Datasets:

Fawazzx

/

full

like 0

She stated that accused persons wereabusing, beating her daughter and pulling her hairs and they were not givingproper food to her.She advised her daughter to adjust as this witness hasgot five more daughters.She further stated that they had given Rs.10,000/- 28 in cash out of the income of rent received by her and she gave it to accusedNo.l through cheque and still accused persons did not stop ill-treatment andagain demanded money.Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of theKarnataka High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent-State ofKarnataka.Said Criminal appeal was filed under Section 378(1) and (3) ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code').The learned 3rdAdditional Sessions Judge, Dharwad, directed acquittal of the presentappellants who faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishableunder Sections 304-B, 306, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian PenalCode, 1860 (in short the `IPC').The prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:The accused No.1 is the husband of Ratnavva (hereinafter referred toas the `deceased') who was given in marriage to the accused No.1 about 1=years prior to her death and during their marriage, the accused No.1 wasgiven 11 tolas of gold and a cash of Rs.10,000/- alongwith other utensils.Inspite of all this, the accused were ill-treating and harassing the deceasedRatnavva coercing her to bring more dowry and accordingly a cheque ofRs.10,000/- was given to the accused No.1 by the mother of the deceased.But in spite of that the accused did not stop the ill-treatment, andharassment to the deceased Ratnavva.On account of constant harassmentand ill treatment to the deceased, they made the life of the deceased amiserable one which abetted the deceased to commit suicide.The accusedNo.1 is the husband of the deceased, the accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parentsin law, the accused Nos.4 and 5 are the sisters in law and the accused N0.6is the brother in law of the deceased.On the basis of information lodged, investigation was undertaken andon completion thereof chargesheet was filed.As accused persons pleadedinnocence, trial was held.2 In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined at thetrial PWs.1 to 18 and got marked in evidence Ex.P1 to P15 and Mos.1 to 12.Investigation was undertaken.The trial Court held that the Investigating Officer should not haveproceeded with the investigation as he was the complainant and on thatground held the prosecution version to be tainted.It also found that theevidence of the witnesses did not inspire confidence.Acquittal was challenged before the High Court, which on the otherhand held that the conclusions of the trial Court are erroneous.Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supportedthe judgment of the High Court.The matter has to be decided on case to case basis without anyuniversal generalization.On the facts of the present case A-1 went to lodge the report.The S.I.(PW-17) registered the case and on completion of investigation charge sheetwas filed by D.S.P.Section374 allows appeals from convictions.It may be stated that more or less similar provisions were found in theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as "the oldCode") which came up for consideration before various High Courts,Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as also before this Court.Since inthe present appeal, we have been called upon to decide the ambit and scopeof the power of an appellate court in an appeal against an order of acquittal,we have confined ourselves to one aspect only i.e. an appeal against anorder of acquittal.The Provincial Government preferred an appealwhich was allowed and the accused was convicted for offences punishableunder Sections 302 and 323 IPC.The High Court, for convicting theaccused, placed reliance on certain eyewitnesses.The aggrieved accused approached thisCourt.They demanded Rs.15,000/- and this witness wasunable to pay the same.The witness PW-12 deposed thatthe cheque has been encashed on 24.4.1989 at Syndicate Bank, Mundgor.The accused persons also admitted of having taken the cheque forRs.10,000/- but their defence is that accused No.1 was plying a truck andthe truck met with accident which required heavy repairs and so PW-2 hasgiven a cheque for repairs of said truck and not as dowry.To show that A-1was owning a truck for which he has produced the Xerox of R.C. Bookwhich shows the name of A-1 as per the owner of the truck bearingNo.To show that the said truck met with an accident accusedproduced the copy of extract of Register No.III Criminal from the Court ofJ.M.F.C. Khanapur which shows that the truck met with accident on26.12.1988 and as per the date of registration and F. I. R. and Register, thecase was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC, on the basis ofwhich, the accused pleaded guilty for the said offences and the accused wasconvicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.800/- respectively.29 From the above said document prima facie it is clear that A-1 was havingthe truck bearing No.MYE 5577 which met with an accident on 26.12.1988within the jurisdiction of Khanapur Court and defence of the accusedpersons appears to be more probable.At least it creates doubt regarding thecase of prosecution that the cheque for Rs.10 000/- - was given towards thedemand of dowry.PW-1 admitted in the cross-examination that accusedNo.2 is the native of Goshanatti in Khanapur Tal, and he has not got houseand land at Goshanatti.But she denied that accused no.2 is cultivating landspersonally.She also denied that accused Nos.3 to 6 were residingat Goshanatti.She had admitted that accused No.l was running the truck.She admitted that her daughter had come for delivery to her house and shestayed for seven months with them and after delivery after about threemonths, she went to her husband's house.She denied that they had paid thecheque for repairs of the said truck which met with an accident.PW-1's evidence is also significant.He stated his daughter and son-in-law-accused No. l came to his house and his daughter told that there is noill-treatment by her husband but stated that there is ill-treatment by accusedNos.4 to 6 and so, she does not want to go back and stayed there.In spite of the same, PW-1 stated that on the next day,his daughter and accused No. l went to their house.Another version givenby this witness is that accused No.4-Geeta had no issues and she wasinsisting the deceased Ratnavva to give her son in adoption to her, to whichshe refused and so accused No.4 started ill-treating her.This version isunbelievable, simply because, accused No.4 has no issues, it does not meanthat she same will insist her brother or her brother's wife to give their onlyson in adoption to her.Even assuming that she has demanded so, it does notmean that is demand of dowry so as to attract the provisions of Section 498(A) IPC.44. PWs 1, 2 and 5 i.e. father, mother and brother of the deceased do notspeak of any dowry demand.The High Court's reasoning that there wasnothing to show that A-1 owned a truck is contrary to the evidence onrecord.The impugned order of the High Court isset aside.The appeal is allowed.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 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 12.2.2020 in connection with Khanakul P.S case no. 224 of 2019 dated 21.8.2019 under sections 354C/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 66E/67A of the IT Act, And In Re : Jalal Uddin Mollick ...... petitioner Mr. A Bhattacharya ...... for the petitioner Mr. Iqbal Kabir ...... for the State Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

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

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

They also conducted chemicalanalysis test and thereafter entered into an agreement of sale with M/s.AllWorks Trading Private Limited of Malaysia, on 09.09.2017, to supply riversand of one lakh MT from Sungai Pahang River, Kuantan City, Malaysia.Afterobtaining certificate of Plant Quarantine from Government of Malaysia, thefirst shipment of sand of 55,443.84 MT reached Tuticorin Port in India on14.10.2017 through Indian waters by obtaining necessary permission from theDirector General of Lighthouses and Lightships, Ministry of Shipping.(iv) It is the further case of the writ petitioner that they had paid asum of Rs.1,80,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and eighty lakhs only) towards PortWharfage Charges, Port on-board levy charges, Port Royalty Charges, Port Levyfor Shore Handling Charges, Port Royalty Charges for Shore, Labour Charges,Customs Bill Filing Charges, Transport Charges, Yard Plot Rent, etc., throughthe clearing agent viz., M/s.Janaki Traders.The writ petitioner has alsopaid to the tune of Rs.38,39,347/- (Rupees thirty eight lakhs thirty ninethousand and three and forty seven only) towards Goods and Service Tax (GST).There is a prohibition underRule 3 of Rules 2011 and the sub Rule (1) of Rule 7 deals with theregistration of imported minerals, wherein exemption has been given forinspection, if the imported minerals of the are variety not available inIndia.For the minerals available in India, all the Rules applied to theregional mineral dealer are also applicable to the imported mineral dealer.Rule 8 of the Rules 2011 deals with the seizure and confiscation of minerals,which was not adhered to under the Act and Rules.(viii) It is further stated in the counter affidavit, that as perSection 4 (1A) of MMDR Act, no person shall transport or store any mineralotherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rulesmade thereunder.Section 21 Sub-clause (4-A) of MMDR Act, authorizes confiscation of any material, tool, equipment, vehicle, and other thingsseized under sub-section (4) by order of the Court.(b) The quarries of granites and other minerals, except, jelly, have to beperiodically closed to maintain ecological balance;(c) The respondents shall forthwith issue appropriate directions to theauthorities concerned enabling the importers to transport and sell the theimported river sand with appropriate directions to the importers to produceall the import related documents and maintain proper records reflecting thequantity imported, sold, stock in hand and other necessary particulars beforethe Mines and Commercial Taxes Departments respectively, to check evasion of taxes;(d) The State shall depute a team with experts from the Geological Departmentto identify, process and import the sands and minerals from countries whichpermit export and display them for public and the 15th respondent shall causeto effect a publication as to the countries which permit export of sand andthe procedures thereof to be complied with;(e) The State shall also take a decision to import river sand by the Stateowned Corporation itself to meet out the short-supply of sand within theState, if there is no other legal impediments;(f) The District Collectors and the Superintendents of Police of all theDistricts concerned, in consultation with the officials of the CommercialTaxes Department, shall issue appropriate directions to their SubordinateOfficers, to distinguish what kind of minerals, are permitted to betransported, inter-state or intra-state and what are the documents, requiredto be possessed and displayed to the officers, at the check posts, if any;(g) The State shall establish permanent check-posts within the State with theofficers equipped sufficiently to curb and prevent the illegal mining andtransportation of sand; the check post officers shall maintain the record ofall the vehicles crossing by; the State shall also fix camera at the checkposts and connect the same with a common server to ensure that illegal miningand transportation is curbed;If thegrantee of registration having more than one stockyard, each stockyard shallbe registered separately and From ?E? shall be maintained separately for eachstock yard.The stockyards are liable for verification at any time by theauthority or authorised officer.(iii) The grantee of registration shall allow any authorised officer at anytime to inspect the stockyard, factories to verify the stock of ores orminerals and take sample of the abstract from the records maintained by him.River bridges and railway tracks are severely damaged by sand miningin violation of rules and lease deeds.Flooding of agricultural lands due tobreak in linkage between discharge/channels and river basins.There isdestruction of Agriculture/Mangrove Eco System.Houses and buildings collapsedue to erosion.The groundwater table goes down in all the river basinsaffecting agriculture severely.The sand mining permitted in private landsadjacent to river beds enables private owners to encroach the river bedillegally.Drinkingwater has turned saline.Accidents occur due to heavy lorry traffic.Thenoise and dust thrown up by the lorries carrying quarried sand affect thepeople's health.It takes millions of years for natural denudation of hard rock into sand.Alternative materials have to be found to replace river sand inconstruction activities.Excessive deepening of the river bed due to sandremoval also accentuates soil erosion.Reduction in sediment supply from therivers due to indiscriminate extraction will deplete the quantum of beachsand which in turn contributes to increased erosion along the coast line.There is large scale illicit, irregular and illegal sand mining in theriver beds of Tamiraparani, Vaigai, Amaravathi, Palar, Araniyar, Kusasthalai,etc.The Hindu report says that rivers are being plundered by a powerfulmafia controlling the sand mining business.The illegal trade is driven bythe unholy nexus between contractors, politicians, trade union leaders,panchayat and revenue officials and corrupt policemen, making a mockery ofthe regulations imposed by the Government.Contractors who quote marginal amounts for auction rights go on to make a killing, extracting many times thepermitted amount of sand as enforcement agencies turn a blind eye.Very often policies are dictated by short termconsiderations such as elections or partisan pressure.The rules are notscrupulously followed in the matter of grant of permit for sand quarrying.Government officials who are supposed to check illegal sand quarrying joinhands with sand smugglers.Articles 48-A and 51A emphasize protection and improvement of the naturalenvironment including forests, lakes, rivers, wildlife and other livingcreatures.The phrase used is `protect and improve' which implies that thephrase appears to contemplate affirmative governmental action to improve thequality of the environment and not just to preserve the environment in itsdegraded form."The State is a trustee of all natural resources and is under a legalduty to protect them and that the resources are meant for public use andcannot be converted into private ownership." - M.C. MEHTA VS.(5) The encroachments are to be prohibited and existing encroachments are tobe evicted summarily from the river beds.(6) The Forest Department is to give special priority in conservation offorests at the origination point of the rivers."It appears that it was only a cry in wilderness.Nothing appears to havebeen done.On the contrary things have gone from bad to worse.The Hindureported about the battles between the District administration and the sandmafia.The report referred to the collapse of Karanodai Highway Bridge onChennai-Calcutta Highway and how the LakshmipuramAnicut across Araniar, on the northern outskirts of the city was washed away some years ago because itsstructure got weakened as a result of sand extraction around the Anicut.There should be a special river protection force mobilised for patrolling andpolicing the river areas and apprehending the culprits indulging in illicitquarrying.If thisproblem is not tackled urgently, the possibilities of damage to the bed andbanks of Rivers and streams causing irreparable loss to environment cannot beavoided.It is also pointed out that this socio-economic problem is exploited byantisocial elements, who encourage the villagers to remove sand illegally fortransportation to the city to make profit.It is suggested that the PWD maystudy in detail the banks of Kosasthalaiyar River to assess the damage causedto the bank and the basin so that a comprehensive picture may evolve totackle this problem during the heavy monsoons.It was also pointed out to the committee by the local people that in additionto removal of sand from the river bed, people are also engaged in activequarrying of sand in patta land adjacent to the river banks and that thisremoval of sand adjacent to the river banks has caused fluctuation of waterlevel in the neighbouring wells.Even though the rule prohibits removal ofsand upto 50 meters from the boundary of the river, sand is removed in thesafety zone area on either side of the banks at many places along theKosasthalaiyar river course.The localPublic Works Department officials deposed before the committee that they arehelpless and not able to do anything to stop the illicit removal of sand, asthey do not have any powers to take action on such illegal activity.Thelocal police are also reluctant to take action and advice to report theactivity to the local Tahsildar and by the time action has been taken,irreparable damage has been caused.The local Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officer of the region explained that this illicit activity iscarried out mostly during night time.They are unable to take effective stepsin this regard.The committee also examined the damage caused to Aranvoyal Anaicut near the 12/4-km stone of the Poondi-Tiruvallur highway.The main cause for this damage is illegal quarrying and over exploitation of sand from the Coovum riverbed.The illicit miners have caused irreparable damage to the riverbed and banksbecause of unscientific, indiscriminate mining methods.In the Palar atKancheepuram district a similar situation of meagre leases exists and thispromote illicit quarrying.So it is felt by the committee that immediatesteps have to be taken to grant leases in more areas for sand quarrying sothat sand is made available for the construction industry and thereby illegalquarrying is stopped.2.2.2 Gadilam, Pennaiyar and Malattar River beds in Cuddalore andVillupuram DistrictsIn Gadilam river in Thirumanikuzhi village, a lease granted was stopped bythe district authorities due to indiscriminate mining.The committee alsofelt that the action taken was justified.In the Pennaiyar riverbed, thequarry site at Melpattambakkam and Pulavanoor villages were visited.In thisriver course the centre of the river forms the district boundary forCuddalore and Villupuram districts.While bringing the sand bearing areas forauction the authorities from the two districts do not bring the adjacentareas for auction simultaneously.The concerned riverbeds are all dry and replenishment ismainly due to North East Monsoon.The committee feels that appropriatechanges are to be made in the rules so that only genuine people are permittedto participate in the auction.In the area leased out in Sithattur Thirukkai village extensive damageto the river bed is caused because of indiscriminate and unscientific methodof quarrying.The boundaries of the lease are not properly demarcated, and soillicit operations are carried out in the area adjacent to the leasehold.Even though large areas of sand are available in the river bed, the Districtauthorities are yet to take action to bring the areas for exploitation andthe committee was told that the proposals are also available for bringingthese areas for tender cum auction.In Villupuram and Cuddalore Districtsillicit quarrying in the areas adjacent to lease hold areas is observed inall the places visited by the committee.Sand is continuously removed andsent to Chennai to meet the demand there.2.2.3 Cauvery, Coleroon and Bhavani Rivers in Trichy, Karur, Namakkal andErode DistrictsIn Coleroon near Thiruvasi village a well-laid road was noticed inside theriverbed for removal of sand from the lease hold area.The road is seenrunning to a distance of 3 to 5 km covering mostly non-lease hold area.The examination of the area clearlyreveals that the lessee removed sand beyond 2 to 3m depths as large water-stagnated pits created due to sand mining were noticed in the riverbed.Several hutments are also seen in the riverbed.The lessee has also indulgedin illicit quarrying in the adjacent Namakkal district in the same riverbed....The committee visited the sand quarries in the Cauvery bed in Namakkaldistrict.Here alsoroad formation is seen inside the riverbed and sand is being quarried byrathole mining, which will affect the flow of water and the environment.InPanamugai village in Palar river bed, quarry operations were seen in depthbeyond three to four meters exposing the bed rock.In the riverbed in manyplaces huge ponds are formed due to illicit and deep sand quarrying therebyobstructing the free flow of water.It is also observed that the lessee isquarrying in the riverbed in the adjacent Vellore district-taking lease inTiruvanamalai district.In Vellore district near Perumugai villageindiscriminate mining of sand was noticed in Palar River in the leased area.In Sivagangai district the committee examined anexpired lease area in Kalpiravu village, in Vaigai riverbed, where illicitquarrying to a large extent is seen.The quarrying is carried out to a depthof more than one-meter thereby free flow of water in the river is hampered.There are a number of irrigation as well as water supply proposals betweenSilaiman and Manamadurai, in this riverbed.It is interesting to note that inVaigai river in some areas sand is available for removal but no action hasbeen taken because of objections from the public.The committee also visitedthe adjacent Sirugudi village wherein sand quarrying was seen in a pattaland.Here the lessee has removed sand for more than 10-m depth.This large-scale removal of sand will definitely hamper the river flow since the pattaland adjoins the Vaigai riverbed and thereby cause serious impairment to flowof water in the river.This in turn will cause serious damages to agricultureproduction downstream.Therefore, the committee feels that in patta land adjacent to the river noquarrying should be allowed within 250m distance of river boundary on eitherside.In Thoothukkudi District a sand quarry lease in Vaippar riverbed nearKilnattukkurichi village was visited.Here the District Collector has permitted the Koodangulam atomicpower project authorities to remove 8500 lorry loads of sand for theirconstruction work.Even in this area where government agencies have beenpermitted to quarry sand, sand quarrying is done in haphazard manner and thishas resulted in formation of pits in the river up to a depth of two to threemeters.The committee asked the District Authorities to inform theKoodangulam project personal to conduct the quarrying in a scientific way soas to prevent environment degradation of the area.2.2.6 Thenpennaiyar River in Dharmapuri DistrictThe committee visited Irumatur village near Thenpennaiyar River, where it isreported that illicit removal of sand in the riverbed in areas within 500meter of the TWAD board wells has caused health problems causing cholera.The examination of the area did reveal illicit mining in the areas adjacent tothe TWAD board wells and this has caused depletion of sand bed and consequential seepage of polluted water.The committee is of the opinion thatin all places where TWAD board has such water wells, areas around 500 meters should be handed over to TWAD, so that they can protect the area.They shouldbe given powers to take penal action against persons engaged in illicitremoval of sand from their protected area.The usage of poclains or heavy machinery was also banned.Thelarge scale illegal mining could not have taken place without the knowledgeof all concerned who were/are part of sand mining.The natural mineral, whichis the public wealth has been looted and squandered without restraintillegally.???The irresistible conclusion of the commission is that in all the sandquarries inspected by the team, there are violations both with reference topermitted extent and depth level of sand mining.Even in the virgin quarries,the MSL level and river bed level do not correspond with the GPS measurementstaken during inspection.The SEIAA is dependent on the informations submitted by the Government and it is unreasonable to expect the Government to file report against itself.Therefore, all the mandatory conditions remain as formalities and the breachof conditions go unnoticed by the agencies which grant permission for sandquarry.??Since the licensee is the Government, all the norms are violated withimpunity and yet the quarrying operation is allowed to continue.???So far, the lifting contractor has not performed any stipulated duty underthe terms of contract including backfilling of pits wherever warranted whichhas caused severe ponding effect throughout the length and breadth of riverCauveri which is a major stumbling bottle neck for the free flow of water.Excess mining beyond the permitted depth has resulted in reducing the groundwatter table and drawing of ground water from the neighbouring agriculturallands and human habitations to fill up the very deep pits that exist in theriver belt.Even after all, the committee?s and frequent intervention from thisCourt in many cases, the illegal mining in the state has not stopped and theEIA has also not been obtained by following the due procedures.The same isevident from the number of cases filed in 2017 for release of vehicle.The effect andimpact of mining has been a subject matter of concern throughout the world asit directly impacts the climate control.Many international conventions haveaddressed the issue.Many scholars have voiced their concern on the effectsof mining.The Dr.the undercutting and collapse of river banks,the loss of adjacent land and/or structures,3. upstream erosion as a result of an increase in channel slope and changesin flow velocity, and4. down erosion due to increased carrying capacity of the stream, downstreamchanges in patterns of deposition, and changes in channel bed and habitattype.???Both conditions produce slower stream flow velocities and lower flowenergies, causing sediments arriving from upstream to deposit at the miningsite.???As stream flow moves beyond the site and flow energies increase inresponse to the "normal' channel from downstream, the amount of transportedsediment leaving the site is now less than the sediment carrying capacity ofthe flow.???This sediment-deficient flow or "hungry" water picks up more sediment fromthe stream reach below the mining site, furthering the bed degradationprocess.?????Depletion of sand in the streambed and along coastal areas causes thedeepening of rivers and estuaries, and the enlargement of river mouths andcoastal inlets.It may also lead to saline-water intrusion from the nearbysea.?????Excessive instream sand mining is a threat to bridges, river banks andnearby structures.Sand mining also affects the adjoining groundwater systemand the uses that local people make of the river.???Instream sand mining results in the destruction of aquatic and riparianhabitat through large changes in the channel morphology.Impacts include beddegradation, bed coarsening, lowered water tables near the streambed, andchannel instability."Bird habitat???Physical disturbance of the habitat caused by dredging activities includesgeneration of noise, which can interrupt nesting / breeding activities.????Other effects include destruction of habitat for foraging and nesting,increased exposure to re-suspended toxicants, human disturbance from mining operations and increased predator use of recently dredged areas.Riparian habitat, flora and fauna???In stream mining can have other costly effects beyond the immediate minesites.???Many hectares of fertile land are lost, as well as valuable timberresources and wildlife habitats in the riparian areas.???Degraded stream habitats result in lost of fisheries productivity,biodiversity and recreational potential.???Severely degraded channels may lower land and aesthetic values. ???All species require specific habitat conditions to ensure long-termsurvival.???Factors that increase or decrease sediment supply often de-stabilize bedand banks and result in dramatic channel readjustments.???Mining-induced changes in sediment supply and channel form disrupt channel and habitat development processes.Biological environment???Introduction of abnormal volumes of organic material and nutrients, thusincreasing the biological oxygen demand (BOD), which in turn reduces oxygenlevels and productivity;The StateUltimately acquired about 9000 acres, and the legislature enacted a statutecrating the Greylock Reservation Commission.Although, the Constitution of India, which was enforced on 26.1.1950 didnot contain any express provision for protection of environment and ecology,the people continued to treat it as their social duty to respect the nature,natural resources and protect environment and ecology.No costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.The Secretary,The Union of India, Ministry of Mines,Shastri Bhavan,Dr.The brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal would runthus:-(i) The 1st respondent herein ( hereinafter referred to as the writpetitioner) has preferred a writ petition contending that the 1st respondent/ writ petitioner is a Private Limited Company provided with Import andExport Code (IEC) bearing No.0412018128 issued by the Ministry of Commerce and industries, the Government of India, in terms of the provisions ofForeign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act. Since then, the writpetitioner was doing the business.(v) After completing the formalities with the Customs Department andthe clearance from the Plant Quarantine authorities, the imported river sandwas permitted to be taken out of the Port.The writ petitioner was sellingthe imported river sand directly to the individual customer by proper invoicecustoms bill of entry and by hiring vehicles.When the river sand was intransit, the Inspector of Police, Aralvoimozhi Police Station, KanyakumariDistrict had seized the lorries along with imported sand and handed over thesame to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanyakumari District, who in turnhanded over the said lorries to the Assistant Director of Geology and Mines,Kanyakumari District.It is further statedthat the 1st appellant / the District Collector Thoothukudi District hadinstructed the V.O.Chidambaranar Port Trust, Tuticorin, not to allow anyprivate person / Government Firms or any other agency to transport theimported sand from the Port Yard.(vi) On the basis of the instructions, the Port Trust has issued acommunication dated 24.10.2017 to the clearing agent, stating that the Portwill not permit to transport away the sand.(h) The State shall initiate appropriate and immediate action against thepersons involved in illegal mining, transportation and storage in the Stateand proceed for the permanent confiscation of the vehicle involved in theillegal activities and cancellation of the Registration Certificate of thevehicle, without any scope for the owner of the vehicle to plead ignorance;(i) The State shall constitute a Committee to ascertain the loss caused tothe Government and take steps to recover the same from the Companies, individuals including the erring Government Servants, whose hand if found, beimmediately suspended and prosecuted as per law;(j) The imported sand must be tested before the goods are cleared, if QualityCertificate is not produced by the importer and for that purpose, scientificmethods for testing be deployed;(k) If any sale related to imported sand is proposed to be carried out, thesame has to be done by strictly following the provisions as well as the Rulesof local enactments, i.e., under the GST laws;(l) The State shall be at liberty to bring in an enactment to regulate andhandle such imported sand within the State, maintenance of records, etc;John Saw Mill Private Limited to implead them as 7th respondent in thewrit appeal.By consent, the main writ appeal itself was taken up and was heardin detail.We have heard Mr.The learned Advocate General further relied on the Foreign TradePolicy for the period from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2020, the Kerala Minor MineralConcession Rules, 2015 and the Goa (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage,and Transportation of Minerals) Act, 2013 and contended that the Rules akinto Tamil Nadu Rules would cover imported minerals and that as per the ForeignTrade Policy, covered the importer, who is obliged to follow domestic laws.Its disastrous effectis unimaginable.It has "crippled the riverine ecology and depleted theground water table resulting in a nascent desertification process".It hasaffected the stability of river banks leading to loss of whole chunks of landand making large areas flood prone.Drain channels to lakes, ponds, tanksirrigation are blocked since there is no more water.The river bed goes downfar below the receive canals.It has been identified as the main reason forthe water crisis.The potable nature of available drinking water is affectedas the sweet water acquifers (recharger and purifier) are destroyed byquarrying.It has increased the base flow of ground water to the rivers.Italso causes sea water intrusion further than usual upstream through backwaters and river mouths.As enough sand does not reach the river mouths tomake natural barriers along the coast, sea water and sand enter the backwaters and rivers.This ultimately leads to saline intrusion into groundwater.It has also seriously affected the structural stability of severalbridges.Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 containsparliamentary mandate to improve the environmental quality.The Courts areincreasingly relying on these directive principles as complementary tofundamental rights."People's Watch- Tamil Nadu is doing yeoman service in this field.Therewas a public hearing on the impact of sand mining under its aegis on 19-2-2002 at Chennai.It appears that there was very active public participation.I had the benefit of perusing the proceedings and I have incorporated thevaluable materials I gathered from the said proceedings in this judgment.SHANMUGAM, J. in W.P.Nos.10632/98 etc. by order dated 14-7-1999 directed the State Government to immediately take the following measures:"(1) To clearly define the river bank and fix permanent marks so as to enablethe clear determination of the river bank on either side in reference to allthe rivers in Tamil Nadu where quarrying sand is permitted or at least theportions over which quarrying is permitted.(2) To specify the normal sand bed level for the respective rivers and aftersuch demarcation, to mark the level with some permanent benchmark on the river bank for the purpose of quarrying.(3) To ban the removal or extraction of sand from such rivers where thepresent sand bed level is below the required level as fixed by the State.(4) To form a river management committee or an action committee by theDistrict Collector or the Tahsildar with the co-operation of voluntaryagencies so as to ensure that sand is being collected in strict compliancewith the restriction laid down by the authorities and the rules and the leasedeeds.The wastes and impurities especially those from the septic tanksshould not be permitted to open into the rivers.They should also be made to pay heavy compensation.However, the committee visited the Koasasthalaiyar riverbednear Karanodai Bridge, where illicit quarrying has caused damage to thebridge.The examination of the river course clearly indicates that the widthof the river has been widened due to removal of sands on both sides of theriver by illicit means.The Revenue officials of that region explained thatdue to failure of monsoon and lack of farm work the villagers indulged inremoval of sand.They projected this illicit activity as a socio-economicproblem.When the district authorities take action against the lessee for usingpoclain for sand removal they say that the poclain is used only for layingroad and not for sand removal and the Honourable Court also permits them touse poclain for road formation.Roads inside the riverbeds should not bepermitted.In the guise of laying roads in the leasehold area the lesseesengage poclains and remove sand indiscriminately and illicitly from largeareas.2.2.4 Palar and Cheyyar Rivers in Tiruvannamalai and Vellore DistrictsThe committee visited a lease area in Cheyyar River in Anapathur.Since there is no flow of water in the Palar river, only large ponds of waterare seen in the river bed which are standing examples for exposure ofgroundwater table.2.2.5 Vaigai, Vaipar, Tamiraparani, Chitrar and Nambiyar River in Madurai,Sivagangai, Thoothukkudi and Tirunelveli DistrictsIn Madurai sand quarry has been banned in Vaigai River.Inspite of the banreports of illegal quarrying of sand are received on the western and southernupstream side of the river.This may reduce to agreater extent illegal removal of sand and also environmental degradation ofthe riverbed.In Tamirabarani riverbed the Committee examined the lease areawhere quarrying in two places were allowed near Kansapuram village.Road was constructed in the river bed with the consent of the Public Works Departmentauthorities to remove sand.Here water is seen flowing throughout the year.Such construction of road will only obstruct the free flow of water and sandcollection in the river.In this riverbed also illicit removal andunscientific mining have made the river to appear as small ponds.NearSeevalaperi in the Chitrar River, a tributary of Tamirabarani River,indiscriminate quarrying has made the river appear as an undulated terrainwith large pits.Sand has been removed to a depth of two to three meters.Theriver has also been widened due to indiscriminate sand removal in adjacentpatta land to a depth of 3 meter.All these quarry operations are of illegalnature.Road has been formed within the riverbed for such illegal removal ofsand.The committee also examined leasehold areas in Rajakalmangalam in Nambiyar riverbed.In the case of M.Periyasamy Vs The State and others in W.P No 11182/2010, the Division Bench of this Court, while considering a plea toban mining in the Tamirabarani river bed, after analyzing the pitiablecondition and the rampant illegal mining, banned the mining for five years byits order dated 02/12/2010 and directed for a constitution of a state levelmonitoring committee to inspect the river beds in the state and only upon theinspection and recommendation of the committee, future mining can bepermitted.It isastonishing that the violation continue unabated with the SEIAA has noindependent powers for mechanisms for site inspection and to find violations.Impact on Ground Water Water quality???Sand mining and dredging activities,???poorly planned stockpiling and uncontrolled dumping of overburden,???and chemical / fuel spills affects the adjoining groundwater system willcause ???reduced water quality for downstream users,???increased cost for downstream water treatment plants???and poisoning of aquatic life.Ground Water ???Apart from threatening bridges, sand mining transforms the riverbeds intolarge and deep pits; as a result, the groundwater table drops leaving thedrinking water wells on the embankments on these rivers dry.??Bed degradation from in stream mining lowers the elevation of stream flowand the floodplain water table which in turn can eliminate flow depth and abar skimming operation increases flow width.

