.27, it is stated that he was cut by A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5 and a few persons, but he has not mentioned their names.Though P.W.1 has claimed at the time of evidence that all the six persons were available at the place of occurrence, the earliest statement was only for four persons, namely A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 and hence all the three persons have been subsequently added.Apart from that, even the deceased himself has mentioned in Ex.P.27 the names of four persons, namely A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 and a few others, but who are those few persons and the prosecution has fixed them without any evidence.14.The Investigator has recovered the material objects on arrest and on confession and they were all subjected to chemical analysis.The prosecution came with the case that the accused persons have acted with common object.Though the prosecution was able to bring evidence in respect of A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 and a few others were also available, but they cannot be fixed.However, it could be found that A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 along with others were present and had a common object of murdering the deceased and that in furtherance of the common object, they have acted so.Hence from the available evidence, the prosecution was able to show evidence for A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 and for others, evidence was not available.It is to be noted that the names of A-2 and A-6 were not found in the F.I.R. and pending same one died.As could be seen, A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 have got to be found guilty under Section 148 IPC and also Section 302 r/w S.149 IPC.Hence the judgment of the trial court in respect of A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 have got to be sustained.So far as A-2 and A-6 are concerned, they are entitled for acquittal.15.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 by the trial court are confirmed.The conviction and sentence imposed on A-2 and A-6 are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. A-2 and A-6 are directed to be released forthwith unless their presence is required in connection with any other case.The fine amount if any paid by A-2 and A-6 shall be refunded to them.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu2.The Inspector of Police, Tambaram Police Station.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

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

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