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard finally.This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the charge sheet filed against the applicants for offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. in Crime No. 269/2017 registered by Police Station Kurwai, Distt.The allegations made against the applicants would not amount to 2 instigation.Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State as well as Counsel for the Complainant, that by making false allegation of committing theft of Rs.300/- in the shop and beating the deceased, the applicants have abetted the deceased to commit suicide.Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.But the act of the applicants cannot be said to be an abetment or instigation to commit suicide.

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard finally.This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.176/2014 registered at P.S. Bilaspur, District Umaria for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 452, 506-B/34 of the IPC.The applicants are ready to co-operate in the investigation and trial.It is, therefore prayed that the applicants be released on anticipatory bail.

['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 11.12.2018 in connection with Uttarpara P.S. Case No. 727 of 2018 dated 29.09.2018 under Sections 326/307/354/354A/354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Trilok Nath & Anr.... ... petitioners Mr. Arup Kumar Bhowmick, Mr. Arnab Neogi ... ... for the petitioners Ms. Kakali Chatterjee ... ... for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Uttarpara P.S. Case No. 727 of 2018 dated 29.09.2018 under Sections 326/307/354/354A/354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners say that a minor issue as to where rival vehicles would be parked resulted in a violent scene and injuries suffered on both sides.The State refers to the case diary.Serious injuries were suffered by two persons.Considering the nature of the incident and the material against the petitioners, there may not be any need to take the petitioners into custody at this stage.In addition, the petitioners are directed to meet the investigating officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer, till the investigation is completed.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.Certified copies of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

MC 3343/2011 Page 3 of 5 inclined to quash the aforesaid FIR, then heavy costs may be imposed on the petitioners for substantial justice.MC 3343/2011 Page 3 of 51. Notice issued.APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.Respondent No.2 Mr. Varun Jain is personally present in the Court.MC 3343/2011 Page 1 of 5Respondent No.2 Mr. Varun Jain has been identified by the ld. counsel for the petitioners.In addition, he has also produced his PAN Card bearing No. AFMPJ0111N issued by the Department of Income Tax.He states that since he is living in the same locality, therefore, just to remove enmity with the petitioners he wants that the present FIR may be quashed.State of Punjab & Anr.in SLP (Crl.) No.8989/2010 Crl.MC 3343/2011 Page 2 of 5 wherein the Division Bench of the Supreme Court has referred three earlier decisions, viz, B.S. Joshi V. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.(2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma Vs, State & Ors.Avinash Balkrishnan & Anr.in Crl.W.P.No.995/2010 decided on 03.02.2011 whereby the Division Bench of Mumbai High Court has permitted for compounding of the offences under Section 452/324 of Indian Penal Code which were 'non-compoundable' as per Section 320 Cr.P.C. and the FIR No.50/2010 registered at Amboli Police Station, Andheri dated 06.02.2010, was quashed.Therefore, I feel that unless and until, the decisions which have been referred above, are set aside or altered, the same decisions are the precedent and have binding effect.In the above circumstances, I quash the aforesaid FIR No.672 dated 06.09.2007 under Section 452/324/380/427/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at PS Shakarpur and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.APP for the State.Ld. counsel for the petitioners, on instructions from the petitioners, submits that they wish to contribute some amount for the welfare of the orphan children and destitute women.Keeping in view the submission of the ld. counsel for the petitioners, I direct both the petitioners to pay Rs.75,000/- each in favour of the Nursery Primary School for Deaf, B-Block, Kalkaji, New Delhi within two weeks from today.Proof thereof shall also be placed on record.The Principal of the said school is directed to keep the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in FDR initially for a period of three years to be renewed periodically.The interest accrued on the same amount shall be utilized for the well being of the needy children of the school.MC 3343/2011 Page 4 of 5MC 3343/2011 Page 4 of 5M.C. 3343/2011 is allowed and disposed of accordingly.SURESH KAIT, J NOVEMBER 14, 2011 RS Crl.MC 3343/2011 Page 5 of 5MC 3343/2011 Page 5 of 5

['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

It is further contended that the applicant is a Patwari and respondent No. 2/complainant has filed a private complaint against this applicant along with two others on the ground that the land bearing survey No. 104, admeasuring 5 bighas and 14 biswas, situated at Patwari Halka No. 20, Village Barakalan, Tehsil Vijaypur, District Sheopure has been recorded as a Government land reserved for Government pond.Every year Government is auctioning this land and from 1997 complainant is taking the land in auction and cultivating but in the meantime the applicant and Naib Tehsildar in connivance have granted Patta over this land to Ajuddibai wd/o Ramratan.The Naib Tehsildar was not having any right to allot the Patta of the said land, as he was functioning as Incharge Tehsildar on that day.ORDER A.K. Gohil, J.Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in a private complaint Case No. 40/2003, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vijaypur, District Sheopure, for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code.Earlier M.Cr.C. No. 2795/2003 was disposed of with a direction to the applicant to appear before the Trial Court and to furnish bail, as he was summoned through bailable warrant.The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the offence under Section 467, IPC though is triable by Magistrate First Class but is a non-cognizable and non-bailable offence and punishment of imprisonment of life or imprisonment of ten years and fine has been prescribed therefore, the Magistrate First Class is not having jurisdiction to grant the bail in cases where sentence of imprisonment for life has been prescribed for a particular offence and if the applicant will appear even after issue of bailable warrant, he shall be arrested and shall be committed to prison.Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh has already rejected his anticipatory bail application.Second application was entertained.

['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ad Kotwali, Bhopal in the interest of justice.It is not disputed that the then Mutawali late Ahmad Ali Khan of vide registered deed dated 30.03.2011 appointed the petitioner rt Mubashir Masood Khan as Nayab Mutawali for the waqf properties.ou Waqif late Jafar Ali Khan vide registered deed on 06.10.1945 created Waqf Alal Aulad.By registered deed dated 30.03.2011, the petitioner got ig right and possession of the waqf property for managing the affairs.It H is alleged that the MP Waqf Board wrongly appointed Jafar Ali Khan (minor) as Mutawali through his mother and natural guardian Smt. Mehanaz Khan.The petitioner again represented on 18.07.2014 for a appointing him as Mutawali of the waqf and the same is still pending hy before the Board.The petitiner being a care taker of the ad waqf was trying for betterment of the waqf property over which the M previous Mutawali late Ahmad Ali Khan obtained permission and no objection certificates for construction of waqf property.It is contended that even after consultation and consent of the Board and intimation to the CEO Nisar Ahmed, no objection was ever raised.But after seven months, the CEO started harassing the petitioner at the behest of Smt. Mehanaz Khan natural guardian of Jafar Ali Khan.The CEO issued show-cause notice dated 02.07.2015 to the petitioner.The Waqf Tribunal allowed the appeal on 07.03.2013 and the matter was remaded back for providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties.As per the Waqf Act, 1995 enacted by the Parliament, the appointment of Mutawali has been provided and in Section 3(i) mutawali has been defined.Jafar Ali Khan assailed the order dated 15.07.2013 in Civil Revision before this Court (in C.R.NO.The Waqf Board while issuing order dated 10.05.2013 imposed the condition that the petitioner shall consult with the Board for management of waqf and construction of its properties.However, because the process was initiated for Pr constitution of new Board, no order on the application could have been passed.ou However, the CEO issued show-cause notice dated 17.11.2014 on C different issues.The construction work started from 19.12.2014 for which permission was already obtained by earlier mutawali Ahmad Ali Khan from the waqf board.The petitioner filed his reply on 30.07.2015 denying all the allegations mentioned in the show-cause notice.The petitioner intimated the Board about the progress of construction and stated that construction work is going on as per directions and conditions of the NOC issued by the Municipal Corporation and the Board.The CEO again issued show-cause notice dated 04.09.2015 and issued directions to the Collector and Municipal Corporation, Bhopal for cancelling the permission for construction and further directed to stop the construction work.It is claimed that the action of the CEO is arbitrary, sh discriminatory and without jurisdiction.The petitioner further claims e that the Chairman of the MP Waqf Board was intimated about the ad illegal act of the CEO.The hy petitioner filed reply on 10.09.2015 i.e. within three days as ad stipulated.However, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, CEO vide order dated 09.09.2015 removed the petitioner from the post of Care of Taker of the Waqf, the petitioner alleged that the action of the CEO is because of ulterior motive and at the behest of interested rt persons.The CEO has no authority to cancel the appointment of the ou petitioner as care taker.The petitioner has also taken further permission from Municipal Corporation and NOC from Nazul Department.An amount of about Rs.25 Lacs were spent in this construction work.However, the Waqf Tribunal vide order dated 22.09.2015 rejected the aforesaid prayer.It is claimed that the Tribunal failed to see that the Chairman in its reply categorically stated that issuance of show-cause notice has not been approved by the Board.The Board meeting held on 29.12.2014 agenda No.22 was discussed in relation to the present petitioner.The Tribunal also failed to notice that the permission was given by the Municipal Corporation in accordance with law.It is claimed that the order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and facts and from perusal of the note-sheet it is amply clear that sh the CEO kept the matter pending for many months and not inclined to e get the meeting held in the Board and in shrewd manner got the same ad prolonged, to any how not to comply with the directions of the Waqf Pr Board.Smt. Mehanaz Khan (aunt of the petitioner) was very interested in the waqf property.She preferred litigation before the waqf hy tribunal and before the Court.Thereafter the CEO on 25.06.2015 asked all the branches to prepare the agenda.Again the CEO kept the file pending with him for more than seventy days and noted on 01.09.2015 and forwarded the same to the Chairman where Chairman again on 02.09.2015 pointed out the CEO for forwarding the incorrect facts.CEO again on 04.09.2015 mentioned the case of the petitioner which shows that the CEO was not at all serious with the issue and was trying to linger on the meeting.The impugned show- cause notice is contrary to law because issuance of the same has been recalled by the order of the Waqf Board by which the petitioner has been appointed as care taker.The CEO has exercised his power beyond jurisdiction.The State of M.P. has disassociated itself from the dispute M between the parties.Arguments heard and perused the record.Appointment of Jafar Ali Khan as Mutawali through her C natural guardian was set aside on 07.03.2013 by the Waqf Tribunal.h Vide order dated 15.07.2013, the appeal filed by Jafar Ali Khan ig against the above order was also dismissed by Waqf Tribunal.In the H allegations made in the FIR, it is only said that the petitioner has acceded the jurisdiction of construction in the waqf properties.The petitioner though has denied the same.If any file is produced before the Chairman, Waqf Board, the same be not left with the personal secretary of the Board for a long time.The complaint dated 14.09.2015 addressed to the police station Kotwali, Bhopal indicates that there has been civil dispute between the parties.The appointment of the petitioner as Mutawali was cancelled on 09.09.2015 whereas the permission was granted on 22.07.2014, i.e. before the order of cancellation of appointment.

['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT Mukerji, J.The above mentioned two revisions have been referred to a Division Bench because a question of law of some importance called for decision.The cases, out of which these two revisions arose, were tried by Magistrates as in both cases complaints had been filed alleging that offences punishable under Section 323 and Section 440, Penal Code had been committed by the accused.In Criminal Revision No. 959 of 1953 the learned Magistrate who tried the case convicted the accused both under Section 440 and Section 323, I. P. C. The Magistrate awarded a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 440 I. P. C. and imposed a fine of Rs. 100/- each under Section 323, I. P. C.In Criminal Revision No. 2036 of 1953 also the Magistrate convicted the accused both under Section 323 and Section 440 I. P. C. He awarded a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- to each accused under Section 323 and a similar sentence of .six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 150/- to each accused under Section 440, I. P. C.: the sentences of imprisonment, however, were directed to run concurrently.Appeals were preferred in both the cases by the convicted accused and the appeals were heard by the respective Sessions Judges.The appeal, out of which Criminal Revision No. 959 of 1953 has arisen, was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Jaunpur, Mr. C. A, Buck, while the appeal, out of which Criminal Revision No. 2036 of 1953 has arisen, was heard by the learned Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur, Mr. Tamil Ahmad.The Additional Sessions Judge of jaunpur while disposing of the appeal, which had been preferred to him, came to the conclusion that the offence under Section 440, I. P. C, had not been made out on the evidence and that the only offence that had been made out on the evidence was an offence punishable under Section 323, I. P. C. The learned Judge, therefore, made the following order:"The result is that as Section 323 I. P. C. is triable by the Panchayat Court in view of Section 56, Panchayat Raj Act I allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and the sentence of the appellants and direct the trial Court to send the case for trial 'de novo' to the Panchayat Adalat having jurisdiction in the case."In the appeal that was before the learned Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur the learned Judge came tp the conclusion on the evidence that the conviction under Section 440, I. P. C. had not been made out but that the offences which had been made outon the evidence on the record were (1) and offence punishable under Section 426, I. P. C. and (2) an offence punishable under Section 323, I. P. C. The learned Judge, therefore, maintained the conviction of the accused under Section 323 but altered the conviction under Section 440, I. P. C. to one under Section 426, I. P. C. Under Section 426 the learned Sessions Judge imposed -a fine of Rs 25/- on each of the convicted accused.Two revisions were preferred against the two aforementioned decisions to this Court.In the Jaunpur case it was the complainant that preferred the revision and his main contention was that the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to remand the case to the trial Court with the direction to send the case for trial 'de novo' to a Panchayati Adalat.

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(Mentioned) akd CRM 2076 of 2011 Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 7th March, 2011 in connection with Minakha P.S. Case No. 162 of 2010 dated 31st July, 2010 under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section120B of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Usuf Molla @ Hasa .... Petitioner.Mr. Sanat Chowdhury.... For the Petitioner.Ms. Rita Dutta.... For the State.Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brings to our notice that in the order dated 29th March, 2011, as this Court had not directed it to be subject to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is not prepared to accept the bail bonds.We make it clear that it is not necessary for this Court to specify in its order that the bail should be as per the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, the concerned Court has to be satisfied about the genuineness of the surety and bail bond.Our order clearly specifies the amount of surety and the conditions imposed by releasing the petitioner on bail.We direct the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat to accept the order of bail and get the bail bond executed on being satisfied as to the genuineness of the surety.Registrar General is directed to circulate copy of this order to all the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in the State of West Bengal.Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied on priority basis.( J. N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE) (ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J.) 3 CRM 2076 of 2011

['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.

The charge against the second respondent is not sustainable.The prosecution story goes thus: Mr. M. B. Malhotra was the Chief Executive of Ramon Services Pvt. Limited and an associated company Figurette Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. drawing a salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month.He had started a business of manufacture and sale of certain instruments for the development of male organ, which was a mail order business.This business was carried out in the name of his wife Mrs. Malhotra.The respondent No. I was the Chief Inspector, Food and Drugs Administration, Bombay Division and he was holding charge of Assistant Commissioner (advertisement), Head quarters, Bombay at the relevant time whereas the respondent No. 2 was working under respondent No. I as a Drug Inspector, Intelligence Branch, Food and Drugs Administration, Bombay.The a respondent No. 1 and his staff along with the police officers went to the house of Mr. & Mrs. Malhotra on 4-8-1977 and seized certain leaflets and booklets connected with the business of Mr. Malhotra.It was alleged that there was some objectionable matter in the leaflets and booklets distributed by them during the course of their business which was styled as "Ultranorm".Certain articles were also seized from the residence of Malhotra couple.Mr. Malhotra was arrested and released on bail later.On 5-8-1977 Mr. Malhotra contacted the respondent No. 2 on telephone and asked for a meeting with him in the office.At that lime he-enquired about the objectionable matter in the pamphlets so that he could remove that matter while reprinting the pamphlets.The respondent No. 2 then went to Mr. Malhotra's office at 6.00 p.m. on that day.Mr. Malhotra then took the respondent No. 2 to his house for picking up Mrs. Malhotra.The respondent No. 2 asked to Mr. Malhotra at that time as to what amounts he is offering to respondent No. 1 for making the case against Mrs. Malhotra mild.They took respondent No. 1 with them and went to hotel Horizon at Juhu.The respondent No. 1 was not satisfied with this amount.He insisted that Mr. Malhotra should, pay to him Rs. 2000/-.The respondent No. 1 told the respondent No. 2 to accept Rs. 1000/- when Malhotra told him that he did not have any more money with him at that time, and respondent No. 2 then accepted that amount.All along Mr. & Mrs. Malhotra were pleading to respondent No. 2 to persuade respondent No. I to satisfy with this amount of Rs. 1500/-.On 24-8-1977 Mr. Malhotra contacted, a Minister of the Maharashtra State and narrated; the entire story to him.The Minister asked him to' go home and wait there.At 6.00 p.m. on that day Mr. Dabholkar, Assistant Commissioner of police, Inspector Sawant and Inspector Parulekar of the Anti-Corruption Bureau came to the Residence of Mr. Malhotra.They recorded mis complaint Exh.28 and a crime was registered and the investigation was taken up by the officers! Thereafter the above police party had made several attempts to trap the respondents 1 and 2 in their telephone conversation with Mr. & Mrs. Malhotra. Those conversation were tape recorded.Attempts were made on 2/3 occasions to make payments to the respondents with notes to which anthracene powder was applied.However there was no demand for payment on those occasions.Ultimately on 3-10-1977 Mr. Malhotra went to the office of respondent No. 1 with five notes of Rs. 100/- each to which anthracene powder was applied.Mr. Malhotra went out of the cabin of the respondent No. 1, after having talk with him.There was no demand by the respondent No. 1 at that time also.Mr. Malhotra P.W. No. 1 stated in his evidence that he was dealing in an item based on a method recommended by Dr. Chartham, a Marriage Counsellor of U. K. This item was for the development and increasing the size of the male organ.He was running a company named 'Ultranorm' for selling these items.He was working as the Chief Executive of Ramon Services Pvt. Ltd. and he was getting a salary of about Rs. 10,000/- per month.He learnt from his wife that on 4-8-1977 that some officers of the Food & Drugs Administration wanted to meet them.He went to his house and saw the respondent No. 1 and other officers at his residence.The respondent No. 1 informed him that there was some objectionable matter in the leaflets, which was using forgetting orders during the course of his business.They seized the leaflets and articles found in the house under a panchanama.A case was registered against Mrs. Malhotra, and she was released on bail in due course.Mr. Malhotra further deposed that he was required to pay bribe forgetting his wife released on bail and also for getting the dates of hearing from Court to some persons.According to Mr. Malhotra he went to the office of respondent No. 1 on 8-8-1977 to enquire about the objectionable words in his pamphlets.The respondent No. 1 did not give any reply to him, but respondent No. 2 said that they should meet in the evening.The respondent No. 2 came to Mr. Malhotra's office at 6.00 p.m. and then they went to the residence of Mr. Malhotra for picking up Mr. Malhotra.The respondent No. 2 spoke to Mr. Malhotra when the driver of the car had gone to call Mrs. Malhotra that when the amount offering should be Rs. 1000/-, Rs. 1500/- or Rs. 2000/-.The respondent No. 2 said that the respondent No. 1 would make the case against his wife mild and save her from harassment.After Mrs. Malhotra came down, all of them went to the residence of the respondent No. I when the respondent No. 2 went to call the respondent No. 1, Mr. Malhotra spoke to his wife about the demand.He then kept Rs. 1000/- in a packet.and they will meet afterwards etc. As rightly pointed out by the Court below that if one goes by the conversation of tape, Article 7, it appears that the witness was referring to one thing and the respondent No. 2 was giving answer to another thing.It has come out in the evidence that on 26-8-1977 since Mr. Malhotra did not receive any telephone call from the respondent No. 2, he went to his office but respondent No. 1 was not there and he had some talk with respondent No. 2 only.This tape was marked as Article 13 on side B. The same procedure also followed before the conversation was taped.The voice of panchas were first recorded and kept in the purse of Mrs. Malhotra.Mr. Malhotra spoke to the respondent No. 1 about the promise to clear the balance of Rs. 500/- and the reply of respondent No. 1 was that their work should be done first and then they would see about.It is the case of Mr. Malhotra that when this conversation was re corded, the police officer who is a colleague of respondent No. 1 was present at the time of conversation but there Was no explanation from the prosecution why this police officer was not examined.They had a detail discussion about the contents of the draft and respondent No. 1 asked them to submit the amended draft and Exh. 33 is the amended draft and Exh. 32 is the covering letter of the draft.It is come out in evidence that the respondent No. 1 then asked the complainant to come to his office on 29-7-77 for collecting the approved draft.To their great surprise, according to this evidence, on 28-7-1977 when Mr. & Mrs. Malhotra came back to their home at 1.30 p.m. they found that the respondents and some other police officers were present in the office.Then he offered tea from the Government canteen to the complainant.On 3-10-1977 when he came out from the cabin of accused No. 1, accused No. 2 followed him.Accused No. 2 told him that he would wait downstairs while he was taking the letter from Mr. Naggauda, which was addressed to him.Thereafter Mr. Malhotra and accused No. 2 went to his car.They sat on the rear side.Mr. Malhotra suggested to accused No. 2 that they would go to his house but accused No. 2 wanted to get to Worli at an early hour.On the way Mr. Malholra took the accused No. 2 for tea to the Copper Chimney Hotel.From there Mr. Malholra suggested to accused No. 2 whether the money should be handed over in that place.Accused No. 2 refused to accept the money because there are several persons.However, Mr. Malhotra ordered a packet of Cigarette at the instance of accused No. 2 and he told the accused No. 2 to keep that packet.They went out after finishing tea.This conversation has been proved by P.W. No. 4 Vijaya Gharat who was a member of trap.Nothing has come out to disbelieve this witness.Lower Court has wrongly rejected this part of his evidence.Both of them resumed their journey in the car after leaving the hotel.According to Mr. Malhotra, at that time accused No. 2 demanded the money.The accused No. 2 accepted those notes and keep them in the left pocket of his bush shirt.Accused No. 2 got down from the car, crossed the road and went away.Mr. Malhotra gave the signal as prearranged by removing his wrist watch and keeping it in his pocket.The raiding party which was all along following them came there and Mr. Dabholkar told Mr. Malhotra to wait in the car.He waited there for three hours.It is the evidence of P.W. No. 4 punch that after accused No. 2 getting down from the car and went across the road.Accused No. 2 entered Jayesh Medical Stores.The raiding party was following him.Mr. Dabholkar followed the accused No. 2 and told him that he was police officer.Then accused No. 2 took out the bundle of notes from his left pocket of the bush shirt and threw it.The note's were removed with his left hand.The bundle of notes was thrown on a chair which was behind the counter and near the writing table.At that time Mr. Malhotra was called to the Medical Store.His clothes and hands were examined.He stated that on 9-9-1977 he was told to remain with Mr. and Mrs. Malhotra and to watch what was happening.He kept away from them when Mr. & Mrs. Malhotra went to the office of the accused.JUDGMENT T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.This is an appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra against the acquittal of the Respondents Ramdas Shankar Kurlekar (Accused No. I) and Bhalchandra Dattatraya Kasodkar (Accused No. 2) by the impugned order dated 8th and 9th of August 1984 by Special Case No. 29 of 1980 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for Greater Bombay.The respondent No. 1 was charged for the offence punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and under Section 161 of the I.P.C. and respondent No. 2 was charged for the offences under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and Section 109 and 265-A read with Section 161 of the I.P.C.The charge against the first respondent in short was that while he was employed as Chief Inspector, Food and Drugs Administration, Bombay Division, Bombay, was holding the charge of the post of Assistant Commissioner (advertisement) at Head quarters, Bombay, attempted to obtain a sum of Rs. 2000/- and accepted the sum of Rs. 1500/- on 8-8-1997 and 29-8-1977 as part payment through respondent No. 2 as gratification other than legal remuneration, for showing a favour or disfavour in exercise of official function to one Mr. Malhotra in the matter of prosecution against Smt. Malhotra under the provisions of Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 vide C.R.No.The allegation against the respondent No. 2 in short was that while he was employed as Drug Inspector, Intelligence Branch, Food and Drug Administration, Bombay Division attempted to obtain a sum of Rs. 2000/- and accepted the amount of Rs. 2000/- in all in the aforesaid dates as part payment for and on behalf of the respondent No. I as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive to do official acts or showing favour in the official function of respondent No. 1, in the matter or prosecution against Smt. Malhotra wife of Mr. Malhotra, and aided and abetted the respondent No. I to commit the-offences referred to above.The Court below by the impugned judgment acquitted the first respondent for the reason that the allegations against him has not been proved.The second respondent also was acquitted by the Court below on the ground that since first respondent was acquitted of the offences and charge against second respondent was only abetment of committing offence by the first respondent.Panchas and the members of the raiding party followed Mr. Malhotra's car in another car.Mr. Malhotra had suggested to the respondent No. 2 that the payment can be made when they are having snacks and tea in a hotel.They went to a hotel Copper Chimney.The panchas heard the talk from another table in the hotel.The respondent No. 2 refused to accept the amount there because of the crowd.Mr. Malhotra and the respondent No. 2 then left the hotel and went in the car towards Sayaji Mill compound.The respondent No. 2 demanded the money at that time and Mr. Malhotra paid him Rs. 500/-.He handed over the notes to which anthracene powder was applied.Respondent No. 2 got those notes and put in his front pocket of his shirt.The respondent No. 2 left the car and went towards Jayesh Medical Store.Mr. Malhotra came out of the car and gave the agreed signal to the raiding party who was following them all along.The members of the raiding party went behind the respondent No. 2 and caught him in the medical store.The respondent No. 2 threw away the notes on a chair in the store when he was caught by the police.His hands and pockets were examined under ultra-violet rays and traces of anthracene powder were noticed on his hands and the pocket.Other articles in his pocket and also had traces of powder which were seized.After the investigation is over, Government sanction was obtained and the charge-sheet was filed against the respondents in the trial Court.Before the Court the respondent totally denied the charges.The explanation of respondent No. 1 is that Mr. Malhotra had lost his job because of the raid on his house and the publicity given to the case in the newspaper.In fact the respondent No. 1 was prepared to help Mr. Malhotra within the legally permissible limit.He was not prepared to go beyond or to do any favour outside the law.His further case is that Mr. & Mrs. Malhotra was taking revenge against him.The respondent No. 2 also took up a stand that the case against him eminates out of revenge and he did not demand or accept any bribe from Mr. Malhotra on behalf of respondent No. I. According to him Mr. Malhotra, handled the notes marked with anthracene powder and then gave him a cigarette packet in the hotel Copper Chimney.He then shook hands with him when he went away from the car.Mr. Malhotra threw the notes on the chair in the medical store while the raiding party caught him.After the respondent No. 2 came with respondent No. 1 all of them went to hotel Horizon at Juhu in their car.Mr. & Mrs. Malhotra were liquor permit holders.All of them had drinks in the permit room except the respondent No. 1, who had apple juice.During the course of the dinner Mr. Malhotra took out the envelope containing Rs. 1000/- and kept it on the table between the respondents.Mr. Malhotra told them that the envelope contained Rs, 1000/-.Then the respondent No. 1 went to the toilet.The respondent No. 2 said at that time that the respondent No. I would not accept less than Rs. 2000/-.Mrs. Malhotra told the respondent No. 1 on his return that he should accept Rs. 1000/- as they did not have more money.It is said that the respondent No. I became angry and demanded Rs. 2000/- for making the case mild.The amount of Rs. 1000/- was picked up by the respondent No. 2 at the instance of the respondent No. I when Mr. Malhotra told him that he did not have more money at that moment.Mr. Malhotra said that he could make a further payment if they insisted on it.They went back after the dinner was over.Mr. Malhotra produced Exhs.18 to 26 the bills from the hotel Horizon.Prosecution relied on the meeting of the parties in the Horizon Hotel to prove the demand and acceptance of the amount by the respondents.The prosecution has produced the hotel bills Exh. 18 to 26 as corroborative materials.Exh. 18 is the liquor bill in the name of Mr. Malhotra.19 and 20 are the memorandum about the liquor supplied to the parties, which are in the name of one Mr. Pareira.It is rather suspicious that when Mr. and Mrs. Malhotra was having liquor permits why those liquor bills showed the name of Mr. Pareira.The bills Exhs.21 to 23 shows that there were four persons in the party.If Mr. Pariera also joined then total members of the party must be five.Therefore these bills do not corroborate their visit to the hotel Horizon when the deal was stuck.It has to be concluded that the demand of Rs. 2000/- and acceptance of Rs. 1000/- on 8-8-1977 at the hotel Horizon is on a shaby premises.The learned A.P.P. Mr. Maheshpurkar tried to impress upon us about the predicount circumstances that Malhotra couple was landed because of the raid and seizure of pamphlets from their residence, and this respondent No. 1 will be able to save them from that situation and in that circumstances Malhotra's evidence regarding the visit of Hotel with the accused has to be believed.We cannot accept this content because the corroborative evidence is lacking in this case.Moreover Mrs. Malhotra was already prosecuted and fined and though no question of making the case against her mild.Further, prosecution was not able to show any provisions of law or rule that Respondent No. 1 has the authority to approve the pamphlets.The learned A.P.P. brought to our intentions the evidence of Mr. Malhotra contacting respondent No. 2 and cite the telephone Conversation between them which spell out the roll of respondent No. I in this case.We examined that circumstance also.The case of Mr. Malhotra is that he tried to contact the respondent No. I over telephone in an attempt to record the conversation in tape and to bring out the complicity of respondent No. 1 into the offence.Mr. Malhotra deposed in his evidence that on 23-8-1977 he made a telephone call to respondent No. 1 and the reply of respondent No. 1 was that he would contact later.Mr. Malhotra says that respondent No. 1 also told him that he would come to his office at 1.00 p.m. when the respondent No. 2 came to the office at 12.45 p.m. and he told him that respondent No. 1 would not do his work unless the balance of Rs. 1000/- was paid.Mr. Malhotra's evidence shows that he then told the respondent No. 2 that he did not have Rs. 1000/- at that time and the he would pay Rs. 500/- after he received his salary.It is the evidence of Mr. Malhotra that since respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not contact till the next day he made a complaint to the Minister Mr. Leon D'souza on 24-8-1977 about the incident.We cannot accept the evidence of Mr. Malhotra without any other corroborating evidence.His evidence has to be tested in the background of how bad the situation which was brought to the life of Malhotra couple by the acts of respondent No. 1, and how badly they want to take a venge against the respondents.Although Mr. Malhotra was trying to trap the respondent No. 1 desparately with the help of the Minister.This was demonstrated by several frustrated attempts made by them in recording telephone conversation be tween the respondents and the complainant.According to Mr. Malhotra on 25-8-1977 the police officers came to him with panchas and a radio mechanic.Mr. Malhotra was informed by the police that they wanted to verify the truthfulness of his complaint by having a record of the telephone conversation between him and the respondent.The panchas and Mr. & Mrs. Malhotra were given a demonstration showing that the tape was to be used was blank.Also they were tutored by the police about the procedure of taping the conversation.Then the cassette was sealed in a packet under the signatures of the panchas.On 25-8-1977 the first conversation on telephone was recorded on tape.The conversation was about whether respondent No. 2 has paid the amount to respondent No. 1 and whether respondent No. I will wait for the balance of Rs. 500/- till he got his salary and the reply of respondent No. I was that they would meet afterwards.This tape was produced before the Court, and was played.The tape also revealed that whenever Mr. Malhotra tried to indicate about the amount of balance, the reply of respondent No. 2 was only Na.The respondent No. 1 seized some rent receipts and documents from the house.Mr. Malhotra de posed that on seeing the respondents in their house he thought lint they had come for collecting balance of Rs. 500/- What disclosed from the evidence of P.W. No. 1 is that both parties are trying to trap each other.Enstrangement between the parties were so severe, that no prudent officer would enter to any bargaining with P.W. No. 1 This ends again at the root, of the prosecution case of demanding the bribe by respondents.On 29-9-1977 another attempt of taping the conversation was made, in the conversation, complainant had asked accused No. 2, whether he was to come to his office for payment of balance.Respondent No. 2 told him to come to the office at 3.00 p.m. when the accused No. I was there.Therefore it was decided that a trap should be laid for the accused.A tape recorder was kept in the complainant's brief case.Currency notes covered with anthracene powder were kept in the packet of the complainant.Complainant then went to the accused No. 1's office after starting the tape recorder.The complainant then told the accused No. 1 that he had brought the balance of Rs. 500/- and that he was willing to pay.Accused No. 1 then told not to worry about it and they will see about it later.The complainant stated further that he asked whether accused No. 1 would send accused No. 2 to collect the money.Though accused No. 2 was called there he was not available.They had a discussion about the draft.In the meantime accused No. 2 came there.There was no talk to money after that.However accused No. 1 further told the complainant to come on 3-10-1977 for approving the draft.This tape Article 9 was heard in the Court.The complainant's voice was heard without the voice of ringing of the telephone and without the notice of the voice of the operator; The complainant however was unable to explain this position.a reference to the balance in the voice of the complainant is.heard on the tape.The accused No. 2's answer to that is that about which balance he was referring to.The complainant however repeatedly made references to the balance in Hint, but apparently the accused No. 2 did not understand what the complainant was saying.He was simply saying "Na, Na, Na" implying thereby that he understood what the complainant said Then the talk was about the draft which was discussed with Mr. Nadgauda.From the further conversation in the para, it appears that the complainant tried to fix up an appointment.There is nothing further relevant on the tape.The complainant stated that on the same day another trap was laid for the accused.He went to the office of the accused No. 1 on 29-9-1977 with a tape recorder.It was recorded on Article 13 which was heard in the Court.That accused No. 1 made a statement to the effect that the police were not concerned with it.Then he stated that he had already told the complainant that they were interested in clearing his pamphlets.After hearing this tape, trial Court has observed that there was no reference to money.The lower Court has observed that there is no reference to money from the accused No. 1's reply.He has denied the correctness of the complainant's substantive evidence point to point.The lower Court has after going through this tape recorded evidence has found that it is clear that accused No. 1 did not make any demand when the complainant went to him with money on 29-9-77 and the complainant' went back after the trap was found unsuccessful.The complainant went to the office of the accused No. 1 with the tape recorder in his brief case.He started the tape recorder before entering the office.Accused No. 1 told him that he had given the draft to Mr. Deshpande at the Bandra office for legal opinion.The complainant has stated that he asked the accused No. 1, why not meet in the evening as we met last time.The accused No. 1 stated that he was busy-in the evening.The complainant then suggested to the accused No. 1 that they should go out for tea.The accused No. 1 told him that he just had his lunch.The accused No. 1 said that the accused No. 2 would go with him for tea.The accused No. 2 went out and then came back within two or three minutes.The complainant closed his brief case for taking out his papers and then he had kept it open for recording the conversation on the tape recorder.The relevant para of the conversation was recorded.The words "like last time we go somewhere ..." are in the voice of the complainant.The next words "Dekhenge . .fir . . .They were not at that place.It is the case of the complainant that one Mr. Annappanwar was present when the accused No. 2 suggested to him that he and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 should meet in the evening.But Mr. Annappanwar was not examined to corroborate the complainant's testimony on this point.It is significant to note that the complainant admitted that the trap laid for payment of Rs. 500/- to the accused No. 1 on 8-9-77,9-9-77,29-7-77 and 3-10-77 that the accused No. 1 did not demand any bribe on these occasions: The trial Court was critical about the admissibility of tape recorded conversation between the parties.It had pointed out certain tape recording, cannot be accepted on evidence at all.It has seen in certain tape after the conversation, certain video music was heard, which lost its credibility as suspected to be tampered with.Even the other evidence on record show that each party are preying each other and trying to single out after trap laid against each other.It is not safe to rely upon Mr. Malhotra's evidence to come to the finding that respondent No. 1 had demanded Rs. 2000/- from him.It has come out that the case registered against Mrs. Malhotra was 3 petty case punishable with a small fine.Mrs. Malhotra however pleaded guilty in that case and was fined Rs. 200/- only.He has specifically admitted that the bribe was demanded and paid only for the purpose of making the case against his wife mild.But this version has been contradicted by the witness at a later stage saying that the bribe was to be paid for approving the amended draft pamphlet.This contention coupled with admissions made by the complainant in para 215 of his deposition that the accused No. 1 never demanded any bribe from him during any part of the conversation with him.He further stated that the accused No. 1 did not even suggest or give a hint of a demand of bribe.We therefore confirm the view of the lower Court that the only motive for making this complaint for taking revenge against accused No. 1 for the raid conducted by the accused in his house which has been given wild publicity about the nature of the business carried on by Mrs. Malhotra and because of the publicity he was hurt and he had to resign his job.Attempts for tape recording of conversation failed, independent corroboration of the evidence of P.W. No. 1 was absent.Motive of P.W. No. 1 is to spite the respondents glaring.Therefore in the light of the above discussions, we find that the prosecution has failed to establish that the respondent No. 1 demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 2000/- from Mr. Malhotra and the order of the trial Court in acquitting the respondent No. 1 fully justified and hereby confirmed.Now the question is whether there is any justification in acquitting accused No. 2 in this case.The lower Court has taken a short cut and acquitted the accused No. 2 that the charge against accused No. 2 is only for abetment and when the charge against accused No. 1 was not proved or established then the charge Against accused No. 2 is not maintainable.On these premises the accused No. 2 has been acquitted by the Court below.According to him there are enough evidence independently to implicate the accused No. 2 in this case.This conversation was recorded on 28-7-1977 when the Anti Corruption Bureau came to their house.It was recorded in the conversation as Mrs. Malhotra saying to accused No. 2 about her problem that because of that case her husband lost his job and having no business and they have already agreed all demands of accused No. 1, and she sought the accused No. 2's help.In reply to this accused No. 2 appears to have told her that he could not meet respondent No. 1 but he will see him at his residence as he is not coming to the office.Accused No. 2 further stated that he will go on that day or on the next day and then discuss.Then again accused No. 2 said "No. No. No. " there is no question of this one.He will see him personally.This taped conversation cannot be relied upon because it appears that Mrs. Malhotra was calling for accused No. 1 The voice of the panch was recorded at 1.22 p.m. The witness was heard to be speaking at 2.30 p.m. The telephone-operator informed her that the accused No. 1 was not available.No reasonable explanation was given fop-further! conversation recorded on the tape.This further conversion could not have been recorded on the tape unless the tape was taken out of the sealed cover and then Mrs. Malhotra made another attempt to contact the accused No. 1 on the telephone.It is marked as tape Article 11 which was played in the Court.This conversation was recorded on side 2 of the tape.The lower Court has noted that some music was heard on the tape.But Mrs. Malhotra was unable to explain as to how the music was heard on the tape.Anthracene powder was seen on the fingers and palm of his right hand.The powder was seen on the inner side of the pocket in which the notes were kept.Mr. Malhotra's wrist watch was found in his left pocket.Therefore the traces of the powder were found on the strap of the watch.The trap arrangement has also spoken by the witness P.W. No. 4 panch.However he did not go near the cabin and he did not see Mr. and Mrs. Malhotra entering any particular cabin.He remained in the Varandah.After some time accused No. 2 and Mr. Malhotra went in Malhotra's car.He was following the car of Mr. Malhotra in another car.The witness was stating every minute details of event that had happened while they follow the Malhotra's car.He stated that Mr. Dabholkar was only 4/5 feet away from the accused No. 2, when he entered the medical shop.The distance between the counter in the shop and the road is only one foot.The flap of the counter was at one end.The accused No. 2 opened the flap and went behind the counter.Mr. Dabholkar followed him through the open flap.He and other panch went behind the counter after Mr. Dabholkar.The chair was on the opposite side of the table from the flap.The distance between the flap and the table was 4 feet.The notes were lying folded on the chair.They were not scattered.P.W. No. 3 Mr. Champaklal is the partner of the firm which owns Janata Medical Store.He stated that there was no money with the accused.The money in dispute was found on the chair behind the counter.He also spoke about the examination of the accused's hand with ultra-violet lamp.This witness though declared hostile, stated that according to him, the money could have come and fallen on the chair only if the accused No. 2 had thrown it.In his opinion, the notes could not have been fallen on the chair in any other way.He admits that he was afraid of accused No. 2 as he might cause some damage to him if he gave evidence against him.The facts remained is that even P.W. No. 3 deposed that he threw the notes on the chair On examining the materials in this case there is sufficient evidence to hold that the trap was successful and the money was thrown by the accused No. 2 on seeing the police officer Mr. Dabholkar, P. W. No. 8 in the chair of the Medical Stores.Therefore, now we have to come a most important stage of the case.Merely because accused No. 2 was trapped and notes were recovered from his pocket whether it can be safe to conclude that he demanded and accepted the money, as an illegal gratification for doing a favour or disfavour.As noted earlier, this has been rejected on two grounds, namely inconsistency regarding the purpose of the bribe pleaded and proved by the prosecution.At one stage the prosecution witness says that the bribe was sought to be given to make the case against Mrs. Malhotra, P.W. No. 2 mild.

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

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

of the Indian Penal Code.The present case was initiated at the instance of the opposite party no.2 Rina Routh.The petitioners have sought for proceeding being Charge Sheet No.93 of 2016 dated 2nd August, 2016 under Sections 341/354/323/506/114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 arising out of Taltala Police Station Case No.35 of 2016 dated 1st March, 2016 under Sections 341/323/504 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G.R. Case No.276 of 2016 now pending in the court of learned Judge, Bench-1, City Sessions Court inter alia on the grounds that the case has been initiated to harass the petitioner and to wreck vengience against them.Now the petitioners being the accused persons and the defacto complainant opposite party no.2 have jointly entered into an amicable settlement of their disputes by and between them which is reflected from the averments made in the application whereby and whereunder an appropriate order has been sought for having effected compromise arrived between them.In view of the settlement by and between the parties and upon hearing learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned advocate for the opposite parties, the proceeding under reference being G.R. Case No.276 of 2016 in connection with the Taltala Police Station Case No.35 of 2016 dated 1st March, 2016 under Sections 341/354/506/114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is hereby quashed.The application being CRR 3093 of 2016 and the application being CRAN 352 of 2018 are disposed of.(Shivakant Prasad, J.)

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ORDER J.B. Goel, J.This criminal revision petition is directed against judgment and order dated 6.2.1996 and 19.2.1996 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicting the petitioner under Section 279/304-A, IPC and sentencing him to RI of one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 304-A, IPC, and the judgment of the Appellate Court dated 29.9.1998 confirming the conviction but reducing the sentence from one year RI to RI of six months.Briefly, the facts are that the deceased Subhash Pahwa along with his pillion rider Harish Chand while going on a two wheeler scooter No. HR-29-5686 towards Rohini side at about 9.00 a.m. at Road No. 41 were hit by truck No. DIL-836 from behind.Both of them had fallen down.Subhash Pahwa had sustained head injuries and died at the spot whereas the pillion rider got some injuries.Report was lodged by Harish Chand on the basis of which FIR was registered.Petitioner's truck was seized and he was arrested at spot.He was held guilty and convicted.Learned Counsel for the petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of the conviction on the following contentions:The identity of the offending vehicle has not been established.The identity of the deceased has not been established.4. PW-3, Harish Chand Joshi was the pillion rider with the deceased.He has deposed that Subhash Pahwa was driving the scooter who had died in the accident in question at spot.His dead body was taken for post-mortem.He was not cross-examined regarding his accompanying the deceased or about the identity of the deceased.PW-5 Dr. L. J. Ramani has deposed that on 22.1.1991 he conducted the post-mortem on the body of Subhash Pal s/o Hans Raj aged 34 years and his report is Ex. PW-5/A. According to the postmortem report Ex. PW-5/A, the name of the deceased is Subhash Pahwa s/o Shri Hans Raj aged 34 years.In the testimony of PW-5, there is obviously accidental mistake due to typographical error and the name of "Subhash Pal" instead of "Subhash Pahwa" has been wrongly typed.PW-6, ASI Vijay Singh had drawn inquest report Ex. PW-6/C on the dead body.In this also, the name of the deceased is Subhash Pahwa s/o Hans Raj aged 34 years.No suggestion was put to him about the identity of the accused.However, in the statement of the accused u /Sec.313, the name of the deceased put is "Vajpaya" to which his reply was "I do not know".Obviously, this question is based on the material on record.The identity of the deceased was thus correctly established and it was Subhash Pahwa and none else who had died in that incident.This plea has no merit.Point No. 2: Identity of the Offending VehicleThe Courts below have not tried to find out the correct offending vehicle.6. PW-3 is the eye witness.He has deposed that it was Truck No. DIL-836 which had caused this fatal accident and this truck was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/B at spot.He was not cross-examined about the identity of truck.PW-2 had conducted mechanical inspection of this Truck No. DIL-836 vide his report Ex. PW-2/A. He was also not cross-examined.PW-6, ASI (IO) on this aspect has deposed that he had reached the spot on receipt of DD No. 26-A where a dead body was lying in accidental condition and Truck No. DIL-836 was found in stationary position a bit ahead of the dead body and the truck was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex. PW-3/B and the accused who was present at the spot was interrogated and was arrested.The accused in his statement u/Sec.313 also had admitted that on 21.1.1991 at about 9.30 a.m. he was driving the truck No. DIL-836 at the time and place of the occurrence.In the statement of PW-4, Ct.The figures "0" and "3" are not legible.This error obviously is also an accidental mistake.In view of other material, no reliance could be placed on this circumstance also.Such plea has not been taken before the Trial Court and also the Appellate Court.No prejudice has also been caused for this small accidental error.This plea also has no merit.Point No. 3: Identity of the AccusedHe has not identified the accused in the Court.8. PW-3 has deposed that he could not identify the truck driver after 3 years.But he has also deposed that the truck involved was No. DIL-836 and its driver was arrested at the spot on which he had not been cross-examined.PW-6, IO has also deposed that when he reached the spot, the truck driver Mohkam Singh was also present at the spot.He interrogated and arrested him, identified him in the Court and proved his arrest vide Memo Ex. PW-6/D. He was also not cross-examined on this aspect.The accused in his statement u/Sec.313 has admitted that he was driving truck No. DIL-836 on the day, time and place of the occurrence.In view of this material, it cannot be said that the accused was not the person responsible for this accident.The Appellate Court has also considered this plea but in view of the material on record it has not found favour with it.This plea also has no merit.Point No. 4: Regarding Rashness or Negligence10. PW-3 has deposed that after taking turn towards Road No. 41, they had travelled about 15 to 20 yards and were going near the Road Divider when a truck came from behind with fast speed and hit their scooter as a result of which he and the deceased fell down with their scooter.He got minor injuries and saw that Subhash Pahwa's head had been crushed (Sir Ka Ander Ka Hissa Bahar Nikla Chuka Tha); that the truck was stopped at about 25-30 yards away by a rickshaw-wale by putting his rickshaw in its front; that the truck had hit their scooter from its right side.Obviously, the truck driver had overtaken from left side of the scooterist.Site plan Ex. PW-6/ B also so depicts the scene.The plea taken during arguments before the Trial Court is that "the scooter collided with the Road Divider and consequently fell down on the road and the rear wheel of the truck ran over the head of the deceased.Revision petition dismissed in limine.

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

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

1215/2018 & 1216/2018 Page 1 of 17 16.11.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-02 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case SC No.29026/2016, FIR No.177/2011 for offences punishable under Sections 393/394/398/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Lahori Gate, Delhi, whereby, appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years each for the offence punishable under Section 393 read with Section 398/34 IPC and to pay a fine of 12,000/- each and in default thereof, they would have to further undergo SI for three months.Appellants were also sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years each for the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC read with Section 398/34 IPC and to pay a fine of 13,000/- each and in default thereof, they would have to further undergo SI for three months.The amount already paid as fine vide judgment dated 03.10.2013 was directed to be adjusted.Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was also given to appellants.1215/2018 & 1216/2018 Page 1 of 171215/2018 & 1216/2018 Page 2 of 17 Smt.Sadiya PW-2 and opined simple injuries on her right hand finger and palm.The prosecution has also examined Sh.Akif Amani, a public witness as PW- 5, who had allegedly handed over the accused persons to the police and also handed over the knives to the police but he has subsequently turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case at all.1215/2018 & 1216/2018 Page 2 of 17It is submitted that as per statement of Akif Amani (PW-5) recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C., he had stated that after hearing noise from House No.1219, he alongwith Mohd. Ramiz and Aman Kapoor entered house of complainant and saw two persons having knives in their hands who had surrounded Sadia, Nadia and Hadia.With the help of Sadia, Nadia and Hadia, he over- powered both the persons.Those two persons threw the knives on the ground.Thereafter, two police persons alongwith SI Bharat Ratan also reached at the spot and Akif Amani (PW-5) handed over apprehended persons and their knives to police.The names of apprehended persons were revealed as Saurabh S/o Santosh R/o Sarai Meera, Distt.Kannauj, UP and Hari Shankar S/o Ram Gulam R/o Moholla Bajariya Shikhana, PS & Distt.Kannauj, UP.Akif Amani denied entering the house of Mohd. Rizwan after hearing noise of family members of Mohd. Rizwan.He denied that after seeing him and other persons of the locality, persons who entered in the house of Rizwan threw away their knives on ground or that PW-5 & others over- powered them.He has further denied that he handed over those persons to police with knives.He further denied that accused persons present in Court were present in the house of Mohd. Rizwan and both of them had caused injury to Sadia W/o Mohd. Rizwan.PW-5 has also denied that he alongwith Aman Kapoor apprehended both accused persons and handed over them to the police with knives.It is important to record here that appellants herein were earlier tried and convicted.They accepted the same, since they pleaded guilty, though not properly, as per the law and procedure laid down.Thereafter, by CRL.As.1215/2018 & 1216/2018 Page 17 of 17The present appeals have been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the judgment dated 13.11.2018 and order on sentence dated CRL.As.It is not in dispute that vide order dated 10.04.2012, joint charges were framed against appellants under sections 393/394/34 IPC and under section 397 IPC.The appellants pleaded not guilty and faced trial.3. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the prosecution has examined total five witnesses.PW-1 Dr. Lalit Sagar who had examined CRL.As.The said fact was confronted to him by learned APP during his cross-examination as Ex.PW-5/1, but PW-5, Akif Amani has denied CRL.As.1215/2018 & 1216/2018 Page 3 of 17 having made any such statement to the police.The seizure memo of appellant bears signatures of Mohd. Ramiz, HC Kundan and SI Bharat Ratan.Even the sketch of knife bears signature of Mohd. Ramiz and SI Bharat Ratan and Left Thumb impression of appellants.But none of the witnesses were examined by prosecution.Therefore, recovery of alleged knife from appellants and the sketch of knife were not proved against appellants.1215/2018 & 1216/2018 Page 3 of 17Accordingly, learned APP suggested that they can be released subject to imposition of a heavy fine on them.At that stage, a joint plea of guilt of confession of appellants was recorded.Consequently, they were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 393/394/397/34 IPC vide order and judgment dated 03.10.2013 and vide even date sentenced to undergo for a period already undergone in the Jail during the pendency of the trial since 21.12.2011 to CRL.As.1215/2018 & 1216/2018 Page 4 of 17 03.10.2013 i.e. almost one year and 10 months and to deposit a fine of 50,000/-.1215/2018 & 1216/2018 Page 4 of 17It is not in dispute that the fine amount was deposited on 5.10.2013 and appellants were released from jail.Being aggrieved, the State (respondent herein) challenged judgment and order on sentence dated 3.10.2013 passed by Trial Court and same was allowed vide judgment dated 16.3.2016 in Crl.A. 417/2014 with the following direction:Thereafter, Trial Court convicted appellants through a common judgment dated 13.11.2018 and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.Counsel for appellants submits that present appeals have been filed on the ground; the court below committed error in convicting appellants for offence punishable under Section 398 IPC alongwith Sections 393/394/34 IPC by ignoring the fact that for holding appellants guilty under Section 398 CRL.As.1215/2018 & 1216/2018 Page 5 of 17 IPC, appellants at the time of committing alleged robbery or dacoity must be armed with deadly weapons.However, in present case, knife allegedly recovered from appellants was put on a white paper and sketch of the same was prepared.Length of blade of one of the knives is 15.5 cm and the width is 2.6 cm and length of blade of second knife is 20 cm with 3.3 cm width.Whereas, according to Schedule-I of Arms Rules, 2016 to bring the alleged knife into the definition of deadly weapons, the length of the blade should be longer than 9'' and width of the blade should be more than 2".However, dimension of both knives is less than that.Therefore, alleged knives are not falling under definition of deadly weapons and appellants cannot be convicted for offence punishable under Section 398 IPC.1215/2018 & 1216/2018 Page 5 of 17Further, this is a case of double jeopardy.Appellants were arrested on 21.12.2011 and were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 393/394/397/34 IPC.Vide judgment dated 03.10.2013, they were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 393/394/397/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone i.e. from 22.12.2011 to 03.10.2013 (about 1 year and 10 months), and further, to pay a fine of 25,000/- each.Thus, appellants cannot be again tried or convicted on the same set of facts or any other provision of IPC arising out CRL.As.1215/2018 & 1216/2018 Page 6 of 17 of the same set of facts.However, appellants have been again convicted for the offences under Sections 393/394 IPC read with Sections 398/34 IPC.PW-5 has also denied that in his presence, police measured knife and prepared sketch of knife on the spot.Further denied denied that knives were taken into possession and were converted into CRL.As.1215/2018 & 1216/2018 Page 12 of 17 Pulanda.He also denied that his true and correct statement was recorded by police or the same had been read over and explained to him in detail.1215/2018 & 1216/2018 Page 12 of 1721. PW-5 has further stated that in this case, he had signed some papers but does not know on how many papers he has signed.He has denied the suggestion that police had recorded his statement on 21.12.2011 mentioning that he alongwith Aman Kapoor reached at the house of Mohd. Rizwan after hearing some disturbance.However, PW-5 has admitted to his signatures on the sketch of knives, but stated he cannot say at what place the police had prepared said documents.He has denied the fact that police had prepared sketch of knives at the place of occurrence.In the impugned order, the learned ASJ has observed as under:PWs 2 to 4 had deposed that both accused were armed with knives.Thus when a person carried a weapon with him with the intention to use it if the occasion requires, he is liable by Section 398 IPC.To attract Section 398 IPC what is required is that accused should be armed with a deadly weapon at the time of attempt to commit robbery or dacoity.1215/2018 & 1216/2018 Page 13 of 17Thus from the testimonies of PWs 2 to 4 and medical evidence, it has been established that accused Hari Shankar and accused Saurabh were armed with knives and accused Hari Shankar inflicted injury on PW-2 with a knife.PWs 2 to 4 had identified both accused correctly and also testified regarding the recovery of knives from the possession of both accused.Both accused were apprehended at the spot with knives.43. PW-1 Dr. Lalit Sagar, SR(Ortho) had proved the MLC of the complainant Ms.Sadia/PW-2 stated that on 21.12.2011, he examined complainant and found wound on right index finger size 3 X .5 cm, another wound 5 X .5 cm over distal palmer region, and a wound 3 X .5 cm over third web-space and clinically no bony and tendon injury, his findings on the MLC No.2619 Ex.PW1/A and he opined simple injury from the Ortho side on the person of complainant Ms.Sadia."Regarding size of knives, learned APP has relied upon case of Sonu @ Shahnawaz vs. State (NCT Govt. of Delhi): CRL.Appeal No.1141/2017 passed by this Court on 19.11.2019 whereby in view of observations made by Supreme Court in Phool Kumar vs. Delhi Administration : 1975 (1) SCC 797 and Ashfaq vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) : (2004) 3 SCC 166 and decisions of this Court in Salim vs. State (Delhi Administration): (1988) 14 DRJ 85, Ikram Ansari vs. State: (2014) 8 High Court Cases Del 277 and Sanjay Kumar vs. State: 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4846, it was held that it is not essential to categorise the knife in order to determine whether it is a deadly weapon.Thus, irrespective of whether a knife is a kitchen knife, CRL.As.1215/2018 & 1216/2018 Page 14 of 17 or a butcher knife, it would qualify as a deadly weapon for the purposes of Section 397 of the IPC.1215/2018 & 1216/2018 Page 14 of 17It is pertinent to mention here that earlier, appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 393/394/397/34 of IPC vide order dated 03.10.2013 and thereafter, this Court remanded the matter back to Trial Court and thereafter, appellants have been charged and convicted for offence punishable under Section 398 IPC in addition to Sections 393/394 r/w 34 IPC and were released on sentence already undergone with fine amount of 25,000/- each.Be that as it may, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that since the appellants, pursuant to order of conviction dated 03.10.2013 were released from jail after completion of 1 years of incarceration, he prays that appellants accept conviction under Sections 393/394/34 IPC and seeks directions to be released on the sentence already undergone.1215/2018 & 1216/2018 Page 15 of 17 impugned order, they were again convicted for the offences punishable under section 393/394/34 and section 398 IPC.1215/2018 & 1216/2018 Page 15 of 17However, fact remains that charge was not framed against the appellants under section 398 IPC.The Trial Court has convicted them on the basis of observations made by this Court vide order dated 16.03.2016 in Crl.A. 417/2014 filed by the State of NCT of Delhi.Moreover, evidence was not led to substantiate the offence under section 398 IPC.As discussed above, PW-5 has not supported the case of prosecution regarding the fact that appellants were apprehended and knives were recovered from them.Said witness has not identified the appellants.On the seizure memo Ex.PW-5/1, PW-5 has denied his signatures.Mohd. Ramiz, HC Kundan and SI Bharat Ratan, witnesses of seizure memo, have not been examined.Thus, said recovery of knives has not been proved.In view of above, this case deserves to be remanded for fresh trial.Fact remains that from the testimonies of PWs 2 to 4, it is evident that petitioners were prime accused and according to medical CRL.As.1215/2018 & 1216/2018 Page 16 of 17 evidence, injuries were inflicted upon PW-2 (Sadia) and the fact that appellants are happy with conviction under sections 393/394/34 IPC.1215/2018 & 1216/2018 Page 16 of 17Accordingly, I hereby set aside conviction order dated 13.11.2018 to the extent that appellants were convicted under section 398 IPC.However, rest of the said conviction order remains intact.Consequently, order on sentence dated 16.11.2018 is also set aside to that extent.Accordingly, above orders are modified.However, while maintaining conviction under section 393/394/34 IPC, justice would be met, if appellants are released on the sentence already undergone.Copy of this order be transmitted to Jail Superintendent concerned and Trial Court concerned for necessary information.(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE MARCH 19, 2020 ab CRL.As.1215/2018 & 1216/2018 Page 17 of 17

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard Sri Sundeep Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.(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.

['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.

Assessing the case of the prosecution as it comes to beestablished in evidence is that P.W.1 Muthammal the wife of the deceased woulddepose that the first accused is her husband's elder brother and the secondand third accused were also known to her; that her husband was born with fourothers including the first accused; that pledging the properties belonging toall the brothers, the first accused bought the tractor and since he did notrepay the loan amount, notice was issued by the Bank to the effect that hadnot the loan been settled, the lands would be sold in auction and therefore,himself and yet another brother Sella Pandian took the decision to sell awaythe tractor and a portion of the land belonging to the first accused andsettle the dues to the Bank and sell their properties and the said proposalwas forwarded to the first accused for which he did not consent; that aftertheir brother Sella Pandian leaving for Madras, the first accused came to herhusband and challenged his life for having taken such a decision; that shecautioned her husband to be careful; that about four years back, her husbandwent to the fields at 9.00 p.m. one day along with one Murugan and the nextday morning by 4.00 a.m., herself and her relative Ramakrishnan went to thefield to supply coffee to her husband when all the three accused went to thepump-set room with Aruval and they followed them closely and in a short while,the accused entered into the pump set room and has assaulted him on hisshoulder, neck, hand and near the eye and on various parts of the body causinginjuries all over the body and the third accused assaulted him standing at theentrance of the motor room; that the said Murugan also woke up and startedshouting but the accused having warned him against informing the same toanyone with their life and ran towards south; that her husband diedinstantaneously on the spot; that herself and Ramakrishnan came to the Villageand informed the elders and thereafter went to Kayatharu Police Station andlodged the complaint with the Inspector of Police who reduced the complaintinto writing and herself signing the same, the said Ramakrishnan attested thesaid complaint which is Ex.She would also identify M.Os.P.Ws. 3 and 4 would not adduce any validevidence and they would deny knowledge of anything about the incidence or anyother fact connected to the case.P.W.5 another brother of the first accusedand the deceased would speak to the effect that he is working as DeputyManager in Pallavan Transport Corporation; that the first accused and thedeceased are his brothers and he knows the second and third accused also; that10 or 14 years back, the first accused pledging the properties belonging toall the brothers obtained the tractor loan and did not repay the amount; thatnotice had been sent to him and the other brothers from the Bank warning thatif the loan was not paid, their properties would be sold in auction andtherefore, they took the decision to sell away the tractor and the portion ofthe land belonging to the first accused and clear the loans and to pass on thesaid message to the Bank and after passing on the information to the Bank whenthey were returning back home he challenged that with the company of the othertwo accused, he was going to finish the deceased; that he had alreadycommitted a murder and got convicted and warned him also to k eep away fromthe issue; that thereafter the deceased wrote him a letter asking him to comeagain and settle the issue; that on 29/2/1996, he was given to understand thatall the three accused joining hands with each other have murdered his brotherArumugapandian and the letter ultimately sent to him by the deceased would bemarked as Ex.6. P.W.6 would notdepose anything regarding the case.P.W.7 who was then working as DeputyManager in the Tirunelveli Branch of the State Bank of India would adduceevidence to the effect that one Srinivasan was the Manager then who had thengone as the Regional Manger and that he was conversant with his handwritingand that the first accused was sanctioned with two loans for the sums ofRs.93,000/- and 25,500/- and certificate bearing the details would be markedas Ex.P.W.8 is the Village Administrative Officer who would depose tothe effect that on 29/2/199 6 at about 9.00 a.m. himself and Veeraiya oncoming to know that a body was lying in the pump set of the well belonging toArumugapandian went to the spot where when Inspector of Police and some otherPolice personnel were examining the witnesses; that the Inspector observed theplace of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.4 Obsevation Mahazar, which was attestedby himself and his brother; that then he recovered M. O.4, the blood strainedsoil.M.O.5 the sample soil.M.O.6 the Philips Radio.M.O.7 battery light.M.O.8 Quartz Clock.M.O.9 match box.M.O.10 beedi packet.M.O.11 Ball pointpen.M.O.12 blood strained shirt.M.O.13 blood strained mat.M.Os.14 and 15were jute clothes and M.O.16 bed sheet.All these material objects would berecovered by Inspector of Police under the cover of Ex.7. P.W.9 the Village menial at Kayatharu would depose that inthe year 1966, one day at 11.00 a.m., he signed the confession statement whohe had not seen any of the three accused.P.W.10 yet another menial wouldsign the confession statement of the first accused in the Police Station,which would be marked as Ex.P.W.11 the Medical Officer at KovilpattiGovernment Hospital, at the time of occurrence would depose that on 29/2/1996,on receipt of Ex.P.10, he conducted the post-mortem at 3.30 p.m. on the deadbody of the deceased and would find 10 injuries, one on the front portion ofthe neck, the second one on the right temporal region extending till the rightneck, the third one on the face, the fourth one on the left jaw, the fifth oneon the throat, the sixth one on the right shoulder, the seventh one on theleft shoulder, the eighth one on the left chest, ninth and tenth one on theleft hand.both the C.As.Criminal Appeals preferred under Sections 374 (2) and 374against the judgment dated 19/10/2000 made in S.C.No.101/1997 by the Courtof Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin.Both the above Criminal Appeals have arisen from out of one and thesame judgment of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge,Tuticorin, dated19/10/2000 rendered in S.C.No. 101 of 1997, thereby convicting the Appellantsherein, who were respectively Accused Nos. 3, 1 and 2 before the Trial Courtand sentencing them each to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and topay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for afurther term of two years for the offence proved under Section 304(i) r/w.Tracing the history of the Appeals coming to be preferred by theAppellants, it comes to be known that they were all charged before the Courtof Sessions, the trial Court, for an offence punishable under Section 302I.P.C. on allegations that the deceased was one of the five brothers and theeldest of them all, is the first accused; that in spite of there being a clearpartition among all the five, the first accused pledging the shares of othersalso, obtained a tractor loan from the Bank but did not remit the loan amountas per the agreement and there had been a notice sent by the bank cautioningthat if the amount had not been paid, they would bring the properties forauction; that when the matter was discussed by the deceased Arumugha Pandianwith another brother Selvapandian, he opined that selling the share of thefirst accused and the tractor, the loan had to be repaid and others'properties could be saved and the first accused having become aggrieved ofthis stand taken by the deceased brother having sworn that he would put an endto the life of the deceased and in pursuance of the said previous enmity, on29/2/1996 at about 4.00 a.m. all the accused joining hands with each otherand in furtherance of the common intention to commit murder of the deceased,each armed with one Vettu Aruval, when the deceased was sleeping in theelectric motor room near the well, they assaulted the said Arumugha Pandianwith the said weapons, causing grievous injuries on his neck, face, rightshoulder, left shoulder, left chest, left hand and all other parts of thebody, resulting in the instantaneous death of the said Arumugha Pandian on thespot and hence, the Accused Nos. 1 to 3 have been charged for the offencepunishable under Section 302 I.P.C.The prosecution, in its endeavor to prove the case put up by themwith such standard of proof beyond reasonable doubts as it is required in law,would examine 16 witnesses for oral evidence as P.W.s. 1 to 16, besidesmarking 23 documents for documentary evidence as Exs.P.1 to P.23 and wouldalso mark 20 Material Objects as M.Os.1 to 2 0 .In appreciation of theseevidence placed on record the trial Court would ultimately arrive at theconclusion that no offence under Section 302 I.P.C. r/w.P.W.13 woulddepose that on 29/2/1996 at about 11.30 a.m., he took the First InformationReport to the Magistrates Court and entrusted the same at 3.15 p.m. and thereceipt issued would be marked as Ex.P.W.14 is one who is working asthe Assistant in the Magistrates Court and he would depose that on receipt ofEx.P.14 requisition given by the Inspector of Police for doing chemicalanalysis on M.Os.4, 5, 12, 13 and 16, he sent the same to the ChemicalAnalysis Centre under Ex.P.15 letter and the chemical analysis report receivedas Ex.The Serological report is Ex.P.17 and a comparitive report senton P.4 and P.5 is Ex.P.W.15 who was working as the Inspector of Policeand at the time of the incident at Kayatharu Police Station would depose tothe effect of P.W.1 coming to the Police Station accompanied by oneRamakrishnan and giving the statement which got reduced into Ex.P.1 complaint,based on which would register the case in Crime No.67 of 1996 under Section302 and would prepare Ex.This witness would also depose, went tothe spot and prepared Ex.P.4 Observation Mahazar and would examine thewitnesses therein and would recover the M.O.s 4 to 16 under the cover ofEx.P.5 and thereafter, since he got transferred, he went to another Section.P.W.16 is the Inspector who succeeded P.W.1 5 who having continued theinvestigation in the above case examining certain witnesses and on coming toknow that they have made arrangements to take the accused to the Policecustody and on examining them, the first accused gave the confession in thepresence of P.Ws. 9 and 10 on 19/3/1996 pursuant to which, M.Os. 1 to 3 havebeen made under the cover of Ex.During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of theappellants in C.A.No.Excepting these two eye witnesses, there is no other witnessmuch less, eye witness to the occurrence at all.The deceased is said to havebeen sleeping in the motor pump set room along with P.W.3; that the accusedcut the deceased with the Aruval and caused his death, is the prosecutioncase; that P.W.2 is the brother's son of the deceased.It is P.Ws.1 and 2jointly gave Ex. P.1 complaint before P.W.15 Inspector of Police andinvestigating Officer at 7.30 a.m. and it is said that he prepared Ex.P.19First Information Report and sent to the Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti at11.30 a.m. through P.W.13 Constable.The inquest was held by these witnessesand then, the body was subjected to post-mortem and P.W.1 Doctor found nineinjuries on the body of the deceased, which he would note in Ex.P.W.5also recovered M.Os.4 to 16 on the spot.M.Os. 1 to 3 Aruvals wererecovered by P.W.16 Inspector; that all the accused in this case surrenderedbefore the Court; that on 11/3/1996, the Police custody was taken by P.W.16and on 19/3/1996 at about 8.30 a.m. in the presence of P.Ws.9 and 10, theaccused is said to have confessed in Ex.P.22 consequent to the admissibleportion of which M.Os.1 to 3 are said to have been recovered under the coverof Ex.P.23 mahazar.Regarding the loan obtained by all the family members forthe first appellant/accused to purchase the tractor and since the loan was notcleared, the land belonging to the other members of the family was also soughtto be brought for sale in auction and since the deceased joining hands withP.W.5, yet another brother of the first accused and gave a proposal bindingonly the land belonging to the share of the first accused and the tractorbeing allowed to be sold, the properties of others could be saved andtherefore, to wreak vengeance, the first accused joining hands with accusedNos.2 and 3 also committed the murder of the deceased is the firm case ofthe prosecution.The learned counsel would point out that P.Ws.1 and 2 arenot reliable witnesses and their evidence is improbable and unbelievable andthere is absolutely no chance for them to have witnessed the occurrence so asto know this accused to have committed the same.There was absolutely noparticipation for these witnesses in the occurrence at all.In spite of theyhaving come forward to depose that they very closely watched the scene ofoccurrence without any participation at all and only after dawn, coming toknow of the death of her husband, P.W.1 has gone to the Police along withP.W.2 and there is absolutely no evidence for herself and P.W.2 to have beenat the spot by 4 .00 a.m., which is not only artificial but also unbelievable.The learned counsel would attempt to falsify the case ofthe prosecution with the help of the medical evidence stating that in thepost-mortem examination P.W.11 the post mortem Doctor would find 80 grams ofsemi digested rice particles remaining in the stomach; that it is the definiteevidence of P.W.1 in the cross-examination that prior to leaving for the pumpset room the previous night around 9.00 p.m., the deceased took his last mealand if it is so, to the condition that was seen by post-mortem Doctor, 80grams of semi digested food particles to remain, the death could have takenplace hardly 2 + hours or three hours thereafter and therefore, around 11.30p.m., at any cost before 12.00 mid-night, the occurrence would have takenplace and there is absolutely no reason for 80 grams of semi-digested foodparticles to remain in the stomach 7 hours after consumption of the same.Thetheory of the prosecution that th e occurrence took place only at 4.00 a.m.in the next morning and that P.Ws. 1 and 2 witnessed the said occurrence;that according to the medical evidence either P.Ws 1 and 2 would not havewitnessed the occurrence at all since it should have happened around 11 or11.30 p.m. the previous day or if the occurrence is to take place by 4.00a.m.in the next morning as it is the case of the prosecution through theevidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, there must also be evidence for the deceased tohave taken his last meal around 1.30 p.m. or 2.00 p.m. and since absolutelyno such evidence comes forth, is nothing but a false fiction.The learned counsel would therefore, submit that P.Ws 1and 2 are planted for want of eye witness in the case and their evidence iscompletely unreliable particularly when the medical evidence shatters theirversion regarding the time of occurrence.According to the learnedGovernment Advocate, it is not only the stomach contents but also the othervital aspects such as Rigor Mortis and the external conditions of the body,which were found at the time of post-mortem by this key witness, he hasultimately given his opinion to the effect that the deceased should have died11 + hours prior to the conduct of post-mortem and hence, the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the occurrence took place at 4.00 a.m. on 29/2/1996 and there isabsolutely no ambiguity so far as this vital aspect of the time of occurrenceand therefore, taking only the stomach contents into consideration, the caseof the prosecution cannot be decided.Since a close relative girl of P.W.2 was proposed formarriage with A.2 and since his parents did not consent for the said marriage,A.2 is said to have been falsely implicated in the case.Elaborating, the learned Government Advocate would saythat 16 witnesses have been examined, 23 documents have marked and 20 materialobjects have also marked and the prosecution has also proved the motive forthe murder.In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard tothe materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for theappellants in both the above appeals and the learned Government Advocatecontra what could be assessed from the above Criminal Appeals is that both theabove appeals have arisen out of one and the same judgment dated 19/10/2000rendered in S.C.No. 101 of 1997 by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge,Tuticorin thereby convicting all the accused Nos. 1 to 3 who faced the trialbefore the lower Court for the offence under Section 304 (1) read with 34I.P.C. and sentencing them to under go rigorous imprisonment for 10 years andto pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo a further RigorousImprisonment for two years.The case of the prosecution is that the first accusedhaving become aggrieved against his own brother, the deceased who joined handswith another brother of them namely P.W.5 who was at Madras, acted against hisinterest in proposing to leave the portion of the land belonging to the firstaccused and the tractor he purchased, to be sold and the loan amount realisedin order to save the lands of the other brothers, aggrieved against the saidproposal and to wreak vengeance against the deceased brother, the firstappellant in C.A.No.1189 of 2000 joined hands with the second appellant, whois the second accused and the other accused the appellant in C.A.No. 173 of2001 and all of them armed with M.Os.1 to 3 respectively on 29/2/1996 atabout 4.00 a.m. assaulted the deceased while he was sleeping in the motor andpump set room near the common well in the field and caused his instantaneousdeath.Index: YesInternet: YesToThe Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin.

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

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

On 27.4.2009 their daughter had committed suicide due to harassment for want of dowry, as a result they had lodged FIR against the husband and relatives of their daughter on 29.4.2009 with police Station, Morar, Distt.Gwalior, under the provisions of Sections 304-B, 498-A/34 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is their contention that as a counter blast, private complaint has been filed on false allegations.It is further submitted that in fact it was Vikas who started misbehaving with the relatives of the petitioners when he was asked as to why Sayontiga died and a police case was registered against him and police had taken him to the Court of SDM after arresting him under the provisions of Section 151 of CPC.It is also submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are omnibus and there is no specific allegation against the present petitioners, who are not only senior citizens, but even otherwise disturbed due to unnatural and untimely death of their daughter.Thus, the allegations that the petitioners were involved in such incident are not corroborated from M.Cr.C. No.8805/2011 2 the statements of various persons who had deposed before the learned JMFC.There is no medical report of Vikas Saxena corroborating the allegations that he was brutally beaten by several persons and even there is no specific act attributed to the present petitioners.In absence of such material on record and the report of the SHO that the complaint has been filed as a counter blast to registration of FIR under the provisions of Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC and in the enquiry no incident was found to have taken place, the complaint deserves to be dismissed against the petitioners.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Shantabai (PW 2) is the widow of Shivdas Wat.Kailash (PW 4), Vilas (PW 3) and Bharat are the sons of Shivdas and Shantabai.All of them are resident of village Belgaon.Accused No. 1 Govinda and accused No. 2 Bhaurao as well as Deodas (PW 5) and Shivdas (deceased) were cultivators and they also used to distill illicit liquor.There was business rivalry between them.Sahadeo, Deodas and Shivdas were residing separately with their family members in the vicinity of each others.During the night between 20 and 21st of September, 1989 Shivdas (deceased) and Shantabai (PW 2) along with their children were asleep in the 'chapri' of their house.PW 2 Shantabai and her sons were awakened on hearing the cries of Shivdas as .melo re bapa.They saw that accused No. 2 Bhaurao Motghare was holding Shivdas, accused No. 1 Govinda Motghare was beating Shivdas with Hammer and accused No. 3 Madhao Marbate was assaulting Shivdas with Barchhi.PW 2 Shantabai came out of the 'chapri', ran towards lane and raised shouts for help.Thereupon the accused persons fled from the place of incident.Several persons including PW 1 Sahadeo Wat and PW 5 Deodas Wat rushed there on hearing the shouts of Shantabai.It was found that Shivdas succumbed to the injuries.Thereupon the Police Patil wrote the report and PW 1 Sahdeo signed it.The said report (Exh.53) was forwarded to Police Station, Mohadi through Out-Post Kardi.Immediately thereafter investigation commenced.Inquest panchanama (Exh.28), spot panchanama (Exh.27) and seizure panchanama (Exh.30) were prepared.Statements of witnesses were recorded.On the same day PW 6 Dr. Avinash Asaram Rode, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Bhandara conducted post-mortem examination.Besides incised and lacerated wounds, three penetrating wounds in right hypochondrium 2'' x '' were noted.All those injuries were ante-mortem.The probable cause of death was haemorrhagic shock due to massive blood loss.The accused persons were arrested.An iron Hammer was discovered at the instance of accused No. 1 Govinda Motghare.A Barchhi was discovered at the instance of accused No. 3 Madhao Marbate.The Chemical Analysis revealed that human blood was detected on those articles.Baniyan and chaddi of accused No. 1 Govinda Motghare and accused No. 3 Madhao Marbate were seized.It may be noted that deceased Shivdas was residing with his wife Shantabai (PW 2) and sons Kailash (PW 4) and Vilas (PW 3).His brothers Sahadeo (PW 1), Deodas (PW 5) were residing in separate houses near his house.On the fateful night Shivdas and Shantabai had slept in the chapri of their house with their children.According to PW 2 Shantabai in the midnight she was awakened on hearing the shouts raised by her husband as ...are bap re.... When she got up she saw that accused No. 2 Bhaurao Motghare had caught hold of Shivdas and accused No. 1 Govinda Motghare was assaulting Shivdas by means of Hammer and accused No. 3 Madhao Marbate was assaulting Shivdas by means of Barchhi.PW 2 Shantabai immediately ran out of the 'chapri' and raised alarm for help.JUDGMENT K.J. Rohee, J.2. Accused No. 1 Govinda s/o Ganpat Motghare and accused No. 2 Bhaurao s/o Ganpat Motghare are real brothers.They are resident of village Belgaon.Sahdeo s/o Kamaji Wat (PW 1), Deodas s/o Kamaji Wat (PW 5) and Shivdas s/o Kamaji Wat (deceased) were real brothers.The Chemical Analysis revealed that they were stained with human blood.After completion of investigation the accused were charge sheeted.According to accused No. 1 Govinda Motghare and accused No. 2 Bhaurao Motghare, they have a dispute on account of house site with the Police Patil, whereas PW 1 Sahdeo and PW 5 Deodas are on good terms with the Police Patil.They lodged false report against the accused persons in collusion.They tutored PW 2 Shantabai and her sons PW 4 Kailash and PW 3 Vilas to depose false against the accused persons.They have strained relations with PW 7 Deorao s/o Maroti Padole, r/o Mandvi (panch witness) whose land is adjacent to their land and who frequently destroys the boundary strips and takes water through it.Accused No. 2 Bhaurao resides and carries on dairy business at Nagpur.On learning about the arrest of his brother accused No. 1 Govinda, he went to village Belgaon and was arrested by the police.According to accused No. 3 Madhao he is a bidi binder.PW 1 Sahdeo is a Contractor.PW 1 Sahdeo did not pay the dues of accused No. 3 Madhao Marbate from the funds and about 4-5 years back accused No. 3 Madhao Marbate had quarrel with PW 1 Sahdeo on that count and since then their relations are inimical.In fact, he had no enmity with Shivdas (deceased).PW 7 Deorao s/o Maroti Padole runs a flour mill.There was quarrel between PW 7 Deorao Padole and accused No. 3 Madhao Marbate on account of dues of the flour mill.Thus, according to the accused persons, they have been falsely implicated.The prosecution examined PW 2 Shantabai wd/o Shivdas Wat, PW 4 Kailash s/o Shivdas Wat and PW 3 Vilas s/o Shivdas Wat as eyewitnesses to the incident.PW 1 Sahadeo s/o Kamaji Wat and PW 5 Deodas s/o Kamaji Wat are the elder brothers of deceased Shivdas.PW 6 Dr. Avinash s/o Asaram Rode is the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy.PW 7 Deorao s/o Maroti Padole is the panch witness on discovery of the weapons.PW 9 Prabhakar s/o Wamanrao Shesh is the Special Judicial Magistrate.PW 8 ASI Dongre, PW 10 PSI Mishra, PW 11 Dy.S.P. Nimje are the investigating officers.The trial court held that Shivdas met with homicidal death.However, the trial court found that the evidence of PW 2 Shantabai, PW 4 Kailash and PW 3 Vilas is doubtful and is not sufficient to hold the accused persons guilty.The trial court also found that the medical evidence does not support oral evidence of PW 2 Shantabai.The trial court was not convinced about the alleged motive attributed to the accused persons for committing murder of Shivdas.According to the trial Court the possibility of assailants being some other persons than the accused persons cannot be ruled out.The trial court found that the evidence of PW 7 Deorao Padole is tainted with extraneous consideration and that the so-called discovery appears to be manipulated one.The trial court observed that the prosecution examined only the interested witnesses and gave up important independent witnesses.The trial court, therefore, acquitted the appellants.The present appeal is directed against the said acquittal.We have heard Mr. Y.B. Mandpe, APP for the appellant/state and Mr. K.R. Lambat, Advocate for the respondents/accused.We have also gone through the record and proceedings of the trial court with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties.The learned APP further submitted that there is no variance between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence.The learned APP submitted that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused persons beyond doubt and that they were liable to be convicted for the offence with which they were charged.The learned Counsel for the accused persons, on the other hand, justified the impugned judgment of acquittal.We have carefully considered the rival contentions.It may be noted that it is an established fact that accused No. 1 Govinda and accused No. 2 Bhaurao so also PW 5 Deodas and deceased Shivdas were engaged in distillation of illicit liquor and on account of this, there was business rivalry between them.On hearing her shouts several persons including PW 1 Sahadeo and PW 5 Deodas rushed there.PW 2 Shantabai told them that Govinda Motghare (accused No. 1), Bhaurao Motghare (accused No. 2) and Madhao Marbate (accused No. 3) assaulted Shivdas and injured him.In the meanwhile the accused persons disappeared from the scene of offence.Thereafter Shivdas was found dead.Omissions in her statement before the police in respect of accused No. 1 Govinda assaulting Shivdas with Hammer and accused No. 2 Bhaurao holding Shivdas have been brought on record.She contradicted her statement recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate (PW 9) that she had told before the Special Judicial Magistrate that accused No. 3 Madhao gave blow by Hammer on the head of her husband.Another contradiction about the number of assailants being only three was brought in her statement recorded by the police.Before police she stated that there were four assailants and she did not identify the fourth person.Page 0892 Despite these omissions and contradictions the integral part of her version is unchanged and it cannot be said that her testimony is untrustworthy.PW 4 Kailash, aged about 11 years and PW 3 Vilas, aged about 9 years, are the sons of deceased Shivdas.They were sleeping in the 'chapri' with their father and mother Shantabai (PW 2).They were awakened on hearing the cries of their father ...are bap re.... They saw their mother shouting for help.They also saw all the three accused persons assaulting their father with Hammer and Barchhi.They were frightened and they ran with their mother.During their cross examination omissions as regards holding of the hammer by accused No. 1 Govinda was brought out.It may be noted that by and large they have corroborated the testimony of their mother PW 2 Shantabai.The omissions in their statements recorded by the police during investigation in fact gives credence to their testimony before the court.They are equally natural witnesses like their mother Shantabai (PW 2).They being of tender age and their father having been assaulted in their very presence, there appears little possibility that they would falsely implicate the accused persons.It seems that much was made about the identity of the assailants by PW Shantabai.It has come in evidence that the street lights had gone off at the time of the incident, but it has very much come in the testimony of PW Shantabai that she could identify the accused because there was dim light of the bulb in the 'chapri'.Considering the fact of existence of light though dim, the distance between her husband and PW Shantabai and the fact that the accused persons are the residents of the same village, there is every possibility that PW Shantabai must have identified them.We find nothing doubtful in the testimony of PW Shantabai at least as regards accused No. 1 Govinda Motghare and accused No. 2 Bhaurao Motghare.Though about the presence of accused No. 3 Madhao Marbate, we find it difficult to accept the testimony of PW Shantabai because of the non-disclosure of the name of accused No. 3 Madhao Marbate by PW 2 Shantabai to PW 1 Sahadeo and PW 5 Deodas who rushed soon after the incident so also because of the absence of the name and role of accused No. 3 Madhao Marbate in the FIR (Exh.53).In our opinion, benefit of doubt can be extended to accused No. 3 Madhao Marbate.It was observed by the trial court in para No. 12 of the judgment that looking to the injuries of Shivdas and the medical evidence of Dr. Rode (PW 6) it appears improbable that the Hammer (Art. 12) was used in the assault.Injuries on the head and face of Shivdas were incised wounds and lacerated wounds and there was not a single contusion on the head or face.It is further observed that the hammer (Art. 12) is so heavy and that if one gives blow by the hammer on the head there would be fracture of skull bones.According to Dr. Rode there was no internal injury corresponding to the external injuries of head and face.The trial court inferred that since there was no fracture to bones nor contusion on head the hammer (Art. 12) must not have been used in the assault.The trial court concluded that the medical evidence does not support to oral evidence of PW Shantabai and her sons.It may be noted that it seems from the evidence of PW Shantabai that she saw the assault only for a fraction of second and in such situation she could not have seen the use of hammer on specific part of the body of her husband.It may be noted that the hammer might not have been used at all and only Barchhi might have been used for causing incised wounds as well as penetrating wounds.It may be noted that except injury No. 3 (namely three penetrating wounds in right hypochondrium 2'' x '') other injuries were simple.From this one cannot jump to the conclusion that there is variance between ocular evidence and medical evidence.About the reference of the fourth assailant being not identified, the testimony of PW Shantabai cannot be doubted.It may be remembered that she must have been in panic on seeing assault on her husband by number of persons and she may not have been able to give exact number of the assailants.In our view, it would not affect her veracity but would strengthen it.It may be seen that hammer was discovered at the instance of accused No. 1 Govinda Motghare.PW 7 Deorao Padole r/o.Mandvi deposed about the discovery of hammer at the instance of accused No. 1 Govinda Motghare and discovery of Barchhi at the instance of accused No. 3 Madhao Marbate.Both these discoveries are from the public place accessible to all.It has come on record that the hammer belongs to some other person and it is not established as to how accused No. 1 Govinda Motghare got the hammer.However, one thing is certain that on hammer as well as barchhi human blood was found and the accused persons did not give any explanation for that.The trial court disbelieved the evidence of PW 7 Deorao Padole because he comes from another village and he had strained relations with accused No. 1 Govinda Motghare and accused No. 2 Bhaurao Motghare on account of land dispute.The trial court observed that the so-called discovery appears to be manipulated one.In our view, even if this piece of evidence about discovery of the weapons is not taken into account, the evidence of PW 2 Shantabai and her sons PW 4 Kailash and PW 3 Vilas is enough to establish the guilt of accused No. 1 Govinda Motghare and accused No. 2 Bhaurao Motghare.The reasons given by the trial court for discarding the testimony of PW Shantabai are not at all convincing.She is the most natural witness to the incident of assault on her husband.The trial court has not considered this aspect and as such the judgment of the trial court suffers from perversity.There was no opportunity for her to falsely implicate the accused persons in the assault on her husband.It appears highly improbable that she would depose false at the instance of PW 1 Sahadeo and PW 5 Deodas (the elder brothers of her husband) merely to implicate the accused persons falsely.The trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of eye witnesses namely Pws 1,3 and 4 in correct perspective and, therefore, has drawn incorrect, illegal and unwarranted conclusions and the same are clearly impermissible from the evidence available on record.Thus we find that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of accused No. 1 Govinda Motghare and accused No. 2 Bhaurao Motghare beyond doubt.We, therefore, hold them guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused homicidal death of Shivdas.Hence we proceed to pass the following order :(i) The appeal is partly allowed.(ii) The acquittal of accused No. 1 Govinda s/o Ganpat Motghare and accused No. 2 Bhaurao s/o Ganpat Motghare is set aside.They are directed to surrender within two weeks to serve out the sentence.(iii) The acquittal of accused No. 3 Madhao s/o Rajaram Marbate is, however, confirmed.

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

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

In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 17.9.2019 in connection with Narayangarh P.S case no. 120 of 2019 dated 1.8.2019 under sections 341/323/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code And Allowed In Re : Subrata Maity & Anr.The application being CRM 8607 of 2019 is disposed of.(Jay Sengupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

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

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

This Court has issued a Non Bailable Warrant against A1 Gopalakrishnan.The above said NBW is pending in the R9 Valasarvakkam Police Station, Chennai.This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent to investigate/execute and report in the Non Bailable Warrant in C.C.No.200/2013 pending on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, within a stipulated time.2.It is seen in the affidavit filed by the petitioner that the petitioner is the first wife of Gopala Krishnan.She has filed a private complaint against her husband under Section 494 of IPC and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.200 of 2013 by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.The trial Court has issued a Non Bailable Warrant on 08.09.2015 against the said Gopala Krishnan, which is still pending before the respondent-police.Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 82(1) of Cr.P.C, to issue proclamation against the accused.Hence, the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, issued a memorandum dated 28.07.2015 to the respondent-police to send a report regarding C.C.No.200 of 2013 without fail, which is extracted hereunder:-MEMORANDUMSub: Cases  Criminal  C.C.No.200/2013  on the file of this Court  Thulasi Vs.Gopalakrishnan and Subathra offence U/s 494 IPC  NBW against A1 not executed  called for report  reg.One Tmt.Thulasi, W/O Gopalakrishnan has filed case in C.C.No.200/2013 the offence U/s 494 IPC against Gopalakrishnan and Subathra.The NBW has not been executed on the accused Gopalakrishnan till date.Now, the complainant has filed a petition U/s 82(1) and (2) CrPc to issue proclamation against the accused.Hence, the Inspector of Police (Law & Order) R9 Valasaravakkam Police Station is hereby directed to send a report in this regard on or before 14.08.2015 without fail.But, till date the respondent-police has not sent any report to the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.Hence, the petitioner has filed the present criminal original petition.3.Heard the petitioner-party in person and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 82(1) of Cr.P.C., to issue proclamation against the accused, which is still pending, in which the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai has already called for report from the respondent police, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to direct the respondent-police to send a report to the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, instead of directing the respondent-police to execute the Non Bailable Warrant issued against the accused by the trial Court.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-police to send a report regarding C.C.No.200 of 2013 to the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.12.01.2016 ariTo,1.The Inspector of Police, No.R9, Valasaravakkam Police Station, Chennai.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.R.SUBBIAH, J.O.P.No.422 of 201612.01.2016

['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Mr. Golam Mastafa, Mr. Tarasankar Samanta ... For the petitioner.Mr. Bibek Jyoti Basu, Mr. Debabrata Mandal .... For the State.The petitioner complains of police inaction.W.P. No.20397(W) of 2019 ns 2019 Abdul Kader Sk.Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.Learned Advocate appearing for the State, on the basis of written instructions, submits that, on the basis of Court complaint, a police case being Raninagar Police Station Case No.462/2019 dated September 6, 2019 under Section 323/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code was started.The daughter-in-law of the petitioner submitted a written court complaint which was registered as Raninagar Case No.463/2019 dated September 6, 2019 under Section 447/448/323/379/354/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Again on conclusion of the investigation, Raninagar Police Station F.R.F. No.486 of 2019 dated September 19, 2 2019 was submitted.No order as to costs.Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.( Debangsu Basak, J. )

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(Jabalpur, dtd.03.12.2018) Per : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-No order as to costs.

['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

1.The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department., Fort St.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Sub-Urban Area, Chennai 600 016The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the order under challenge.It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in nine adverse cases viz. (i) Crime No.833 of 2001 registered by E-4, Maduravoyal Police Station for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) Crime No.897 of 2001 registered by E-4, Maduravoyal Police Station for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (iii) Crime No.773 of 2002 registered by E-4, Maduravoyal Police Station for the offences under Sections 457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (iv) Crime No.789 of 2002 registered by E-4, Maduravoyal Police Station for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (v) Crime No.46 of 2010 registered by T-12, Poonamalee Police Station for the offences under Sections 457, 511 of the Indian Penal Code @ 457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (vi) Crime No.50 of 2010 registered by T-12, Poonamalee Police Station for the offences under Sections 457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (vii) Crime No.72 of 2010 registered by T-12 Poonamalee Police Station for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (viii) Crime No.80 of 2010 registered by T-12 Poonamalee Police Station for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (ix) Crime No.85 of 2010 registered by T-12 Poonamalee Police Station for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code and one ground case in Crime No.162 of 2010 registered by T-12 Poonamallee police station for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 18.3.2010 and the detenu was arrested on 19.3.2010, the Detaining Authority, on scrutiny of materials placed, passed the detention order, after arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.Apart from this, the detenu has not moved for any bail in ground case in Crime No.162 of 2010, which was registered for the grave offence under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code.This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.But the detenu has not moved any bail in respect of ground case, which is registered for grave offence under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code.But the Authority has observed in paragraph 4 of the detention order as follows:-I am aware that Thiru.He has filed a bail petitions in Poonameelee P.S. Cr.Nos.46/2010, 50/2010, 72/2010, 80/2010 and 85/2010 before the Judicial Magistrate II, Poonamallee vide Crl.I am also aware that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail for the above cases by filing a another bail application before the Court of Sessions or Hon'ble High Court, since in similar cases, bails are granted by the above courts after a lapse of time.If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.Further the recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.On this ground, the order of detention has got to be set aside.The detenu, namely, C. Ramesh, who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody/detention is required in connection with any other case.

['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

They were residing at Door No.30-A, East Coast Road, Chinnakalapet, Puducherry.Then P.W.2 was studying VIII Standard in Patrick School, Puducherry.Manimozhi was running Venkateswara Internet Centre and STD Booth in her house.P.W.3, Muthamizh Selvan, lecturer in S.R.M. College, Kattankulathur, Chennai is their family friend.Whenever he visits Puducherry for paper correction work, he used to stay in their house.(3) On a day, near the deceased's house, in a motor bike accident, A-2 got injured.He introduced himself as Dheena @ Dinesh to the deceased.She gave him first aid.In 2001, October, on a day, A-1 and A-2 visited her house.(4) M.O.4, a small female statue, kept in the front portion of P.W.17 Raveena's Restaurant, in Mission Street, Puducherry was missing.Accused frequented Venkateswara internet centre.P.W.2 created email I.D for them.In Ex.(6) On 14.2.2002, P.W.23 Umapathy, Manager, 'Aditya Hotel', in Kamarajar Salai, Puducherry booked a room for A-1. A-1 signed in the Hotel Receipt Book (See Ex.Ps.31 to 35).A-2 was also with him.In the evening, over phone, A-1 informed P.W.23 that as he intend to vacate the room, make ready the bill.Thereafter, the room was vacated.(7) The deceased maintained Ex.P.3 long size Note Book.In this, she used to enter the date, time and name of persons visiting her internet centre.On 14.2.2002, at 4.40 p.m., the deceased made entry (Ex.P.5) in the said note book that Dheena(A1) visited the internet centre.(8) On 14.2.2002, P.W.3 was staying in deceased's house.He left her in the school and gone to Hotel Annamalai in Puducherry to attend a seminar.At about 10 a.m., P.W.3 also left the house for Pondicherry University for paper correction work.(9) At about 4.30 p.m., P.W.3 returned to deceased's house.Within few minutes, A-2 came from the internet centre.The deceased gave them advice.Thereafter, they left for Kalapet.The deceased told P.W.3 that they are like her brothers and they are residing in Chennai.After shutting down the computer in the internet centre, the deceased went upstairs to water the plants.(10) At about 5.25 p.m., P.W.15, Karpagam came to the STD booth in the deceased's house.Made call.Enquired about the charges.She placed Rs.2 and left.Thereafter, A-1 and A-2 came to the Internet centre.A-2 told P.W.3 that the internet is not working.P.W.3 tried to operate it.The deceased came.She told P.W.3 that she will take care of it.Thereafter, P.W.3 went upstairs to take rest.(11) At about 6.45 p.m., P.W.3 came to the hall.The deceased was not seen either in the hall, or in the internet centre or in the kitchen.However, he had seen her dead body in the bedroom with injuries on the right side of her neck and abdomen.At about 7.45 p.m., P.W.1 came.Seen the dead body.Her gold chains were missing.P.W.2 also came.(13) At about 9 p.m., at the Kalapet Police Station, P.W.1 gave Ex.He registered this case in Crime No.13 of 2002 under Sections 454, 302 and 392 IPC (Ex.P.52 F.I.R.) (14) P.W.33 Inspector Ramaraju received a copy of the FIR.He took up his investigation.Visited the scene place.P.W.27 Kannan, police photographer, photographed the scene place.Sniffer-dog went around the scene place.P.W.26, Ramalingam, Fingerprint Expert, lifted 7 chance fingerprints from the computer in the internet centre.He photographed them.Sent them to his Director (Ex.P.37 series).In the presence of P.W.11 Elumalai and one Mohan, P.W.33 prepared Ex.P.53, observation mahazar.Drew Ex.P.54, rough sketch.Recovered a white rope (M.O.3), bloodstained bed-sheet (M.O.17) under Ex.P.55, mahazar.In the presence of panchayatdars including P.W.6, Nataraja Chettiar, P.W.33 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased (Ex.P.11, inquest report).He sent the dead body with his requisition through P.W.28 Head Constable Janarthanan to the Govt. General Hospital, Puducherry for conducting post-mortem.(15) P.W.33 examined the material witnesses and recorded their statements.From the scene house, in the presence of P.W.18 Guna and another person, P.W.33 seized Ex.P.2 Telephone Diary, Ex.P.W.2 told P.W.33 about A-1 and A-2 and their acquaintance with her mother.(6)Incised wound 1.5x0.5x0.5 cm over left side of vagina (7)Abrasion 7x0.5cm over back of chest right side.(17) P.W.30 opined that she died of shock and hemorrhage due to injuries to the neck.After post-mortem, P.W.33 received the dresses (M.Os.5 to 8) recovered from her dead body.(18) On 25.2.2002, A-2 came to P.W.12 Uttamchand's 'K.Jawarkalal Gulabchand Jain' Pawn Broker's shop in Kancheepuram.He pledged M.O.2 gold chain under Ex.P.14, Pawn ticket, received RS.4000/- and signed in the Pawn ticket (Ex.P.16).(20) On 6.3.2002, at about 2.15 p.m., in the presence of P.W.16 Arumugam and one Raghunath, A-1 gave Ex.Thereafter, A-2 gave Ex.P.21 confessional statement to him.At about, 11 a.m., at the instance of A-2, in pursuance of his confessional statement, in the presence of P.W.16 Arumugham and Raghunath, P.W.33 seized M.O.2 gold chain and Ex.P.14, Pawn ticket from P.W.12 under Ex.56 Mahazar.At about 6.30 p.m., P.W.33 produced A-1 and A-2 to the Court for judicial custody.P.W.33 altered the section of law in the F.I.R. (Ex.P.57, Alteration Report) and submitted the same to the Court.(21) On 7.3.2002, P.W.33 gave requisition to Judicial Magistrate No.1, Puducherry to conduct Test Identification Parade (T.I.P) for the arrested accused.On 12.3.2002, at about 3 p.m., at the Central Prison, Puducherry, P.W.31 Hemalatha Daniel, Judicial Magistrate No.1, Puducherry, conducted T.I.P. P.Ws.1 to 3 identified A-1 and A-2 (Ex.P.50 T.I.P. Report).(22) On 13.3.2002, P.W.33 obtained A-1 and A-2 to his custody for 3 days.On the same day, at the instance of A1, in pursuance of his confessional statement, in the presence of P.W.16 and Raghunath, from the Police quarters in Sembiam, Perambur, Chennai, P.W.33 seized M.O.9 Yamaha Motor cycle under Ex.P.22, mahazar.On 14.3.2002, at about 6 p.m., at the instance of the accused, in the presence of said witnesses, from the upstair portion of a house in Ram Colony, Tiruppur, P.W.33 seized M.O.13 Nylon bag.It contained M.O.10 knife and bloodstained clothes. A-2 and A-1 produced their bloodstained Jeans pants, M.Os.15 and 12 respectively and P.W.33 seized them under Ex.P.24 mahazar.At about 7.30 p.m., at the instance of A-1, in pursuance of his confessional statement, in the presence of said witnesses, P.W.33 seized M.O.1 Thali chain from P.W.21, Dhanapal, owner of Ponmeena Jewellery in Eswarankoil street, Tiruppur under Ex.P.29, mahazar.P.W.33 brought the accused and the case-properties to his station.(23) On 15.3.2002, P.W.33 examined P.W.30 with reference to M.O.10 knife.P.W.1 identified him his wife's jewels.P.W.33 produced the case-properties and the accused to the Court for custody.He also gave requisition to the court to send the case-properties to the Lab for analysis.(24) After P.W.33, P.W.32 Prasad Rao, Inspector continued the investigation.On 19.9.2002, he examined P.W.23 and seized the cash book and the Room Register of Hotel Aditya, Puducherry.Thereafter, Inspector Vijayasundaram and after him, P.W.34 Inspector, Arumugam, conducted the investigation.(25) P.W.26 received sample prints of A-1 and A-2 from the Inspector.On comparison, the chance prints tallied with the sample fingerprints of A-1 (Ex.P.51 report).P.W.3 Muthamizh Selvan, a family friend of the deceased, whenever visits Puducherry, used to stay in her house.P.W.3 had stated that on the occurrence day, namely, on 14.2.2002, at about 4.30 p.m., in the deceased's house, he had seen A-1 and A-2 along with the deceased and were talking and he had gone upstairs to take rest.P.DEVADASS, J.,THE APPELLANTS:A-1 Kumi @ Kumaran and A-2 Senba @ Senbagasri Kumar are challenging their conviction and sentence in the Sessions Case in S.C.No.58 of 2007 rendered by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry.CONVICTION AND SENTENCES:They were convicted and sentenced as under:AccusedConviction Sentence A.1(i) 454 IPC(ii) 392 IPC(iii) 302 IPC r/w 34 IPC(iii) Life and fineand in default, 1 year Simple Imprisonment.(i) 454 IPCAll the sentences were directed to run concurrently.P.1 complaint to Jeyabalan, Sub-Inspector.P.W.33 formed a party to arrest them.He produced the seized-properties to Court.(16) On 15.2.2002, at about 11.30 a.m., at the said Hospital, P.W.30 Dr.Balaraman performed autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and noticed the following injuries :(1)Incised wound 2 x 0.5 cm x 1 cm below right eyebrow entering right eye ball.(2)Transversely placed irregular incised wound 13 x 4 x 7 cm over front side of neck at thyroid cartilage level cutting larynx, blood vessels of neck completely exposing partly cut prevertebral muscles.(3)Three incised wounds 2x1/2 x 4cm, 2x1x4 cm, 2x1/2x5cm over left side of neck 3 cm below  mandible.(4)Linear abrasion 13x1/2x1/2 cm over left fore (5)Incised wound 3x2x2cm over midline of lower abdomen.(26) Finally, P.W.35, Purushothaman, Inspector conducted the investigation.Examined P.W.26 and recorded his statement.Perused the chemical report Ex.P.58 and the entire case records and filed Final Report against the accused under Sections 454, 302, 392 r/w 34 IPC.EXAMINATION UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C. :4.The trial court examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the inculpatary aspects in the prosecution evidence.They denied their complicity in this case.PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :To substantiate the charges framed against the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 35, marked Exs.The accused marked Ex.D.1, copy of deposition of P.W.16 given in S.C.No.619 of 2005, Fast Track Court No.I, Madurai.TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS:6.Analysing the said evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the incriminating circumstances projected are proved and the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubts and convicted and sentenced the accused, as already stated.TRIAL COURT FINDINGS: assailed.R.Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that the chain of circumstances weaved by the prosecution in this case is found broken everywhere and they do not complete the chain.The learned Senior Counsel contended that the prosecution version that P.W.3 lastly seen the deceased in the company of the accused cannot be believed as at about that time, many persons have visited the scene house, P.W.1, who already knows A-1 and A-2, has not mentioned them in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. is completely bald as to the assailants and their description.The learned Senior Counsel further contended that while the accused were in the police custody, they were shown to P.Ws.1 to 3 and after seen the photographs and names of accused in the Newspapers and in T.V., have identified them in the Test Identification Parade.In the circumstances, the Test Identification Parade conducted is valueless and is of no use to prosecution.In this respect, the learned Senior Counsel also cited RAVI @ RAVICHANDRAN VS.STATE [(2007) 2 MLJ (CRL) 367 (SC)] and AMITSINGH BHIKAMSINGH THAKUR VS.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [(2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 216] (SC).The Fingerprint evidence is also of similar variety.There is nothing to show that the Investigating Officer has taken the specimen fingerprints from the accused following genuine procedure.The Section 27 Evidence Act Recovery of jewels, knife and bloodstained clothes of the accused are all stage-managed.The evidence of P.Ws.12, 16 and 21 shows that the recovery is tainted.Finally, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that none of the circumstances projected by the prosecution has been proved and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts.TRIAL COURT FINDINGS:M.R.Thangavelu, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) referred to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, recovery of jewels based on the confessional statement of the accused and tallying of chance prints lifted from the scene of crime with the specimen fingerprints of A-1, entry in Ex.10.We have anxiously considered the submissions of both sides, carefully scrutinized the entire materials on record and perused the impugned judgment of the Trial Court.11.On 6.45 p.m., on 14.2.2002, in her house, at Door No.30-A, East Coast Road, Chinnakalapet, Puducherry, Manimozhi, wife of P.W.1 Boopathy and mother of P.W.2 Anuja, was found dead with injuries on her neck and abdomen.The autopsy conducted on her dead body by P.W.30 Dr.Balaraman revealed that she died of homicidal violence.MURDER FOR GAIN :12.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 very clearly discloses that then, the jewels were found missing from the dead body of the deceased.It is a clear case of murder for gain.(vi)Section 27 Evidence Act Recovery.If this is established, it will be an incriminating circumstance as against the accused.Thereafter, only at about 6.45 p.m., he had seen her dead body in the bed room.20.P.W.15, Karpagam, a neighbour of the deceased, on the occurrence day, at about 5.30 p.m., came to the scene house to make a call in the STD booth.P.W.15 also stated that then she had seen A-1 and A-2 there.21.Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 15 shows that the identity of A-1 and A-2 was already known to them.22.In his cross-examination, P.W.3 admits that at about 5.25 p.m., a lady came to the scene house and after 15 minutes she left.In her cross examination, P.W.15 also admits that when she came to the scene house, there were many male and female persons.Thus, it is seen that on the occurrence day, between 5.30 p.m. and till P.W.3 left upstairs, several persons have come to the scene house.Thus, it cannot be said that during that time, in the scene house, A-1 and A-2 alone were exclusively with the deceased.23.According to P.W.3, at about 6.45 p.m., nobody was present in the scene house and her dead body was found in the bedroom.On his intimation, P.W.1 and subsequently P.W.2 came there.Thereafter only, at about 9 p.m., P.W.1 gave Ex.P.1 complaint to police.In such circumstances, there would have been mentioning of A-1 and A-2 and their details in the FIR.However, they were not named in the FIR.Not even their description has been given in the FIR.24.According to P.Ws.1 and 2, A-2 posed himself as Dinesh @ Dheena to the deceased and he was also so introduced by the deceased to them in that name only.25.In her house, besides STD booth, the deceased was running Venkateswara Internet centre.P.3 long size Note Book is stated to have been maintained by the deceased for entering the date, time and name of persons visiting the internet centre.At its page 19 (Ex.P.5), as against the date '14th', name 'Dinesh' and the time 'from 4.20 to 4.40' has been entered.In the previous pages, dates were not written.Thus, the entry in Ex.27.On 5.3.2002, A-1 and A-2 were arrested by P.W.29 Selvam, S.I. of Police, in Chennai and he handed over them to P.W.33, the Investigating Officer Inspector Ramaraju.On 7.3.2002, P.W.33 gave requisition to the Magistrate to conduct Test Identification Parade (T.I.P.).On 12.3.2002, at the Central Prison, Puducherry, P.W.31, Hemalatha Daniel, Judicial Magistrate No.P.W.1 admits that on 7.3.2002, he had seen the photographs of A-1 and A-2 with their names in Newspapers and in T.V. His daughter P.W.2 was living with him.She also admits about the said news items in the dailies and TV.However, she had stated that she had not read the newspaper.In view of their closeness to P.W.1, in this respect P.Ws.2 and 3 are hardly believable.29.In the circumstances, with such previous knowledge of the identity of A-1 and A-2, their subsequent identification in the T.I.P. has become a valueless exercise.In the circumstances, P.Ws.1 to 3 identifying A-1 and A-2 in the T.I.P. loses its evidentiary value [See : RAVI @ RAVICHANDRAN VS.STATE [(2007) 2 MLJ (CRL) 367 (SC)] and AMITSINGH BHIKAMSINGH THAKUR VS.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [(2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 216 (SC)].As seen already, although P.Ws.1 to 3 having already known the identity of A-1 and A-2 and P.W.1 having not mentioned the names of A-1 and A-2 or at least their description in the FIR, identifying them in the T.I.P. shows that their such identification is a pre-arranged one.FINGER PRINT EVIDENCE :Subsequently, he compared them with the specimen fingerprints of A-1 and A-2 and found the specimen fingerprints of A-1 tallied with the said chance prints.32.There is no explanation as to when, how and by whom the specimen fingerprints were taken from the accused.33.Further, as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, A-1 and A-2 very often frequented their house and also used the computer in the internet centre.Even P.W.2 creased email I.Ds.for them.In the circumstances, lifting of chance fingerprints from the computer in the internet centre does not look odd and in such circumstances, the said fingerprint evidence will not be an incriminating circumstance.Thus, the said fingerprint evidence does not strengthen the prosecution version of the case.STAY IN ADITYA HOTEL :34.According to P.W.23, Umapathy, Manager, Aditya Hotel, Puducherry, on 14.2.2002, A-1 booked a room in the hotel, A-2 was also seen with him and in the evening, they have vacated the room.The cash book and the hotel admission register were also produced.However, P.W.23 is not able to identify the accused.Further, at the most, it would show that on 14.2.2002, they have stayed in it.But, that is not enough to show that their such stay have direct connection or bearing with the death of the deceased in the scene house.In the circumstances, the evidence of P.W.23 and the Hotel records also does not strengthen the prosecution version of the case.SECTION 27 EVIDENCE ACT RECOVERIES :Prosecution pressed into service these items as recoveries effected for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.As per Section 27, so much of information (ex-culpatory) leading to recovery of fact alone is admissible.Thus, the genuineness and truthfulness of Section 27 Evidence Act Recovery must be ensured / proved by the prosecution.37.On 5.3.2002 at Chennai, A-1 and A-2 were arrested.According to P.W.33, on the next day, at Kalapet Police Station, in the presence of P.W.16 Arumugam, he recorded Ex.P.20, confessional statement from A-1 and Ex.P.21, confessional statement from A-2 and in pursuance of that, he had effected the above recoveries.38.On 6.3.2002, at the instance of A-2, at Kancheepuram, from the Pawn broker P.W.12, Uttamchand, M.O.2 gold chain and Ex.P.14, Pawn ticket were stated to have been recovered under Ex.P.56 mahazar.Thereafter, at the instance of A-1, on 13.3.2002, from the police quarters in Sembiam, Perambur, Chennai, M.O.9 Yamaha motor cycle has been seized.On the next day, in a house in Ram Colony, Tiruppur, at the instance of A-2, M.O.10 knife and M.O.15, bloodstained Jeans Pant and at the instance of A-1, M.O.12 bloodstained Jeans Pant, were recovered under Ex.P.24 mahazar.At the instance of A-1, M.O.1, Thali chain has been recovered from P.W.21 Dhanabal from his jewellery shop in Tiruppur under Ex.P.29 mahazar.For all these recoveries, P.W.16 is the witness.However, P.W.12 states that on 2.3.2002 police came to his shop in a Jeep and seized the gold chain from his shop.P.W.12 also disputed that M.O.2 has been recovered from his shop.P.W.21 did not produce any document to show that he had purchased M.O.1 chain from the accused.In his cross-examination, he also admits that he could not say when and from whom, he had purchased it.40.Recovery witness P.W.16 Arumugam is residing next to Kalapet police station.Thus, the findings of the trial court are required to be unseated.NET OUTCOME :45.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed.The appellants are acquitted from the charges.

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

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

1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.41338/2020 (Ramswaroop s/o Chhotelal Verma Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh AND VICTIM / PROSECUTRIX) Indore, Dated 20.11.2020 Mr. Mukesh Sinjoniya, learned counsel for the applicant.After arguing for some time on the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the bail application with liberty to renew his prayer after recording of court statement of the prosecutrix / victim.Prayer allowed.With the aforesaid liberty, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.41338/2020 is dismissed as withdrawn.

['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The facts very briefly are that on 22.09.1979 at 8.05 p.m. Balbir Singh, the complainant, lodged an FIR with Police Chowki Dhata, P.S. Khakhreru in District Fatehpur.The prosecution story as stated in the FIR was that on 22.09.1979 the complainant was returning home after purchasing crude oil from Khaga and Raja Ram Singh (his father) and Kunj Behari Singh were waiting for him at Dhata and he left the oil at Dhata and the three sat on the Motorcycle No.Kunj Behari Singh drove the motorcycle and when they reached near bamboo clumps ahead of Kanya Pathshala on Dhata-Hinauta Road at about 6.00 P.M., Hira Pandey, Subhash Pandey @ Bodhan and Surendra Nath Pandey, the three appellants herein, who were waiting with single barrel gun, double barrel gun and rifle respectively and cartridge belts, started firing at them.As soon as Kunj Behari was shot, the Motorcycle lost balance and he and his father jumped off from the bike and while his father ran towards the west into the paddy fields, he ran towards Harijan Basti.From Dhata end, Sunder Lal Singh, Hari Prasad Singh, Lakhpat Sonar and Shisuvir Narain were coming and many other persons were coming from Kabraha side and on their exhortation, the appellants ran away to hide in the fields.Raja Ram and Kunj Behari died at the spot as a result of the firing.He had lodged a case against two of the appellants, Subhash and Surendra under Sections 323, 325 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code (for short b�IPCb�) and they had asked him to compromise several times but he had not compromised and to take revenge they had fired upon them.The complainant has also stated in the FIR that his pant got torn while running to save his life.The FIR was registered.The investigation was entrusted to Pyare Lal Sharma, S.I. (for short b�the IOb�).The IO reached the place of occurrence at 7.30 A.M. on 23.09.1979 where the complainant was present.He recorded the statement of the complainant and wrote the Panchnamas of the deceased Raja Ram and the deceased Kunj Behari in the presence of the witnesses and seized the bodies of the two deceased persons and sent them for post mortem to the District Hospital through Constable Jamil Ahmad.He also collected blood- stained earth and sealed them in containers.But Kunj Behari Singh was scared by firing and Motor Cycle got dis-balanced and came on western strip of the road.Me and my father jumped from Motorcycle and ran.But Kunj Behari fell down along with Motorcycle.Accused persons were firing continuously.My father went ran towards paddy field towards west and I ran towards Harijan Basti in north.A. K. PATNAIK, J.He recorded the statements of Raghupat Singh, Sunder Lal Singh, Hari Prasad Singh and a few other persons of the Harijan Basti.The remaining investigation was completed by S.O. Ram Mohan Ramand a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants under Section 302 read with 34, IPC.At the trial, the complainant was examined as PW-1, who fully supported the prosecution case as alleged in the FIR.Hari Prasad Singh was examined as PW-2 and he also supported the prosecution case as alleged in the FIR.He described in details the ante-mortem gun shot injuries in the chest and abdominal cavity and the thighs of the deceased Raja Ram and opined that the cause of his death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained by him.PW-3 also described the ante-mortem gun shot injuries on left side of the chin and below the left ear and the left side of the neck of the deceased Kunj Behari Singh and opined that the cause of his death was due to shock and hemorrhage.In defence, the appellants examined a resident of the Harijan Basti of village Dhata, Shiv Balak, as DW-1 who stated that he had heard some voice coming from the road in the south of his house asking for help and when he walked ahead in the direction of the voice he saw 6-7 miscreants who fired twice, but he could not recognise the miscreants and the appellants were not amongst the miscreants.The trial court, however, relied upon the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and after hearing the parties on the question of sentence, sentenced them for life imprisonment.The appellants carried an appeal to the High Court, but the High Court has affirmed the conviction and the sentence and has dismissed the appeal.Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned Senior Counsel appearing for theappellants, submitted that the trial court and the High Court should nothave relied on the evidence of PW-1 as admittedly he had previous enmitywith the appellants.He submitted that if PW-1 was the prime target of theappellants, he would have received some injury as according to PW-1 all theappellants were armed with fire arms and cartridges, but as a matter offact PW-1 has not received a single injury and this would go to show thatPW-1 has falsely implicated the appellants.He further submitted thataccording to the evidence of PW-1, as soon as the motorcycle lost balancehe jumped off from the motorcycle and ran away from the place of occurrencetowards the Harijan Basti and therefore he could not have seen theappellant firing on the two deceased persons.Mr. Hansaria submitted that the trial court and the High Court shouldnot have relied on PW-2, who was a mere chance witness and was also awitness cited by PW-1 in support of his complaint against the appellantsunder Sections 323, 325 and 147 IPC pending in the Court.He argued thatPW-2 therefore was an interested witness and his evidence should have beendiscarded.He submitted that PW-2 has made material improvements over hisstatement made to the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. He hasstated that Hira and Surendra fired at the deceased Raja Ram in which caseRaja Ram would have had injuries from at least two gun shots, but accordingto PW-3, the Doctor, who carried out the post mortem on the dead body ofRaja Ram, all the injuries on his dead body were caused by a single gunshot.Mr. Hansaria next submitted that in the FIR, PW-1 has stated thatwhen the appellants were firing on the deceased persons from the Dhata endbesides Hari Prasad Singh (PW-2) Sunder Lal Singh, Lakhpat Sonar andShisuvir Narain were coming and many other persons were coming from Kabrahaside, but the prosecution has examined only PW-1 and has not examined theother witnesses.He submitted that the I.O. (PW-5) has admitted that hehad recorded the statement of Sunder Lal Singh and yet Sunder Lal Singh hasbeen withheld from the witness box and there is no explanation whatsoeveras to why Sunder Lal Singh was not examined.He submitted that independentwitnesses have therefore not been examined in support of the prosecutioncase though these witnesses were named in the FIR.He cited Hem Raj andOthers v. State of Haryana [(2005) 10 SCC 614] in which this Court has heldthat when the evidence of alleged eyewitnesses raises serious doubts on thepoint of their presence at the time of actual occurrence, the unexplainedomission to examine the relevant witnesses would assume significance.Mr. Hansaria also pointed out the following lapses in the prosecutioncase:i) The time of recording of FIR at Dhata Police Chowki is doubtful, since at the time of writing the report it was made by pencil which was erased and again overwritten as per the evidence of PW-4 (Constable Ram Prakash).ii) There is no recovery of empty cartridges from the place of occurrence, even though both the eyewitnesses have stated that several gun shots were fired.iii) Injuries on the bodies of the two deceased persons were not correlated with weapons allegedly possessed by accused persons.iv) The fire arms allegedly used have not been recovered nor is there any mention of efforts made to recover the same.v) Though blood stained earth was collected and sealed near the dead body of Kunj Behari; no serological report has been produced to match the blood with that of the deceased Kunj Behari.vi) As per PW-4, though Darogaji from Police Station, Khakeru came to the outpost in the night after the report of the incident has been sent from Chowki, yet investigation was started only in the morning.Mr. R.K. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State,submitted that the presence of PW-1 at the spot of occurrence is supportedby three circumstances: (a) that his motorcycle was found lying at thespot; (b) that his pant was torn and (c) DW-1 admitted to have seen themotorcycle lying on the western side of the road.He submitted that PW-1therefore was present at the place of occurrence and was an eyewitness tothe firing.He submitted that PW-2 could not be treated as a chancewitness as the incident took place on the road and only passers-by on theroad would be witnesses to any such incident which took place on the roadand their evidence could not be brushed aside on the ground that they arechance witnesses.(2) SCR 611) for the proposition that theprosecution version could not be rejected only on the ground that all thewitnesses to the occurrence have not been examined.He submitted that theprosecution story thus cannot be discarded merely because all the witnessesnamed in the FIR including Sunder Lal Singh were not examined before thecourt.Mr. Das submitted that it is true that the fired cartridges have not been recovered from the place of occurrence and this may be because the paddy fields had water and paddy stand up to knee height and it was impossible to search and collect the fired cartridges, but the fact remains that the deceased have died of fire arm injuries.He contended that the trial court and the High Court have rightly believed the two eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-2 considering the fact that the motive of the appellant was to take revenge against the complainant and his father for not agreeing to compromise the complaint case under Sections 323, 325 and 147 of the IPC pending before the court.We may first examine the contention of Mr. Hansaria that the trial court and the High Court should not have relied on the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 who were interested witnesses and that the prosecution should have examined the independent witnesses cited in the FIR, namely, Sunder Lal Singh, Lakhpat Sonar and Shisuvir Narain, who as per the FIR shouted at the appellants when they were firing at the deceased.When we examine the evidence of PW-1 in this light, we find that he has stated that he had a motorcycle and a diesel pump set and on the day of the incident he purchased crude oil from Khaga, which is entered in his card and he came back to Dhata taking crude oil at 5.30 P.M. in the evening where he met his father and Kunj Behari and he kept the oil in a shop there and Kunj Behari drove the motorcycle from Dhata and his father and he sat behind him and when they started from Dhata for their village on the motorcycle the incident took place at about 5-10 minutes before 6.00 p.m. He has stated:b� When we reached ahead of Kanya Pathshala Dhata near bamboo clumps, these three accused came out bamboo clumps.At that time accused Subhash was holding a double barrel gun with cartridge belt on shoulder.Hira Lal Pandey was having single barrel gun with cartridge belt on shoulder.Surendra had rifle and also cartridge belt.When these people came on the road and saw us going, then the three accused exhorted that today let them not escape.It was combined voice of the three.On exhortation all the three fired almost same time.First Subhash fired, I do not know whether it hit any body or not.Hearing the fire, Sunder Lal Singh and Hari Prasad Singh of village Sonari coming on cycles from Dhata reached there.Lakpat Sonar also reached there.These people stopped there and shouted at the accused.I was running and hearing the fire.I was clearly hearing the sound of fire.Accused persons ran away on exhortation-lalkara of witnesses.When I jumped from the motorcycle and ran, I could not see whether my father or Kunj Behari was hurt or not because I was running to save myself.I ran towards village through Harijan Basti and Canal Side.I shouted reaching near the village.I returned back at the spot along with several persons collected there, and found that Kunj Behari was lying dead by gun shot on the road and my father was lying dead by gun shot in paddy field, while running my trouser got torned.We people remained for about an hour at the place of occurrence.From there I came to Dhata and wrote the report in my hand writing sitting near the shop of Uma Shankar and gave that in Data Chowki.b�From the aforesaid narration of the incident by PW-1, it is very clear that he was present at the time of the occurrence and has seen the appellants with double barrel gun, single barrel gun and a rifle with cartridges.He has stated that when the appellants fired, Kunj Behari, who was driving the motorcycle, got scared by the firing and the motorcycle got dis-balanced and came on the western strip of the road and he and his father jumped from the motorcycle and ran but Kunj Behari fell down along with motorcycle.He has also stated that the appellants were firing continuously and his father ran towards paddy field towards west and he ran towards Harijan Basti towards north.He has also said that after he returned to the spot he found that Kunj Behari was lying dead by gun shot on the road and his father was lying dead by gun shot in paddy field.Moreover, PW- 1 has clearly disclosed that hearing the firing, Sunder Lal Singh and Hari Prasad Singh (PW-2), who were coming on cycles from Dhata, reached there and Lakhpat Sonar also reached there.He has not said that only Hari Prasad Singh (PW-2) from Dhata reached there.If PW- 1 was really interested in falsely implicating the appellants in the case with the help of PW-2, he could have also said that he also saw the appellants firing at his father and at Kunj Behari and that only Hari Prasad Singh (PW-2) was coming on cycle from Dhata and shouted at the appellants and that Sunder Lal Singh and Lakhpat Sonar, whom he had named in the FIR, did not reach the spot in time to be able to witness the incidence.We are, thus, of the view that the evidence of PW-1 could not have been doubted by either the trial court or the High Court.When we examine the evidence of PW-2 Hari Prasad Singh, we find that he has stated:b� Incident occurred about an year ago.Sun was about to set at about 6 P.M. in the evening I along with fellow Sunder Singh were going from Dhata to Sonari on our separate cycles.Sunder Singh is also resident of Sonari.When I reached near girls school on Dhata- Sonari road, then from our back, deceased Raja Ram, Kunj Behari and Balbir P.W.1 crossed us on motorcycle.Kunj Behari was driving the motorcycle, Raja Ram and then Balbir were sitting behind him.After crossing the girls school and when we were 30-40 paces away from Bamboo Kothi, all the three accused, Surendra, Heera and Subhash, present in court, came on the road from Bamboo Kothi.Seeing these persons, all the three accused gave a Lalkara that they should not go, and after saying this, three accused fired.At that time, accused Subhash had a double barrel gun, Surendra had a rifle and Hira Pandey had a single barrel gun.Due to fire, motor cycle got disbalanced.I did not see that the fire hit any body riding the motorcycle or its driver but I saw motorcycle getting disbalanced and going towards left strip of the road.Balbir P.W.1 jumped from that disbalanced motorcycle and ran towards north in the side we were going.Raja Ram also got down from motorcycle and ran towards paddy fields in west.But Kunj Behari fell there with motorcycle.As soon as the motorcycle fell, accused Subhash went near Kunj Behari and fired.Raja Ram fell down in water filled paddy fields.As Raja Ram tried to get up, accused Surendra and Hira reached near him and fired.Kunj Behari and Raja Ram died due to fire injuries then and there and Balbir ran away.I asked accused persons not to fire which could hit us.Apart from me and Sunder Lal, Lakhpat Sonar also reached on the place of occurrence from south side and he also shouted that do not fire, do not kill (Maaro).Hearing this, accused persons ran away from the spot.After the incident, I stayed for about 30-45 minutes at the spot.During this, Balbir came on the spot along with 7-8 persons.b�The aforesaid testimony of PW-2 supports the evidence of PW-1 in all material respects.He has said that due to the firing by the appellants, the motorcycle got disbalanced and went towards left strip of the road and PW-1 jumped from the motorcycle and ran towards north side while Raja Ram ran towards paddy fields in the west, but Kunj Behari fell there with the motorcycle.PW-2 has further said that that as soon as the motorcycle fell, the appellant Subhash went near Kunj Behari and fired.He has also said that Raja Ram fell down in the water-filled paddy fields and when Raja Ram tried to get up, the appellants Subhash and Hira reached there and fired while PW-1 ran away.He has also disclosed that Sunder Lal and Lakhpat also reached the place of occurrence and shouted along with him not to fire and hearing this, the appellants ran away from the spot.He has also said that after the incident, PW-1 came on the spot along with 7-8 persons.PW-2 is, therefore, a direct eyewitness to the firing by the appellants on the two deceased persons and in the lengthy cross-examination of PW-2 the defence has not been able to bring to the notice of the court any material to hold that his evidence is not reliable.On the other hand, we find, on a reading of the cross-examination of PW-2, that he has stated that Kunj Behari had fallen flat and his face was towards the sky when he was shot and his head was in the north, one leg in the south and one leg was on the motorcycle.He has stated that the appellant Subhash fired at Kunj Behari from the east from a standing position and at that time the barrel of the gun of the appellant Subhash was downwards on Kunj Behari.PW-2 has also stated that there were four paces distance between the place where Raja Ram fell in the paddy field and the place from where the two appellants entered the field and the two appellants fired on Raja Ram when he tried to get up.Had PW-2 not seen the occurrence, he could not have given such details of the occurrence in the witness box during the cross- examination.The veracity of PW-2, in our considered opinion, has been tested in the cross-examination and his evidence is, thus, reliable.We do not also think that the evidence of PW-2 could have been discarded on the ground that he was only a chance witness.The incident took place when the deceased were traveling on a motorcycle on the road and PW-2 was also coming on the same road on his cycle when he saw the incident.This Court has held in Thangaiya v. State of T.N. (supra) that if a murder is committed in a street, only passers-by will be witnesses and their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they were mere chance witnesses.Moreover, PW-2 has been named in the FIR as one of the persons who were coming on a cycle from Dhata side and as one of the persons who shouted at the appellants not to fire.In State of U.P. v. Anil Singh (supra), this Court has held that when a witness figures as an eyewitness in the FIR, he cannot be categorized as a chance witness.Once we accept that PW-1 and PW-2 were present at the place of occurrence and their evidence was reliable, the fact that other independent witnesses named in the FIR, such as Sunder Lal Singh, have not been examined before the Court, cannot be a ground for not believing the prosecution case.We find from the evidence of PW-4 that although a suggestion was made to him in cross- examination by the defence that the time of incident in the chik register as the time of incident was first written in pencil and thereafter erased and again written, PW-4 has said that the suggestion is incorrect.There is no definite evidence before the Court to come to the conclusion that the time of incident in the FIR was first written in pencil and was thereafter erased and again written and that the time of incident as recorded in the FIR was doubtful.Regarding the contention of Mr. Hansaria that there was no recovery of empty cartridges, we find that the IO (PW-5) has admitted during cross-examination by the defence that no empty cartridge was found from the passage on which PW-1 ran away from the spot and he did not find any empty pellet, tikli or cartridge from the spot where the motorcycle was lying and where the deceased Kunj Behari was shot.PW-5 has also not stated that any empty cartridge was recovered from the paddy field where Raja Ram was shot, but the fact remains that the deceased Kunj Behari and Raja Ram were killed by gun shots.Dr. Anand Swarup (PW-3), who carried out the post mortem, has described the gun shot wounds of the deceased Raja Ram as ante mortem injuries in the chest and abdominal cavity and has opined that the cause of his death is shock and hemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained by him.Mr. Hansaria is right that according to PW-3 all the injuries on the deceased Raja Ram were caused by one gun shot, whereas PW-2 has deposed that both Surendra and Hira fired at Raja Ram, but it appears only one of them was able to hit Raja Ram with a bullet because of which Raja Ram died.PW-3 has similarly described the injuries on the body of the deceased Kunj Behari as gun shot injuries in his oval cavity on the left side of the chin and neck and left shoulder and has opined that the injuries were sufficient to normally cause death.

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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 T.S. Misra, J.Mohammad Jalil Ashraf Opposite Party No. 1 filed a complaint dated 20th September, 1972 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki under Sections 147, 447, 384, 342, 379 and 504, Indian Penal Code.His statement was recorded under Section 200, Cr.Thereupon on the same day the learned Magistrate passed the following orders:The complainant examined under Section 200, Cr.P.C. Grounds sufficient.The accused shall be summoned for 25-11-1972 for an offence under Section 395, I.P.C. The complainant shall take necessary (illegible) today.Summonses were accordingly issued to the accused persons.The accused 5 and 6 appeared before the learned Magistrate on 25th November, 1972 and they were granted bail.The accused 1 to 4 appeared before the learned Magistrate on 22nd December, 1972 and were also granted bail.The learned Magistrate fixed 6th March, 1973 for recording evidence.The case was ultimately taken on 13th April, 1973 and the statement of one Kesho Nandan Srivastava P. W. 1 was recorded who filed two documents as well.The statement of the complainant was recorded on oath on 14th September, 1973 but it remained incomplete; hence further statement of the complainant was recorded on oath on 15th September, 1973 and the case was adjourned to 23rd November, 1973 for recording the rest of his statement.The case was then posted for 25th April, 1974 for arguments.The learned Magistrate heard the complainant and his counsel and the accused persons and their counsel on 20 the July, 1974 and it appeared to the learned Magistrate that it was a matter under Section 395, I.P.C. triable exclusively by the Court of Session, hence he committed the case to court of session.

['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT Shiv Shanker, J.These Criminal Misc.Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the petitioners Mukeem Ullah, Mabood Alam, Asgar Ali & Bahaluddin and Raju Kachhwah & Munna Kachhwah praying to quash the F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 118 A of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 307 and 302 I.P.C., P.S. Mau Aima, District Allahabad and Case Crime No. C-35 of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 308, 203 I.P.C. and under Section 3(2) V SC/ST Act, P.S. Malwan, District Fatehpur and stay the arrest of the petitioners.2. Affidavit and supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioners and counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties have been filed in Criminal Misc.Brief facts of Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No. 9225 of 2005 are that one Ram Kumar s/o Baijnath Patel, resident of village Chhitemau, P.S. Mau Aima, District Allahabad submitted a written report at the concerned police station on 23.8.2005 at about 11.30 A.M. wherein it has been alleged that on 23.8.2005 Gram Panchayat Election was going on in which four candidates of his village were contesting the said election.At the time of casting votes at about 10 A.M., some altercation took place between both the parties and pieces of bricks and stones were being thrown from both sides, at the same time accused Mustkeem Ullaha, Raju, Bhullar Pasi, Naresh Chamar, Jagdish Chamar, Ram Adhar, Irshad, Salauddin, Kaiyum, Devprakash started abusing and throwing the pieces of bricks and stones, and anyone of them opened fires which hit upon the person of Shobhalal Patel, Kallu Patel, Shaymlal Patel, Lal Chandra Patel and Raju Patel.Therefore, the complainant lodged the F.I.R. on 23.8.2005 at about 11.30 A.M.. On 26.8.2005 at about 11.15 A.M. the second F.I.R. was lodged which has been registered as case Crime No. 118A of 2005 against Mustkeem Ullaha, Mukim Ullah, Mabood Alam, Asgar Ali and Bahaluddin regarding the same incident by Kamlesh Patel (injured witness) wherein it was alleged that the complainant along with his family members were going to election booth for casting their votes.The same time the accused persons Mustkeem, Mukim Ullah, Mabood Alam(Inspector), Asgar Ali and Bahaluddin met them and they have restrained them for casting the vote upon which some altercation took place between them.Thereafter, they were beaten by the accused persons with lathis, dandas and bricks and accused Mustkeem, Mukim Ullah, Mabood Alam(Inspector), Asgar Ali and Bahaluddin opened fires with their countrymade pistols with intent to kill the complainant and his companion.Consequently, the fires hit upon Shobha Lal Patel, Kallu Patel, Shaymlal Patel, Lal Chandra Patel and Raju Patel.The complainant had proceeded to the police station Mau Aima along with all the injured.After seeing serious condition of the injured they were sent to the hospital after giving majrubi chitthi where they were medically examined.During the course of treatment Shaymlal Patel(injured) has expired on 25.8.2005 due to sustaining injuries.Inquest report and other papers were prepared by the Investigating Officers regarding death of the deceased and same was sent for post mortem in sealed bundle where the post mortem was conducted by the Doctor.It was further alleged that one Ram Kumar companion of Mustkeem Ulla accused, has lodged the F.I.R. wrongly.This incident was witnessed by Brijlal son of Magahi Patel, Vishwanath, Mahes and Bachu Lal.Affidavit, counter affidavit and supplementary affidavit have been exchanged between the parties.Since in both the above writ petitions common question of law is involved and as such the same are being decided by this common judgment.Heard Sri Daya Shanker Misra, Sri Chandrakesh Misra, Sri Chandan Sharma, learned Counsels for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Shukla, Sri D.K. Srivastava, Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondents and Sri Syed AH Murtaza, learned A.G.A.P.C.. It is further contended that all the injured persons went to the concerned police station on the same day from where they were referred to the hospital for their treatment.No chargesheet has yet been filed by the I.O. regarding the second F.I.R. against the petitioners.

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The Report reveals that the family consists of the father, mother and elder brother of the juvenile and they are all earning members and they altogether earn about Rs. 10,500/- per month.JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 29.11.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 27.10.2005 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Delhi was dismissed.The facts leading to the present revision petition are that a charge-sheet under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in respect of FIR No. 568/2004 was filed against the petitioner.The case of the prosecution is that on 23.11.2004, the petitioner was found in possession of 1.820 kgs of Charas.It is further pointed out that a sample of 80 grams was taken out and the same was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for testing which was subsequently found to be Charas.Page 1912 On 14.12.2004, the petitioner had moved an application for transfer of the proceedings to the Juvenile Justice Board inasmuch as the petitioner claimed to be a juvenile.The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed a Criminal Revision Petition [No.145/2005] in this court.By an order dated 27.09.2005, the said Criminal Revision Petition [No.145/2005] was allowed and the order dated 05.02.2005 was set aside and the entire matter was remanded to be dealt with in accordance with law.Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court.The same has been dismissed by the order dated 29.11.2005 which is impugned herein.

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

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

Shri Padam Singh, counsel for the objector.Head the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has an apprehension of her arrest in connection with Crime No.266/2015 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Datia for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 307 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is youth of 28 years of age, who has no criminal past against her.Applicant was a married girl of the family who was residing at a distant place at Vidisha and, therefore, there is no day to day interference of the applicant with the family life of the deceased and her husband.The deceased died due to burn injuries.On the date of incident the applicant was having an advance stage of pregnancy of eight months and, therefore, it was not possible for her to visit the place of incident and to participate in the crime.Prima facie no offence under Section 304 -B of IPC is made out against the applicant.After death of the deceased, the parents and relatives of the deceased have made omnibus allegations against all family members of the husband of the deceased including the applicant.Nothing is to be recovered from the applicant.Police is unnecessarily harassing the applicant.Consequently, the applicant prays for 2 MCRC.2888/2016 bail of anticipatory nature.Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.He submits that in dying declaration of the deceased it was mentioned that the applicant had participated in the crime of Section 307 of IPC.Deceased was set on fire by the applicant also and, therefore, without any document that she was not present on the spot at the time of incident she cannot be excused of offence under Section 307 of IPC and after death of the deceased under Section 302 of IPC.Custodial interrogation of the applicant is required.Under these circumstances, applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.Counsel for the objector also opposed the application on the same count.(N.K. Gupta) Judge mani

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In view of the convenience and implementation of the construction work without hindrances, on behalf of the respondent no. 2 - company, a current Bank account was open in the Central Bank of India, Branch Gadarwara and after getting the cheque book issued by the Bank was handed over to the petitioners being 2 M.Cr.C.No.21031/2016 representatives of M/s. BVSR Company after signature on behalf of the respondent no. 2 / complainant company so that the petitioners may use the cheques in connection with transaction relating to implementation of sub-contract but the petitioners on behalf of their Company misused the cheques and some fund was utilized personally and without performing the construction work, illegally and unauthorizedly payment was made.On perusal of the statement it was found that 12.5 Crore rupees is due against M/s. BVSR Construction company represented by the petitioners and in this regard, a notice of demand for due amount was made but the same was not paid, instead it was informed that the matter will be taken to arbitration then the respondent no. 2 / company informed to the Central Bank of India, Branch Gadarwara for stopping the payment on the cheques.Thereafter, on behalf of the M/s. BVSR Construction company, dishonestly with intention to commit fraud and cheating with forgery one cheque no. 13915 for a sum of Rs.4,10,24,000/- dated 28.7.2015 was produced before the Kotak Mahindra Bank, Hyderabad which was dishonored by the Bank of complainant Company.Thereafter, on behalf of the M/s. BVSR Construction Company, petitioner no.1 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, in which, warrant of arrest has been issued against the representatives of the respondent no. 2 - complainant.This complaint has been filed just a counter blast to take revenge on account of filing complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument act against the respondent no. 2 / Company.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In terms of the settlement, the second respondent has to receive from the first petitioner balance amount of Rs. 75,000/-.The same has been paid to her by demand draft no. 958497 dated 18.07.2019 issued by State Bank of India, MSIL Manesar and handed over to her in the Court.M.C. No.1578/2019 Page 2 of 7The marriage ran into rough weather, the second respondent raised allegations of she having been subjected to cruelty and deprived of her stridhan, first information report (FIR) no.384/2015 having been registered on 11.05.2015 by police station Najafgarh on her complaint involving offences punishable under Sections 498A and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the case being directed against her husband (first petitioner) and his brother (second petitioner).On conclusion of the investigation, police filed report (charge-sheet) under Section 173 of Crl.M.C. No.1578/2019 Page 1 of 7 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) in which prosecution has been sought against the first petitioner, the investigating agency having concluded that no prosecutable evidence had come up against the second petitioner.The parties upon reference by the Family Court entered into a settlement at the Counseling Cell of the Family Courts on 21.08.2018 on the strength of which the present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the proceedings arising out of the afore- mentioned FIR.

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

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

JUDGMENT R.S. Garg, J.The defendant who could non-suit the plaintiff in the trial Court had to suffer a decree in the first appellate Court and being aggrieved by the decree for grant of damages, has preferred this second appeal under section 100, Civil Procedure Code.The appeal was admitted for hearing on 18-3-1987 on the following substantial questions of law :"(1) Whether in the absence of reasonable and probable cause proved by the plaintiff/respondent, the decree for damages for malicious prosecution is justified?(2) Whether in the absence of the reasons for quantum of damages, the award of Rs. 500/- (five hundred) is legal and justified?"2. Facts in a narrow compass are that the parties are neighbours and separated by a lane.The defendant sought permission to cut branches of a mango tree, which was causing shadow on his roof.According to the plaintiff he was Panch of the Gram Panchayat and was cultivator also.According to him, the defendant had lodged a complaint against his wife and as the plaintiff gave evidence against the defendant, the defendant was bearing enmity with him and to take revenge, lodged a false complaint at Police Station, Lanji, on 17-8-1973 against him, and his aged mother for commission of offences under sections 294 and 506, First Part, Indian Penal Code, alleging that the defendant was abused in a public place and was threatened on injury.On this complaint, the Police did not take any action, therefore, the defendant lodged a private complaint against the plaintiff.The said complaint was dismissed on 19-12-1975 and the plaintiff was honourably acquitted.The trial Court held that the complaint was false and was lodged with the intention to wreak vengeance because the plaintiff had given evidence against the defendant.On these allegations the plaintiff filed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 500/- as the amount spent by him in the litigation, Rs. 1,000/- for mental agony and defamation.He claimed a sum of Rs. 1,5007- in all.The defendant in his written statement contended that the plaintiff was not a respectable person, being a Court bird, he is quarrelsome and being a panch, he is trying to influence the public and the public at large is afraid of him.According to him, he had lodged the correct report and he does not carry any grudge against the plaintiff because he had given evidence in his wife's case.According to him, the complaint was true narration of facts and even if the plaintiff was acquitted, it does not provide a foundation for seeking damages.According to him, when permission to cut the branches of the mango tree was given to him by the Additional Collector, he was justified in his act and the plaintiff could not have abused him.According to him, the witnesses who had witnessed the incident turned hostile, therefore, he could not prove his case.As the parties joined issue, the learned trial Court recorded evidence and after hearing the parties, dismissed the suit.The learned first appellate Court after hearing the parties held that the respondent had maliciously prosecuted the appellant in the complaint case No. 157/74 without any reasonable and probable cause and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for damages, to the extent of Rs. 500/- only.Being dissatisfied with the decree granted by the first appellate Court, the defendant has preferred this appeal.She also submitted that in the absence of the reasons for the quantum of damages, Rs. 500/- could not have been awarded to the plaintiff.Shri Seth, on the other hand, submitted that the first appellate Court rightly held that the defendant had levelled false and malicious allegations and the defendant knew that the allegations were false or would have caused mental agony to the plaintiff.According to him, the suit was rightly decreed.It is not in dispute before me that the defendant made a complaint of the alleged incident to the Police but the Police did not take any action against the plaintiff.The defendant was not satisfied with the report to the police but had proceeded with the matter further and filed a private complaint.Various allegations were made in the complaint and on the statement of the defendant, the plaintiff was summoned as an accused.In the suit for divorce filed by the defendant against his wife, the plaintiff attended the proceedings for 10 to 15 days, and was ultimately, examined as a witness.According to the plaintiff because of reconciliation, the wife went to the house of the defendant.The defendant denied these facts.Not only this, the other witnesses who could have supported the defence of the defendant have not been examined in the Civil Court.The defence of the defendant appears to be moon shine.

['Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Shri Mukesh Pandey, Advocate for the applicants.Shri Akhilendra Singh, GA for the State.Shri Deependra Mishra, Advocate for the objector.This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No. 41/2013 registered at P.S. Ajaygarh, District Panna for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 307, 506 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case.The applicants have no criminal past.A counter case has also been registered against the complainant party vide Crime No. 40/2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 323, 294 and 506-B of the IPC.The applicants are ready to co-operate in the investigation and trial.They are reputed citizen of the locality, in the event of arrest, their reputation will be tarnished, therefore, they be released on anticipatory bail.Learned counsel for State and the objector have opposed the application.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days from today.In the meanwhile, if the applicants so desire, may apply for regular bail before the competent Court, which shall be considered by that Court in accordance with law.Certified copy as per rules.

['Section 307 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.

A-1 is the paramour of A-2 and 'Pangali' of the deceased.P.W.1 is the son of the deceased.The deceased is the uncle of P.W.2. A-1 and the deceased were having land at Senkaradu village.P.W.2 was also having land in the same place.As A-1 used to come to his land frequently, he developed illicit intimacy with A-2, wife of the deceased.Thereafter, A-2 quarreled with the deceased and left for her parental house 2-3 times prior to the occurrence and the deceased used to pacify her and bring her back to his house.(ii) On the date of occurrence, i.e., on 31.01.2000 at 7.30 p.m., P.W.2 went to his land and saw A-1 cutting a tender coconut and pouring some substance contained in a white tin.At that time, the deceased was lying in his hut.A-2 gave the tender coconut to the deceased.After drinking the tender coconut, the deceased vomited and felt giddiness and laid down on the cot.At that time, A-2 pressed the nose and neck of the deceased.A-1 squeezed the testicles of the deceased and the deceased died.P.W.2 questioned the conduct of A-1. A-1 threatened P.Ws.1 and 2 with dire consequences.Having frightened, both P.Ws.1 and 2 left for their house.(iii) P.W.1 went to the office of P.W.3, Village Administrative Officer, at 9.00 a.m. on 01.02.2000 and gave a written report, Ex.P.W.3 came to the scene of occurrence along with P.W.1 and his Assistant.Thereafter, he prepared a report, Ex.P.5 and took P.W.1 to Omalur Police Station.(iv) P.W.9, Inspector of Police, Omalur Police Station, received the report, Ex.P.5 given by P.W.3, VAO, along with the statement recorded from P.W.1 on 01.02.2000 at 11.00 a.m. He registered the case in Crime No.150 of 2000 for the offence under Section 302 IPC.P.15 is the Express First Information Report.He sent the First Information Report to the higher police officials and to the Magistrate Court.(v) P.W.9 took up investigation and went to the scene of occurrence.He prepared the Observation mahazar, Ex.P.8 and the rough sketch, Ex.P.16 in the presence of witnesses.He seized M.O.2, Koduval, M.O.3, tender coconut without water from the scene of occurrence under Ex.P.9, Mahazar.He held inquest on the dead body of the deceased from 1.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. Ex.P.17 is the inquest report.(Judgment of the court was delivered by K.N.BASHA, J.) The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, dated 17.06.2005 made in S.C.No.354 of 2004 convicting the appellants, A-1 and A-2, under Section 341 IPC and sentencing them to undergo one month simple imprisonment and convicting them under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and also imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and also convicting them under Section 506 (ii) IPC and sentencing them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment.The facts of the case as projected by the prosecution are as follows :(i) A-2 is the wife of the deceased.He sent the body for post-mortem.(vi) The Doctor, P.W.8, attached to the Government Hospital, Omalur, conducted post-mortem on 02.02.2000 at 9.00 a.m. as per the requisition under Ex.P.10 and found the following injuries :(1)Skin peeled off in the right scrotum, testis exposed, 1" X 1".(2)A contusion on the left scrotum with inside an abrasion 1/4" X 1/4".(3)A contusion on the centre of neck extending from right to left 5" X 5".(4)A contusion on the right cheek just below ear.Thorax : Lungs : 450 gms (right) ; 400 gms (left) ; Heart : 150 gms empty ; Liver  1000 gms ; Stomach  3 ml of brown fluid ; Intestines : Preserved ; spleen  10 gms.Bladder ; Skull  opened  no fracture .No brain injury ;P.11 is the Post-mortem certificate.The Doctor received the Viscera report, Ex.P.12, Hyoid bone report, Ex.P.13 and gave his final opinion under Ex.P.14 to the effect that the deceased would appear to have died of poisonous effects of Monocrotophos which is a poisonous organophosphorous compound.(vii) P.W.9, in continuation of his investigation, searched for the accused and arrested A-1 and A-2 on 02.02.2000 near Thekampatti bus stop.In pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession of A-1 under Ex.Thereafter, A-1 and A-2 were remanded to judicial custody through the Court.He examined the other witnesses and recorded their statements.He gave the requisition to the Magistrate for recording the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On 28.02.2000, the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur.On 29.03.2000, P.W.9 examined the Doctor, P.W.8, who has conducted post-mortem.He received the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P.11, Viscera report, Ex.P.12, Hyoid report, Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.14, final opinion.After completion of investigation, P.W.9 filed the charge sheet against A-1 and A-2 for the offence under Sections 341, 302 r/w 34 IPC.The prosecution in order to prove its case examined P.Ws.1 to 9, marked Exs.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating circumstances appearing against them through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, both the accused have come forward with the version of total denial.They have not chosen to examine any witness on their side.It is contended that P.W.2, another eye-witness, has implicated A-1 and A-2 before the Court though he has not implicated A-1 and A-2 in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which is marked as Ex.P.3 in this case.At the outset, we are constrained to state that P.Ws.1 and 2 have not come forward with a clear, consistent and cogent version.The motive put forward by the prosecution is to the effect that there was illicit intimacy between A-1 and A-2, wife of the deceased and as a result, both A-1 and A-2 were said to have committed the murder of the deceased.As far as the other eye-witness, P.W.2 is concerned, he has implicated both A-1 and A-2 during his evidence before the Court.The fact remains that he has not implicated A-1 and A-2 in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which is marked as Ex.It is pertinent to be noted that P.W.2 has admitted in his cross-examination that after the occurrence, he has not informed the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.3 though he knew him nor he went to the police station to give any report and his conduct is highly unnatural and abnormal throwing serious doubt about the veracity of his version.The prosecution has not produced any other incriminating materials apart from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 to implicate A-1 and A-2 in this case.

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

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

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE vivekThe applicant stands convicted under Section 456 and 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months and one year and to pay fine of Rs.200/- and Rs.800/- respectively with default stipulation.Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant had remained on bail during trial.Therefore, it is directed that the jail sentence of the applicant is suspended on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) and a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on a date to be fixed by the Registry in this behalf The I.A is allowed and disposed of.as per Rules.

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The first respondent is the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of M/sCity Limouzines (India) Ltd. (hereinafter called and referred for the sake ofbrevity as, "the said Company").He established the said Company.Ascheme known as "Go/Vehicle on rental basis and earning by sitting athome" was floated.In terms of the said Scheme, assurances were given tothe people for earning money in easy way.A public advertisement was alsoissued in a newspaper.They also issued pamphlets and thereby attractedhuge investments.S.B. SINHA, J.1. Leave granted.The State of Maharashtra is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfiedwith a judgment and order dated 3rd March, 2008 passed by a DivisionBench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ PetitionNo.Issue of Preference Shares: The Lessee undertakes to issue redeemable Preference shares to the Lessor towards the margin money paid (excluding Insurance & RTO Charges) which will be held by the Lessor as security for the entire period of the validity of the agreement being 60 months from the date of issue to ensure smooth installment payments to the bank and the lease/hire charges to the Lessor."The complainant - respondent No.2, pursuant to the saidadvertisement, invested a sum of Rs.97,907/-.Indisputably, he was paid 4Rs.4,000/- per month for a period of five years.However, despite demand,he was not given the car.He was, however, given three post-dated chequesof ABN Amro Bank amount to Rs. 25,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/-although he had asked for the said amount in cash.In the said FIR, it was inter alia alleged:"As mentioned above, Directors of the said Company in their office without listening anything from me, as per their own wishes making changes on the document of agreement, when I noticed that then I enquired about the same in more detail.It is transpired that the said company by showing false inducement about big return in various financial schemes and transferring the motor vehicle in the name of investor, till date has accepted deposits of crores of rupees under various schemes from 25000 investors.But I came to know that said company has purchased motor car only in the name of 500 investors.All aspect of above mentioned schemes are in existence only on paper but in reality not even a single scheme is in force as per the scheme shown on the document.I also came to know that apart from the above mentioned office of the company at Bombay, and other places said company has office on rental basis and Sayyed Masood Jamadar, in collusion with other directors of the Company, induces people for making investment and amount invested by people is being utilized for other purpose, other than the original purpose and is being utilized personally or for some other purposes.The said company on the internet at its 5 website namely www.citylimouzines.com & www.city-money.com has projected the said company as bearing ISO-9001-2000 certification and inducing common poor people to invest money in the said company and thereby cheating the people.The respondent No.1 filed a writ petition before the Bombay HighCourt praying for quashing the said FIR.xxx xxx xxxii) Because another witness in his statement dated 17/11/07 that he is running Travelling Business in the name as "Amey Tourist."He owns Maruti Esteem Car No. MH-01-An enquiry has been made with Shri Deepak R. Kalwar because CLIL data on first mirror image shows that Maruti Omni Car No. MH-01-E-6343 has been registered in the name of one Smt. Asha Thakur (file no.- 1738 of CLIL) and enquiry with RTO revealed that the vehicle No. MH-01-E-6343 is Kinetic Honda 12 Scooter and registered in the name of Deepak Kalwar."The allegation made in the FIR and the materials collected duringinvestigation, in our considered opinion, should be allowed to be taken to itslogical end.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard finally with the consent of the parties.This revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1974 has been filed by the petitioners-accused against the order dated 2/5/2014 of framing of charges for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 or 302/109, 304-B and 498-A of I.P.C passed in Sessions Case No. 24/14 by the First Additional Sessions Judge Dabra, district Gwalior.At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners confines his prayer in this petition only to the extent of framing of charge for commission of offence punishable under section 302 or 302/109 of I.P.C. and for rest of the charges he does not press this petition.Accordingly, the arguments only on the aspect of framing of charge for committing offence under Section 302 or 302/109 are heard.The facts, in short, relevant for the decision of the case are that the marriage of Chandni @ Chanda was solemnized in the month of April, 2012 with petitioner No.2-Bhagat Singh @ Nathu.Petitioner No.1-Mohan @ 2 Cr.R.601/2014 Mohan @ Mahendra Singh & another Vs.State of M.P.As per allegation of the prosecution, there had been continued ill treatment towards Chandni from her husband (Petitioner No.2) and his other relations and in pursuance thereof on 19/7/2013 kerosene oil was sprinkled at her by her mother-in-law Pushpa (co-accused) while Sapna (sister-in-law) had caught hold of Chandni and thereafter Chandni was set at fire by her mother-in-law Pushpa.Consequently, aforesaid offences have been registered and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against mother- in-law Pushpa, sister-in-law Sapna and both the petitioners.One co-accused Banti @ Narendra is under abscontious.It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that during the course of investigation, statement of Smt. Chandni (since deceased) was recorded on 19/7/13 and on the same day her dying-declaration was recorded by the doctor.Thereafter further her statement was recorded on 24/7/13 during the course of investigation.Accordingly, there are four statements of the deceased in the shape of dying declarations on record and they have been filed alongwith the charge-sheet papers.It is also submitted that in any of the four statements, to say, so called dying-declarations there were no allegations made 3 Cr.R.601/2014 Mohan @ Mahendra Singh & another Vs.State of M.P.against the present petitioners, and as such it is submitted that the learned trial Judge erred in law, in the absence of any material sufficient in framing of charge under Section 302 or 302/109 of I.P.C. On such premises, it is prayed that the petition may be allowed to the extent of claiming relief as aforesaid.On behalf of the State, however, it has been asserted that there is no illegality committed by the trial court in the order impugned.It is submitted that there are several facts appearing in the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police during investigation which point out to the guilt of the petitioners.The witnesses have categorically deposed against the petitioners.This being so, the order passed by the trial court cannot be said to be illegal.Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.Since, the learned counsel for the petitioners attacked the order of the learned trial Judge for framing of charge on the ground that the four statements of the deceased on record disprove the prosecution case of homicide against the petitioners and the presumption of the trial judge that the petitioners have committed murder of the deceased is utterly without any basis or material, this court would proceed to examine the alleged four dying declarations of the deceased.In the first statement recorded by the police on 4 Cr.R.601/2014 Mohan @ Mahendra Singh & another Vs.State of M.P.19/7/13, it was mentioned by the deceased that "my mother-in-law Pushpa after sprinkling oil set me (deceased) at fire and before that Sapna had beaten me (deceased).I was hospitalized by my in-laws." In the second statement dated 19/7/13 recorded by the doctor, it was mentioned by the deceased that" my mother-in-law/Sapna sister set me at fire".In the third statement dated 24/7/13, it was stated by the deceased that"my mother-in-law Pushpa had poured kerosene oil on me (deceased) and Sapna pushed me (deceased) down then mother-in-law ignited the matchbox and set me at fire".In her fourth statement the deceased stated that "mother-in-law pushed me (deceased) and she (deceased) fell on the cylinder, thereafter, mother-in-law ignited the stick of the matchbox.When the first stick failed, second stick was ignited.Then, she (deceased) was set at fire.Her sister-in-law caught hold of her (deceased).Now, if we will go to consider the statements of the witnesses, namely, Dara Singh, Jandel Singh (father of deceased), Geeta (mother of the deceased) and Arvind Singh, it is clear that there were allegations made by these witnesses against the present petitioners in regard to raising demand of dowry.It was also stated by the aforesaid witnesses that when they reached to meet the deceased in the hospital, the deceased told them that because sufficient dowry was not given, therefore, she was 5 Cr.R.601/2014 Mohan @ Mahendra Singh & another Vs.State of M.P.ablaze by all the accused persons, namely, Banti, Pushpa, Sapna, Ramu, Mahendra Singh, Hakim Singh.Therefore, as regards allegation made against the present petitioners to commit murder of the deceased, the statements of the witnesses mentioned above are indicative of the fact that they have been recorded in one stroke and in a routine manner.It is relevant to mention here that the deceased in her four statements levied allegations against her mother- in-law Pushpa and sister-in-law Sapna.No allegation for setting ablaze the deceased was made by her in her aforesaid four dying declarations against the present petitioners.At this stage it may be mentioned here that the dying declaration is entitled and recognized by the law to be given greater weightage and therefore, the same would prevail over the statements of the witnesses as aforesaid.So, if the dying declarations of the deceased are completely excluded in a given case, no doubt, it would amount to miscarriage of justice.Hence, keeping in mind all this as well as the paucity of materials on the point of framing charge of murder, this court is of the view that charge framed against the petitioners for offence under Section 302 and 302/109 of I.P.C. is liable to be and is hereby quashed.The impugned order dated 2/5/2014 framing charge against the petitioners for commission of offence under Section 302 6 Cr.R.601/2014 Mohan @ Mahendra Singh & another Vs.State of M.P.and 302/109 of I.P.C. only to that extent stands set aside.Other charges framed against the petitioners for commission of offence punishable under section 304-B and 498-A of I.P.C. shall continue and the petitioners shall be tried accordingly for these offences.It is further made clear that the trial court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made herein before and shall be free to proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law.Accordingly, the petition stands allowed in part as mentioned above.A copy of this order be sent to the trial court for necessary compliance.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Mr. A.Usmani, learned counsel for the applicants.Mr. S.S. Chouhan, learned Govt. Advocate for the State.This application has been filed U/s.439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicants Ramcharan and Ravikamal, in connection with Crime No.2/17 of P.S. Mada, Distt.Singrauli, for offences under Section 294, 323, 326, 506/34 of I.P.C.According to the case of the prosecution, the applicants herein are related to the complainant party being the cousins of the complainant.The offence U/s.326 of I.P.C. being more serious in the said F.I.R. is attributable as per Section 161 to one Ramlal, who is stated to have caused the injury to injured Ramkumar which is a grievous offence U/s.326 I.P.C. The said Ramlal is not an applicant in this application.The applicants herein are alleged to have used lathi and kicks and blows by fist on Phoolwati and thereby causing lacerated injury on her finger and pain on her thigh.Under the circumstances, the applicants who are in judicial custody since 19.1.2017 shall be enlarged on bail upon their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.C.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE a

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Briefly the case of the prosecution is that on 18 th August, 1994 one Ram Karan was carrying a bag containing `2,54,000/- out of his factory premises which were given to him by his employer Atul Jain.The Appellant pointed a pistol at Ram Karan and his co-accused (whose name was later on disclosed to be Virender Mandal) snatched the bag and ran away.However, PW1 Krishnanad Jha, PW 2 Ram Karan and PW 3 Atul Jain the employer who immediately came out thereafter, overpowered the Appellant at some distance and from his possession a country made pistol loaded with live cartridge was recovered.When PW2 was being robbed by the Appellant and his accomplice at the point of pistol, accused Anil Mandal remained a silent spectator.By the present Appeal a challenge is laid to the judgment of conviction for offences under Section 392, Section 392 read with Section 397 Crl.Appeal No. 240/2001 Page 1 of 8 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of `1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months; seven years with a fine of `2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months; and two years with a fine of `500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of fifteen days respectively.Appeal No. 240/2001 Page 1 of 8The Appellant was handed over to the police along with a country made pistol loaded with one live cartridge.The Appellant disclosed the names of his accomplices as Virender Mandal and Anil Mandal.Accused Anil Crl.Appeal No. 240/2001 Page 2 of 8 Mandal was subsequently arrested.Both the Appellant and Anil Mandal were charged for offences punishable under Sec.392/34 IPC, whereas the Appellant was also charged for offences punishable under Sec. 397 IPC and 27 Arms Act. As accused Virender Mandal absconded he was declared a proclaimed offender and proceedings were recorded under Sec. 299 CrPC as against him.After trial, Anil Mandal was acquitted by the learned Trial Court giving him the benefit of doubt, whereas the Appellant was convicted and sentenced as above.Appeal No. 240/2001 Page 2 of 83. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that though the prosecution claims to have examined three eye witnesses, that is, PW1 Krishnand Jha, PW2 Ram Karan and PW3 Atul Jain, however, there are material contradictions in the testimony of these witnesses.According to PW2 Ram Karan seizure of the pistol was from the Appellant, however, he was not present there.Even PW3 Atul Jain says that no proceedings were conducted on the spot.The eye witnesses have neither identified the Appellant nor the pistol nor the cartridge.There is discrepancy even on the place from where the money has been recovered.Moreover, incriminating evidence has not been put to the Appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and thus, the same cannot be used for convicting the Appellant.According to the learned counsel even believing the testimony of the witnesses, only an offence Crl.Appeal No. 240/2001 Page 3 of 8 punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act can be said to have been committed.The Appellant has faced a protracted trial of 16 years and has been in custody for nearly three years four months and should be let out for a sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone or on probation.Appeal No. 240/2001 Page 3 of 84. Learned APP for the State on the other hand refers to the testimony of the eye witnesses and contends that there is no discrepancy in the testimony of these witnesses.The Appellant was apprehended on the spot immediately after the incident and on the police being called he was handed over to the police.Even if PW2 Ram Karan has stated that the Appellant had not fired the pistol, however, it has been deposed by both PW1 and PW2 that the Appellant had put the pistol on the neck of PW2 Ram Karan and this act of the Appellant fulfills the requirement of offence punishable under Section 397 IPC.Relying on Khuji @ Surender Tiwari vs. State of M.P., 1991 (3) SCC 627 it is contended that even if the witness has turned hostile his entire testimony does not get effaced and his statement in examination in chief can be relied upon.5. Learned APP for the State has taken me through the statement of the Appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to show that all the incriminating circumstances have been put to the Appellant and contends that Crl.Appeal No. 240/2001 Page 4 of 8 in any case even if this Court comes to the conclusion that some portion has not been put then in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the Appellant has not been able to show that any prejudice has been caused to him.Appeal No. 240/2001 Page 4 of 8I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record.PW2 Ram Karan has stated that as he came out, two young boys confronted him and when the Appellant placed a pistol on his neck, the other co-accused snatched the bag containing currency.He raised an alarm on hearing which Sh.K.C. Jain and his son Atul Jain PW3 came out.This statement of PW2 is corroborated by PW1 Krishnanand Jha who was also present there.Appeal No. 240/2001 Page 5 of 8 in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 217, much importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies for the reasons:Appeal No. 240/2001 Page 5 of 8(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident.It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen:The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise.The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.(3) The powers of observation differ from person to person.What one may notice, another may not.They were, in fact, evidence of circumstances which were put to the accused when he was examined under s. 342, Cr.P.C. It was not at all necessary that Crl.Appeal No. 240/2001 Page 6 of 8 each separate piece of evidence in support of a circumstance should be put to the accused and he should be questioned in respect of it under that section".Appeal No. 240/2001 Page 6 of 8Though PW1 has not supported the prosecution case to the extent of the Appellant being apprehended on the pretext that he could not identify as it was dark but he has stated that he over-powered a person and apprehended him and the identity of the Appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by testimony of PW2 and PW3 who have identified him in the court.Moreover, the fact that the Appellant was apprehended immediately after the incident from near the spot along with one country made pistol loaded with one live cartridge, has also been corroborated by the testimony of PW7 Crl.Appeal No. 240/2001 Page 7 of 8 Inspector Arun Sharma, the Investigating Officer who arrested the Appellant along with a country made pistol loaded with a cartridge, on reaching the spot soon after the incident.Appeal No. 240/2001 Page 7 of 8For the reasons aforesaid, I find no infirmity in the impugned order.The sentence provided for an offence punishable under Section 392 IPC read with Section 397 IPC is imprisonment which may extend to ten years, subject to a minimum of seven years.The Appellant has already been awarded the minimum sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years for offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC and a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years, that is, less than the minimum prescribed for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The sentence of the Appellant cannot be reduced than the statutory minimum.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.The bail bond and the surety bond stand cancelled.The Appellant be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE JANUARY 04, 2011 vn Crl.Appeal No. 240/2001 Page 8 of 8Appeal No. 240/2001 Page 8 of 8

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

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

Amarjit Singh & Ors.J U D G M E N T Five accused, namely, Amarjit Singh, Raghubir Singh,Jagat Singh, Joginder Singh and Ranbir Singh were sent upfor trial before the learned Addl.They weretried for various offences.Raghubir Singh and JoginderSingh were convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPCwhile their remaining co-accused were acquitted of theoffence under Section 302/149 IPC.All the accused wereconvicted for an offence under Section 148 IPC.JoginderSingh was also convicted for an offence under Section 325IPC while the rest of the accused for an offence underSection 325/149 IPC.Raghubir Singh was convicted for anoffence under Section 323 IPC and the rest of the accusedfor an offence under Section 323/149 IPC.Amarjit Singh whois a law graduate and a practising advocate and had beenattributed only a 'lalkara' at the time of assault, was inview of his previous record and educational qualificationsdirected to be released on probation for a period of oneyear on furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- with onesurety of the like amount undertaking to maintain peace andbe of good behaviour and to appear and to receive thesentence as and when required by the court during thatperiod.Raghubir Singh and Joginder Singh were sentenced toundergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-and in default R.I. for one and a half years each for theoffence under Section 302 IPC.Joginder Singh was alsosentenced to R.I. for one year under Section 325 IPC whilethe rest of the accused were sentenced to R.I. for ninemonths each under Section 325/149 IPC.Raghubir Singh wassentenced to three months R.I. for the offence under Section323 IPC and the rest of the accused were also sentenced tothree months R.I. under Section 323/149 IPC.All the accusedwere further sentenced to R.I. for six months under Section148 IPC.Because of the receipt of theletter, Harbans Singh and Balwant Singh started livingtogether.On 11.9.1984 an agreement appears to have beenarrived at between Jagat Singh appellant and Harbans SinghPW for a passage through a plot.This led to straining ofrelations between Joginder Singh and his brother RanbirSingh (appellants) on the one hand and Harbans Singh on theother.It is also alleged that Santokh Singh PW6 broughtabout a compromise between Jagat Singh and Dalip Singh whichwas resented to by the accused.These were the motives forthe assault as alleged by the prosecution.At about 10 p.m. on 11.9.84 Santokh Singh, Nambardarwas returning from his tubewell and he met Tarsem Singh PWnear Octroi Post on the Jallandhar Hoshiarpur road.Theystarted talking to each other.In the meantime, RaghubirSingh appellant armed with a gandassi reached there andpulling down the turban of Santokh Singh PW6 told him thathe was nobody to bring about any compromise between JagatSingh and Dalip Singh.Santokh Singh PW6 retorted that hehad not done any wrong and picked up his turban and placedit on his head.Raghubir Singh appellant then raised alalkara on which Jagat Singh and Joginder Singh armed withgandassis and Ranbir Singh armed with a datri came there.There were two other unknown persons also accompanying them.Amarjit Singh (co-accused) arrived on a scooter and afterparking the same raised a lalkara that Santokh Singh andTarsem Singh should not be allowed to go and that he wouldtake care of the matter.On this Raghubir Singh is allegedto have given a gandassi blow, from its wrong side, on theright forearm of Santokh Singh PW6 while Jagat Singhappellant gave a gandassi blow by its wrong side on his leftthigh.All the accused thereafter caused injuries to himwith their respective weapons on his left arm and fingersand other parts of the body, including his right thigh andthe right side of his head.In the meanwhile, NambardarBalwant Singh, deceased, and Harbans Singh PW7 reached thereand they also witnessed the assault.They asked theappellants not to beat Santokh Singh on which Amarjit Singhraised a lalkara saying that since the real enemy hadarrived, he should not be spared and allowed to go awayunhurt.Raghubir Singh thereupon gave a gandassi blow on thehead of Balwant Singh while Jagat Singh gave a gandassi blowfrom its wrong side on the back of the head of BalwantSingh.On receipt of the injuries, Balwant Singh fell down.The appellants left the place along with their respectiveweapons after Harbans Singh PW7 escaped to his house.Balwant Singh succumbed to the injuries at the spot.Chowkidar Lakhwant Singh arrived at the spot and carriedSantokh Singh PW6 injured to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpurwhere he was medically examined and as many as seveninjuries were found on his person.According to Dr.T.S.Verma, all the injuries had been caused with a bluntweapon.According to the Radiologist's report, injury No.6,which was a defused swelling of the upper one third of theleft thigh, was declared as grievous.4) There was swelling of scalp in the region of parietal region left side and top of skull.It was 12.4 cm x 3.2 cm.5) Three contusions red in colour in the front of abdomen and right side near the illiac crest.It was 4 cms in diameter."According to the medical opinion, the death of BalwantSingh was caused due to shock and haemmrohage on account ofthe injuries received by the deceased which were all antemortem.The doctor further opined that injuries Nos. 1 and 4were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course ofnature individually and collectively.It was further opinedthat the time gap between the injuries and death wasimmediate and between death and post mortem about 12 hours.According to Doctor injury No.1 had been caused by a sharpweapon while all other injuries had been caused by bluntweapon.SI Sardul Singh PW undertook the investigation andcollected blood stained earth and prepared the rough siteplan.P2 recovered on thedisclosure statement of Joginder Singh were found to beblood stained.They were seized and sealed.ASI Jagjit Singhinterrogated Jagat Singh and Ranbir Singh on 21.9.84 andthey also made disclosure statements leading to the recoveryof a gandassi and a Datri concealed by them respectively.Gandassi Ex.WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 436 OF 1985Santokh SinghV.The substantive sentences of imprisonment weredirected to run concurrently and the fine on realisation wasdirected to be paid to the heirs of Balwant Singh ascompensation.State had also filed an appeal against theacquittal of the accused of the offence 302/149 IPC, beingCrl.The complainantSantokh Singh has filed Crl.A. No.436/85 against theacquittal of the three accused for the offence underSections 302/149 IPC.Both these appeals are being disposedof together.According to the prosecution case, sometime in August1984 Harbans Singh PW received a threatening letterallegedly from some extremist on which he moved anapplication to the District Magistrate for permission tocarry his own weapon for self defence.Jagat Singh appellantmoved an application on 14.8.84 before the DistrictMagistrate opposing the request of Harbans Singh and on thataccount the relations between Harbans Singh on the one handand Jagat Singh and Raghubir Singh who are brothers, on theother hand became strained.Sub-Inspector SardulSingh PW recorded the statement of Santokh Singh on arrivalat the Hospital on receipt of the police ruka, after SantokhSingh was declared fit to make a statement, and forwardedthe same, with his endorsement, to the police station.Theformal FIR was registered on 12.9.1984 at 12.55 a.m. Theinvestigation was taken in hand by Sardul Singh who went tothe spot from the hospital.The dead body of Balwant Singhwas found lying there.He prepared the inquest report Ex.PCand the dead body was sent for post mortem examination whichwas conducted by Dr. Jagmohan Singh on 12.9.84 at 9.15 a.m.Ths following injuries were found on the deceased:i) Incised wound 10 cm x 6 cm x 7.4 cm on the forehead.It was placed horizontally/oblique.The frontal bone was fractured.The brain matter was coming out.2) Reddish contusion mark on the top of right shoulder joint.It was 4.8 cm x.12 cm.It was obliquely placed.cm x 1.4 cm on the front of chest in the upper part.It was obliquely placed going upward towards the right side.The clothes of the deceased which had been brought byConstable Madan Lal were also sealed into a parcel and takeninto possession.Raghubir Singh and Joginder Singhappellants surrendered before the court on 14.9.84 and weretaken into custody.On 17.9.84 ASI Ajit Singh interrogatedRaghubir Singh who made a disclosure statement leading tothe recovery of a gandassi from a heap of stock lying in hisfield.Joginder Singh also made a disclosure statement on17.9.84 and led to the recovery of a gandassi.Both theweapons gandassi EX.P1 recovered on the disclosure statementof Raghubir Singh and gandassi Ex.P3 was recovered at the instance of Jagat Singhwhile Datri Ex.14 and khundi Ex.P5 were recovered at theinstance of Ranbir Singh.On completion of theinvestigation, the appellants were sent up for trial andwere convicted and sentenced in the manner noticed above.Santokh Singh PW6 is the injured eye-witness.He hasdeposed to not only about the motives but also about theassault both on himself and on Balwant Singh.He has fullysupported the prosecution version as detailed in the earlierpart of this judgment.His evidence is clear and cogent.According to Dalip Singh PW10 when he arrived at the spotafter the occurrence he had found Santokh Singh PW6 presentthere along with Lakhwant Singh Chowkidar and the dead bodyof Balwant Singh.According to him, Santokh Singh PW6narrated the occurence to him and PW6 was removed to thehospital by Lakhwant Singh Chowkidar in the rickshaw.Thesubmission of learned counsel for the appellants that allthe 3/4 alleged motives were minor and not sufficient toinduce the appellants to commit the murder of Balwant Singhdoes not impress us.The motives may be minor butnonetheless they did provide an occasion for attack on thedeceased by the appellants.That apart, even in the absenceof motive, the guilt of culprits can be established in agiven case if the other evidence on the record istrustworthy and the absence of proof of motive has neverbeen considered as fatal to the prosecution case where theocular evidence is found reliable.The evidence of SantokhSingh PW6 is straight forward and consistent.He being aninjured witness would not leave out his real assailants andimplicate the appellants falsely.His evidence has impressedus.Besides, the evidence of PW6 has received amplecorroboration from the medical evidence provided by Dr.The statement of Santokh Singh PW6 was recorded at thehospital at about mid-night and it was on the basis of thatstatement that the formal FIR came to be registered.In theFIR itself the genesis of the occurrence and the manner ofassault have been clearly detailed.The names of the accusedas well as the weapons with which they were armed have alsobeen clearly stated.This prompt FIR containing allnecessary details also lends sufficient credence to thestatement of PW6 Santokh Singh made at the trial.As alreadynoticed Dalip Singh PW10 and Lakhwant Singh Chowkidar havefully corroborated the statement of Santokh Singh not onlywith regard to the second part of the occurrence but alsoabout the manner in which the first part of the occurrencerelating to the attack on Santokh Singh PW took place.Wealso do not find any force in the submission of learnedcounsel for the appellants that since the attack on BalwantSingh was at the spur of the moment therefore PW6 could nothave witnessed the occurrence and as such he is not areliable witness.PW6 Santokh Singh was very much present atthe spot and it was in his presence that Balwant Singhdeceased and Harbans Singh PW arrived at the spot andadvised the accused not to attack PW6 and thereafter alalkara was raised that since the real enemey had arrived,he should not be spared.Nothing has been brought out in thecourse of cross-examination of PW7 which may create anydoubt about the manner in which Balwant Singh had arrived atthe spot and was attacked in the presence of Santokh Singh.There was admittedly party faction in the village andAmarjit Singh was heading one faction, while Harbans SinghPW7 belonged to the other faction.The lalkara regarding thearrival of the enemy thus stands explained.These recoveries also lend assurance to thetestimony of Santokh Singh PW6 and Harbans Singh PW7.Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination ofeither of these two witnesses which may in any way createany doubt about their truthfulness.The trial court whiledealing with the attack on Santokh rightly observed:"From this evidence, therefore, it has to conclude that all the accused were present at the time of the occurrence with the common motive to attack Santokh Singh PW and on the lalkara of Amarjit Singh, accused, the others co- accused actually attacked him and caused the injuries which were actually found on his person during the medico legal examination.Out of the injuries sustained by Santokh Singh during the occurrence, injury No.6 was found to be grievous with a facture of the left thigh.This injury was caused by the wrong side of the gandasi and the blow is attributed to Joginder Singh accused." We agree with the above findings of the trial court.Our critical analysis of the evidence on the recordshows that the common object of the unlawful assembly waslimited to the attack on Santokh Singh and did not extend tocover the murder of Balwant Singh.Balwant Singh apparentlyreceived the injuries when he intervened during the courseof the occurrence and those injuries proved fatal.The trialcourt rightly found that in the established facts andcircumstances of the case, the accused who had actuallycaused the injuries to Balwant Singh alone were responsiblefor the murder of Balwant Singh and that others could not beheld liable either with the aid of Section 149 or Section 34IPC.There was no serious dispute either before the trialcourt or before us that Balwant Singh had died at the timeand place as alleged by the prosecution on account of theinjuries sustained by him.As per the post mortem reportEx.PA, the deceased had five injuries out of which threewere contusions, one was an incised wound on the foreheadand another a swelling in the parital region.Injuries No. 1and 4 were opined by Dr. Jagmohan Singh to be individuallyand collectively sufficient in the ordinary course of natureto cause death.According to the ocular testimony of PW6injury No.1 is attributed to Raghubir Singh appellant whileinjury No.4 is attributed to Joginder Singh appellant.Santokh Singh PW6 has categorically deposed that RaghubirSingh had given the gandasi blow on the head of BalwantSingh from its sharp side while Joginder Singh had given ablow with the gandasi from the wrong side on the back of thehead of Balwant Singh, who fell down thereafter and theother accused caused further injuries on the deceased.Indeed, in the FIR Ex. PM Santokh Singh PW6 had specificallyattributed the first blow to Raghubir Singh and had statedthat the rest of the accused also caused injuries to himfrom the wrong and right side of their respective weapons.The injury attributed to Joginder Singh is not specificallymentioned by Santokh Singh in the statement Ex.PM, BothHarbans Singh PW7 and Santokh Singh PW6 at the trial,however, clearly deposed that injury No.4 had been caused byJoginder Singh.Nothing has been suggested in the cross-examination of Harbans Singh PW7 regarding the injuryattributed to Jogindar Singh appellant.We agree withthe trial court that the two fatal blows to Balwant Singhhad been inflicted by Raghubir Singh and Joginder Singhappellants.So far as the defence of the appellants,including the statement of Ram Prasad DW1, the trial courthas rightly considered and found the same not to be worthyof any credence.We agree.Faced with the unimpeachable evidence on the record,learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellantsJoginder Singh and Raghubir Singh could not be said to haveintended to cause the death of Balwant Singh and thereforethe offence would not fall under Section 302 IPC.We cannotagree.Undoubtedly, Balwant Singh received the fatal blowswhen he intervened but the injuries inflicted on him wereintentional and not accidental.The blows were given tohim with great force on vital parts of his body.Keepingin view the seriousness of the injuries, the Weaponsused and the seat of the injuries, the offence committedby these two appellants would squarely fall underSection 302 IPC.Thus, for what has been said above the conviction andsentence of the appellants for various offences as recordedby the trial court are well founded and do not suffer fromany infirmity whatsoever.There is no merit in this appealwhich consequently fails and is dismissed.Coming now to the Criminal Appeal No.436 of 1985 filedby the complainant, we do not find any force in the same andparticularly in view of the dismissal of Crl.A.No.526/85decided on 27.2.1987 filed by the State, for the very samerelief, this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Jayanthi, 2) mother of Dr.Jayanthi, 3) brother of Dr.Jayanthi and 4) a woman relative of Dr.The case was registered on 12.07.2008 at 10.00 a.m. The petitioner in Crl.No.560/2008 was registered on 12.07.2008 itself for alleged offences punishable under sections 279 and 506(ii) IPC based on the complaint of one Ganesan against Dr.Jayanthi and three other persons.The de-facto complainant in the said case is none other than the husband's brother of Srikala, the de-facto complainant in Cr.Though the case was registered against Dr.Jayanthi and three others without naming them, E.Sankar, the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8051/2009, two other advocates Manivannan and Chinna Alagu and also one Ajmal, the driver of the Tata Safari car bearing Regn.TN-07 AS-9696 in which the petitioner and the other two advocates had gone to Coimbatore, were taken by the police and detained by them as the persons accused in Cr.No.560/2008 of Saravananpatti Police Station.The petitioner E.Sankar has filed Crl.O.P.No.8051/2009 for quashing the criminal case registered as Cr.No.560/2008 on the file of the above said police station.The Inspector of Police, B9-Saravananpatti Police Station, Coimbatore has filed separate counter affidavits in Crl.The petitioners in both the Crl.O.Ps have contended that pursuant to the refusal on the part of Dr.Jayanthi to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards association fee as demanded by one Narasimhan, Secretary of the association of Government Employees' Quarters, Ganapathy, Coimbatore, she was threatened by the said Secretary with dire consequences like making the residents of the quarters not to have any contact with her; that on 07.07.2008, the said Secretary of the association Mr.Narasimhan and one Kumaresan disrupted the water supply to the apartment of Dr.Jayanthi by blocking the nozzle in the water tank which necessitated Dr.Jayanthi to remove the said block to restore water supply to her apartment; that at that point of time Srikala, the de-facto complainant in Cr.No.559/2008, her husband Kumaresan and the association secretary Narasimhan picked up wordy quarrel with Dr.Jayanthi; that there after at about 8.30 p.m on 08.07.2008 one Kannian, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Saravananpatti Police Station came to the house of Dr.Jayanthi along with the above said Kumaresan and Narasimhan and directed Dr.Jayanthi to vacate the house with a warning that she would have to face dire consequences, if she did not do so; that at that point of time, Kumaresan took nine sovereigns of gold jewels kept in her almirah; that when she demanded return of the jewels, she was asked to come to the police station and was also informed that she could get back the jewels, provided she gave an undertaking to vacate the house within a week or so; that the wife of Narasimhan and others with the help of goondas caused threat to kill Dr.Jayanthi pursuant to which Dr.Jayanthi lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Saravananpatti Police Station; that the police instead of registering a case and taking action against the persons accused therein, foisted two cases against Dr.Jayanthi and others in Cr.No.559/2008 and 560/2008 and thereafter registered a case based on the complaint of Dr.Jayanthi to make it appear as if she gave a complaint only subsequent to the registration of the above said two cases against her and others; that the police officials who insisted upon withdrawal of the complaint given against the Sub-Inspector of Police, in fact, illegally detained Dr.Jayanthi and others, pursuant to which the petitioner in Crl.are the brothers of Dr.Jayanthi, M.A., M.Phil., Ph.D, who is residing at B-3, Government Employees' Quarters, Ganapathy, Coimbatore.Both the petitioners are advocates practising in Chennai.According to them, the said Dr.Jayanthi refused to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- demanded by one Narasimhan, the Secretary of the association of the residents' of the Government Employees Quarters, Ganapathy as contribution for the said association.Whereupon they interfered with the water supply to the flat occupied by Dr.Jayanthi by blocking the nozzle of the pipe leading to her apartment.It is their further case that the sister of the petitioners Dr.Jayanthi had to restore water supply to her flat and that when she was doing so she was abused with filthy language by Srikala, wife of Kumaresan and the above said association Secretary Narasimhan.It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the said occurrence, one Kannian, Sub-Inspector of Police, B-9, Saravananpatti Police Station came to the house of Dr.The water supply to her flat was disrupted by providing a block to the nozzle.Jayanthi refused to make payment of a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards contribution for the association as demanded by him.It has also been made clear that there was an altercation between the de-facto complainant in Cr.No.559/2008 and Dr.Jayanthi when the later removed the block provided at the nozzle of the pipeline in order to restore water supply to her flat.There are also clear materials to show that the said Srikala, de-facto complainant in Cr.No.559/2008 and others were demanding an apology from Dr.Jayanthi and her brothers.Therefore, it is quite obvious that the de-facto complainant in the said case did have a grudge and personal vendetta against the accused persons therein, especially Dr.It is also obvious from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent that those people did have grievance against Dr.Jayanthi pursuant to her refusal to pay contribution to the association.Apart from the grudge - the de-facto complainants did have against Dr.Jayanthi and other accused persons, the police officials also have acted with ulterior motive besides creating anti-dated documents.In the said order observations have also been made to the effect that Cr.Nos.559/2008 and 560/2008 and Cr.No.561/2008 were registered at one and the same time, one after the other.There are clear averments in the complaint in Cr.No.561/2008 lodged by Dr.Jayanthi that the Sub-Inspector of Police by name Kannian came to her house at 8.30 p.m on 08.07.2008 along with the association Secretary Narasimhan and one Kumaresan and insister her to vacate the house.It is the further allegation made in the complaint of Dr.Jayanthi that in the presence of the said Sub-Inspector of Police, Kumaresan committed robbery of nine sovereigns of gold jewel from the house of Dr.There is no denial of the fact that Mr.Kannian, Sub-Inspector of Police, Saravananpatti Police Station came to the house of Dr.Under such circumstances, the complaint lodged by Dr.Jayanthi regarding the said occurrence involving intimidation and robbery was not registered as a criminal case immediately and on the other hand, after making Dr.Jayanthi and her brothers and other advocates to go over to the place of occurrence to take part in the enquiry on 11.07.2008 at about 8.30 p.m, the police officials, namely the Inspector of Police and the Assistant Commissioner of Police coerced them to withdraw the complaint given by Dr.Jayanthi against the Sub-Inspector of Police and on their refusal, they were taken into the police station and detained and cases were registered getting anti-dated complaints as a counter measure for the complaint lodged by Dr.Jayanthi and with a view to coerce her to withdraw the complaint given by her.The same is obvious from the discrepancies found in the FIR in Cr.No.559/2008 and the absence of registration number of the car in the FIR in Cr.It is also obvious from the fact that a complaint allegedly given at 11.30 p.m on 11.07.2008 was registered with an earlier crime number whereas the complaint given by Dr.Jayanthi allegedly received at 10.00 p.m on 11.07.2008 was registered as a subsequent crime number.Though the complaint in Cr.No.560/2008 contains an averment to the effect that the Tata Safari car used by the accused therein was handed over by the de-facto complainant and others to the police, the respondent/Inspector of Police has chosen to deny it.The counter affidavit filed by the respondent, namely the Inspector of Police in Crl.O.P.No.8051/2009 contains the following averments.It is submitted that in the meanwhile, on 11.07.08 one Jayanthi preferred a petition before the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City stating that on 9.7.08 in the presence of S.I Kannaiyan the Association Secretary and his Henchmen dacoity 9 sovereign of jewelleries from the house of Jayanthi who is residing in B-4, Housing Board Quarters.It was endorsed to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tr.In turn, Assistant Commissioner Gopalswamy directed me to enquire the petition.On 11.7.08 Jayanthi and his brother Sankar Advocates Manivannan, Chinna Alagu and Driver Ajimal came to the above said quarters by Tata Safari Car bearing No.TN 07 AS-9696 and pacified the Housing Board people.But the residents of the Housing Board peoples squatted in front of the above said Safari Car to say apology for the previous actions of Jayanthi.But Jayanthi and her collegues tried to start the car and to escape from the place in a rash negligent manner and created a panic among the public and also make a direct consequences.Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, came to the scene and pacified the residents of the Housing Board to sort out the issues in the next morning and not in the mid night and the above said Jayanthi, Advocates Shankar, Manivannan, Chinna Alagu and Driver Ajmal were rescued safely from the agitated public and sent them to their stay place and to come to Police Station next day morning i.e. on 12.7.08 at 9.00 hours for the enquiry."In the counter affidavit, there is an admission to the effect that when Jayanthi and others came to the quarters on 11.07.2008, the residents of the Government Employees' Quarters squatted in front of the Tata Safari car in which they had come there and demanded an apology from Dr.O.P.No.8050/2009 has been filed by one E.Gokulakrishnan, advocate practising in Chennai, for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated in crime No.559/2008 on the file of B9-Saravananpatti Police Station, Coimbatore.Similarly, Crl.O.P.No.8051/2009 has been filed by E.Sankar, another advocate practising in Chennai, for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated in crime No.560/2008 on the file of B9-Saravananpatti Police Station, Coimbatore.No.559/2008 was registered based on the alleged complaint of one K.Srikala, wife of Kumaresan for alleged offences punishable under sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC against 1) Dr.O.P.No.8050/2009 has been referred to as the third accused with description the brother of Dr.Hence he has preferred the above said petition Crl.O.P.No.8050/2009 for quashing the FIR in Cr.O.P.No.8050/2009 had to move a Habeas Corpus Petition in the High Court, which ultimately resulted in a order condemning the attitude of the police and awarding a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- in all to be paid as compensation; out of which each one of Dr.Jayanthi, Manivannan-Advocate, Chinna Alagu-Advocate and Sankar-Advocate were to be paid Rs.1,00,000/- each and the balance Rs.50,000/- was to be paid to driver Ajmal as compensation besides directing disciplinary action to be taken against the erring police officials and that since the cases registered in Cr.No.559/2008 and 560/2008 are cases concocted by the police after the lodging of the complaint by Dr.Jayanthi, both the criminal cases registered against the petitioners herein should be quashed.It is the contention of the petitioners that there are inherent defects in the FIR itself, which will make it inherently absurd, besides the same being an abuse of process of law.The Inspector of police in the counter affidavits filed, besides denying the allegations made by the petitioners that the cases in Cr.Nos.559/2009 and 560/2008 were foisted and registered after Dr.Jayanthi lodged a complaint, also contended that the complaint in Cr.No.559/2008 was lodged on 09.07.2008 itself which was immediately assigned CSR No.82/2008 and after enquiry registered as a criminal case in Cr.No.559/2008 on 12.07.2008 at 19.00 Hrs. Similarly, it is his contention that a further complaint was lodged by one Ganesan on 11.07.2008 at 23.00 Hrs. which was immediately assigned CSR No.83/2008 on the file of B-9, Saravananpatti Police Station and subsequently after enquiry registered as Cr.No.560/2008 on 12.07.2008 at 20.30 Hrs. It is the contention raised by the Inspector of police in the counter affidavits filed in both the petitions that on the complaint submitted by Dr.Jayanthi to the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore city to the effect that in the presence of Sub-Inspector of Police Kannian, the association Secretary and his henchmen committed dacoity of nine sovereigns of jewel from the house of Dr.Jayanthi, the complaint was endorsed to Mr.Gopalsamy, Assistant Commissioner of Police for enquiry, who in turn directed the respondent-Inspector of police to enquire into the same; that on 11.07.2008 Dr.Jayanthi, her brothers Sankar-advocate and Manivannan-advocate and one Chinna Alagu-advocate came to the Government Employees' Quarters by a Tata Safari car bearing Regn.TN-07 AS.9696 and were pacifying the residents of the quarters but the residents of the Housing Board Quarters squatted in front of the said car to coerce Dr.Jayanthi to express apology for her previous actions; that Dr.Jayanthi and her colleagues tried to start the car and escape from the place in a rash and negligent manner which created a panic among the public; that pursuant to the said incident, the Assistant Commissioner of Police came to the scene and pacified the residents of the Housing Board Quarters, rescued Dr.Jayanthi, Sankar-advocate, Manivannan-advocate, Chinna Alagu-advocate and driver Ajmal from the agitated public and sent them to their place of stay directing them to come to the police station at 9.00 a.m on 12.07.2008; that on 12.07.2008 at 11.00 a.m both parties insisted upon registering cases based on their respective complaints and then the cases were registered.It is the further contention of the respondent that there is no abuse of process of law or that the registration of the cases in Cr.No.559/2008 and 560/2008 cannot be stated as inherently absurd and that hence these petitions for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed.The submissions made by Mr.R.Prabhakaran, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Balamurugan, counsel on record for the petitioners in both the petitions and by Mr.I.Paul Nobel Devakumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) representing the respondent were heard.The materials placed before the court were also perused.The petitioners in both the Crl.Jayanthi along with the association Secretary Narasimhan, Kumaresan and during the night hours, namely at 8.30 p.m on 08.07.2008 and insisted Dr.Jayanthi to vacate the house; that Kumaresan in the presence of Sub-Inspector of Police committed robbery of nine sovereign gold jewels; that when Dr.Jayanthi asked for her jewels, the Sub-Inspector of Police and the other two persons informed her that she should come to the police station and give an undertaking in writing to vacate the house within a week or so for retrieving her jewels and that at that point of time one Viji, Srikala, wife of Kumaresan and one Papathi threatened her with lethal weapons.The further case of the petitioners is that pursuant to the above said occurrence, Dr.Jayanthi had lodged a complaint on 09.07.2008 before the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore agaisnt the association Secretary Narasimhan and his henchmen for having committed robbery of nine sovereign jewels in the presence of the Sub-Inspector of Police, B-9 Saravananpatti Police Station; that the said persons even there after continued to torture Dr.Jayanthi along with the womenfolk Viji, Srikala, Papathi and another Jayanthi, wife of the association Secretary.Jayanthi requested the petitioner-E.Gokulakrishnan to go over to Coimbatore to sort out the issue and therefore he went to Coimbatore on 09.07.2008 at about 11.30 p.m along with Sankar-advocate, the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8051/2009, Manivannan-advocate and Chinna Alagu-advocate in Tata Safari car bearing Regn.TN-07 AS-9696 of which one Ajmal was the driver.It is their further contention that, as the problem was perpetuating, the petitioners and the other advocates, who accompanied them to Coimbatore along with the petitioners' sister Dr.Jayanthi, met the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore in his office at 5.00 p.m on 11.07.2008; that the Commissioner of Police directed them to meet Mr.Gopalsamy, Assistant Commissioner of Police as required by the Commissioner of Police and the said Assistant Commissioner of Police directed them to go to the spot immediately; that at about 8.00 p.m on 11.07.2008 when they reached the Government Employees' Quarters, Ganapathy, Coimbatore, one Mr.Charles, the Inspector of Police, B-9 Saravananpatti Polie Station came there and in the pretext of conducting an enquiry, he insisted upon withdrawal of the complaint given by Dr.Jayanthi against Kannian, the Sub-Inspector of Police; that Mr.Gopalsamy, Assistant Commissioner of Police also on his arrival on the spot insisted to withdraw the complaint given by Dr.Jayanthi and that on refusal, the police officials took Dr.O.P.No.8051/2009) and the driver Ajmal to B-9 Saravananpatti Police Station, detained them illegally there in the police station and thereafter detained them in a lodge and concocted the above said cases in Cr.No.559/2008 and 560/2008 and then registered a case in Cr.No.561/2008 based on the complaint of Dr.Jayanthi to escape from the consequence of non-registration of the case based on the complaint of Dr.Jayanthi and to intimidate Dr.Nos.559/2008 and 560/2008 were registered in order to coerce Dr.Jayanthi to withdraw the complaint given against a police official, namely Sub-Inspector of Police."new;W 07/07/2008 kjpak; 2/00 kzpapypUe;J 5/00 kzp tiu"The date of 08.07.2008 was referred to as "today".Jayanthi for enquiry.Gopalswamy for enquiry by the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City.Jayanthi for her pervious acts.That will make it clear that the allegations made in the FIR in Cr.No.560/2008 to the effect that the accused therein came and tried to hit the car against the de-facto complainant therein and others when the police officials were conducting on the spot enquiry, is inherently absurd.Nos.559/2008 and 560/2008 but also on the part of the police officials by initiating proceedings with an ulterior motive to coerce Dr.Jayanthi to withdraw the complaint given against the Sub-Inspector of Police.It should also be noticed that the Division Bench, while disposing of the HCP, directed a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- in all to be paid as compensation to Dr.Jayanthi, Manivannan-advocate, Sankar-advocate, Chinna Alagu-advocate and Ajmal-driver.The very registration of the cases is with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to satisfy their private and personal grudge.For all the reasons stated above, this court, without any hesitation comes to the conclusion that the petitioners in both the cases have made out a clear case for the exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the complaint in Cr.No.559/2008 and 560/2008 not only against the petitioners but also in their entirety against all the persons accused therein.In the result, these petitions are allowed and the complaints in Cr.No.559/2008 and 560/2008, pending on the file of B-9 Saravananpatti Police Station, Coimbatore District are quashed in their entirety against all the persons accused therein.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.1.The Inspector of Police B-9, Saravananpatti Police Station Coimbatore District (Cr.Nos.559/2008 and 560/2008)

['Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The deceased Seeta was sister of complainant, Ranba (PW 2).Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of the appellant Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are brothers of the appellant.The remaining accused are acquitted by the Trial Court.After the marriage, the deceased started cohabiting with appellant in village Shelgaon where her husband was living with other accused in Joint Hindu Family.Seeta died due to burn injuries on 19.8.2008 and the incident took place in matrimonial house.It is the case of State that at the time of settlement of marriage, the relatives on parents' side of the deceased had agreed to give dowry of Rs. 1.5 lakh.The amount of Rs. 1 lakh towards dowry was given when the marriage was solemnized and there was the promise to give the remaining amount afterwards.It is the case of State that the husband and his relatives were not happy as the remaining amount was not given immediately and ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:37:06 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 108/13 3 they were insisting the deceased to bring the remaining amount of dowry.On that count, they were giving mental and physical illtreatment to the deceased.The deceased used to visit to the house of her parents on the occasions of festivals and she used to disclose about the illtreatment.She also used to disclose that the husband was addicted to liquor and he had extra marital affair and due to that also, there was illtreatment to her.It is the case of State that deceased was driven out of the matrimonial house on the aforesaid count and the relatives of parents side of deceased had somehow convinced the accused to accept the deceased back in matrimonial house.::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:37:06 :::It is the case of State that on the occasion of last Panchami festival, the deceased had visited to house of her parents and she had again disclosed about the illtreatment.It is the case of State that on that occasion, the husband had directly made the demand of dowry to the parents of the deceased and he had demanded Rs. 50,000/- more as he wanted to purchase a motorcycle.This demand was not met with and so, the illtreatment was continued after the last Panchami festival.The crime at C.R. No. 77/2008 was registered in Sonpeth Police Station for aforesaid offences.During investigation, police prepared enquest panchanama and spot panchanama.The P.M. was conducted on the dead body and the statements of neighbours and some relatives on the side of parents of deceased were recorded.The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 13/2009, which was pending in the Court of Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed, District Parbhani.The appellant is convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court for offences punishable under sections 304-B and 498-A of Indian Penal Code.The maximum substantive sentence given to the appellant is 10 years for the offence punishable under section ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:37:06 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 108/13 2 304-B of I.P.C. Both the sides are heard.::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:37:06 :::In short, the facts leading to institution of the appeal can be stated as follows :-After the incident, the brother gave report and he mentioned aforesaid incidents in the report.The brother reported that the deceased had committed suicide due to aforesaid illtreatment.::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:37:06 :::Appeal No. 108/13 4During the course of investigation, partly burnt pieces of clothes of deceased lying on the spot of offence were taken over along with can of kerosene and articles were sent to C.A. Office.Most of the prosecution witnesses stuck to their versions.The accused took the defence of total denial.The accused took the defence that after the death of his wife, the complainant and other relatives of deceased made demand of money to him and as the demand was not met with, false report was given against him.The Trial Court has believed the evidence given as against husband.He has given evidence that the relatives on parents' side of the deceased had agreed to give dowry of Rs. 1.5 lakh for the marriage, but at the time of marriage, they could give only Rs. 1 lakh.He has given evidence that they had decided to give remaining amount ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:37:06 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 108/13 5 afterwards.He has given evidence that he learnt from the deceased that accused was picking up quarrel, giving abuses due to non payment of remaining amount of dowry.He has deposed that accused was addicted to liquor and hemp and he had also having illicit relation with a woman of his village.He has deposed that there was illtreatment to deceased on these counts and deceased used to disclose about the illtreatment during her visits to the house of parents.He has deposed that the deceased used to request not to send her to matrimonial house as there was illtreatment to her.He has given evidence that they tried to intervene and tried to convince by saying that the remaining amount of dowry will be given afterwards.He has given evidence that the accused was not ready to listen.::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:37:06 :::Ranba (PW 2) has further deposed that on the occasion of last panchami, the deceased had visited the house of parents.He has deposed that his father had brought the deceased to the parents house and on that occasion also, it was informed that there was insistence for giving remaining amount of dowry.According to him, the deceased had further disclosed that the husband wanted Rs. 50,000/- more as he wanted to purchase a motorcycle.He has given evidence that the husband also made the demand directly of these amounts.He has given evidence ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:37:06 ::: Cri.He has deposed that the report at Exh. 41 was given by him on 20.8.2008 after the funeral was over and he did not give report immediately as he was disturbed.::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:37:06 :::In the cross examination of Ranba (PW 2), particulars in respect of the occasions when disclosures were made by the deceased about the illtreatment are brought on the record.PW 2 has given evidence that on the occasions of festivals, she used to make such disclosures.It is brought on the record in his cross examination that he was present on the spot when police prepared spot panchanama.This circumstance is brought on the record to show that he had opportunity to give report.It is suggested that the false report is given by PW 2 as the deceased was his beloved sister.It is suggested that she did not like to stay in the village of the accused.These two suggestions are denied by Ranba (PW 2).Namdeo (PW 3), the father of deceased has also given similar evidence on the illtreatment which the deceased was receiving and also on illegal demand of dowry and the amount for purchasing the motorcycle.Their evidence is based on both the disclosures made by the deceased and the direct demand made by the husband to them.::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:37:06 :::Appeal No. 108/13 7He has given evidence on the illtreatment which the deceased was receiving and on the demand, which the accused was making.But this evidence is based on so called disclosures made to him by the brother of deceased.No evidence is given by brother that he used to disclose about the illtreatment to Dnyaneshwar.In view of this circumstance, there is no need to discuss in detail the evidence of Dnyaneshwar (PW 3).This evidence cannot be used against the accused.Dnyaneshwar (PW 3) has given evidence on spot panchanama also.Evidence of Dnyaneshwar, evidence of Investigating Officer Shinde (PW 9) and the document of spot panchanama show that from the spot of offence partly burnt pieces of clothes of deceased, one box of kerosene, match stick, can of kerosene were taken over.One witness is examined to show that the pieces of clothes found on the spot were sent to C.A. Office.The C.A. report shows that kerosene was detected on these clothes.The suggestions given to the witnesses by defence counsel show that it is tried to suggest that one kerosene stove was involved in the incident.The spot panchanama at Exh. 43 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:37:06 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 108/13 8 does not support this contention.It shows that there was a cooking place in Varanda portion and the cooking place was not involving kerosene stove, but it involved the facilities of using fire wood.Further, the spot panchanama and map of scene of offence show that the incident took place in a room adjacent to the kitchen and not in the kitchen portion.::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:37:06 :::Pralhad (PW 8), a peon working in the school of the appellant has given evidence that on the day of the incident one person had come to the school to inform that the deceased had sustained burn injuries while cooking.This evidence cannot help the defence in view of the circumstances already discussed.The spot panchanama was prepared on 20.8.2008 between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. when the F.I.R. was received by police station on 20.8.2008 at about 2.35 p.m. Thus, the material was collected and the panchanama was prepared prior to registration of the crime.The record shows that the appellant/husband did not give report after the death of Sunita alias Seeta.Ashroba (PW 6), Police Patil of the village of appellant has given evidence that on the day of incident the dead body of deceased was brought to the ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:37:06 ::: Cri.His evidence shows that he had given information on phone also about the death to police.A copy of station diary entry made in respect of information received on phone is produced at Exh. 67 and it shows that it was received on 19.8.2008 at about 6.05 p.m. These documents show that Police Patil had informed the police station that the deceased had set fired to herself.These circumstances are relevant and it was necessary for the husband/appellant to explain the circumstances.No explanation is given by the husband.::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:37:06 :::Some contradictions are pointed in the evidence of father of deceased with reference to his police statement.He had not stated before the police that husband had directly demanded money from him.This contradiction is proved in the evidence of Investigating Officer (PW 9).It can be said that there is evidence mainly of interested witnesses like brother and father of deceased.The delay of one day was caused in giving the report.However, the ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:37:06 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 108/13 10 aforesaid record and circumstances show that the circumstance like delay caused in giving of the report has not made the case of the prosecution doubtful and the circumstances do not show that the interested witnesses have given false evidence.The record is sufficient to prove that it is a case of suicide.No probability is created that the clothes of deceased caught fired accidentally.In addition to the aforesaid evidence, there is the conduct of husband of not offering any explanation and not giving the report, A.D. report.::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:37:06 :::Both the sides have placed reliance on some reported cases.The facts and circumstances of each and every criminal case are always different and the Court is expected to take decision on the facts of that case.There was the charge for offences punishable under sections 304-B and 498-A of I.P.C.Though there was no separate charge for offences under Dowry Prohibition Act, there is the evidence to show that there was an agreement of dowry and there was the demand of dowry.In the case reported as 2007 AIR SCW 3219 [Ananda Mohan Sen and Anr.Thus, only due to the ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:37:06 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 108/13 11 circumstance that there are versions of only interested witnesses, the case of prosecution cannot be thrown away.::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:37:06 :::In the case reported as 2007 AIR SCW 6642 [Kishan Singh and Anr.State of Punjab], the Apex Court has discussed the nature of evidence with regard to demand of dowry and as to what constitutes dowry.The demand of scooter was made after the marriage and the Apex Court held that such demand falls under 'dowry' defined under Dowry Prohibition Act.In the case reported as [2013] ACR 398 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [Indrajit Sureshprasad Bind & Ors.State of Gujrat], the Apex Court has held that when cruelty and harassment were not proved, there was no conviction possible for offences under sections 306 or 304-B of I.P.C. in view of the facts of that case.In the case reported as AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 4429 [Tirath Kumari and Anr.Appeal No. 108/13 12 alias Sawinder Kaur and Anr.State of Punjab] and AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 3631 (2) [State of U.P. Vs.Mahesh Chandra Pandey and Ors.].In the present case, there is the evidence of that nature and so these cases cannot help the appellant.::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:37:06 :::The learned counsel for appellant placed reliance on the case reported as ALL M.R. (CRI)-2013-1-640 [Sampat Narayan HakeVs.There cannot be any dispute over the propositions made in these cases.In the case reported as [2013] ACR 354 [K.R.J. Sarma and Ors.::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:37:06 :::It is already observed that the complainant has explained the delay.In our society, the husband is expected to perform the last rites at the time of funeral of the dead body of his wife.The evidence of brother of deceased shows that the report was given when funeral was over.The funeral took place in the village of the husband.The death took place within seven years of the marriage.The prosecution has given evidence on "cruelty" as ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:37:06 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 108/13 14 defined in section 498-A of I.P.C. Prosecution has also proved that there was an agreement of dowry and there was demand of dowry and on that count, illtreatment was given to the deceased.In view of the facts of this case, the presumption available under section 113-B of Evidence Act needs to be used.In the case reported as AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 680 [Harjit Singh Vs.State of Punjab] when there was no evidence on cruelty, it was held that the provision of section 113-B of Evidence Act could not have been invoked and it was not possible to convict the accused for offence punishable under section 304-B of I.P.C. It was further observed that the accused shall not be convicted for offence punishable under section 306 of I.P.C. if he was not found guilty for offence punishable under section 304-B of I.P.C. This proposition cannot be disputed.In the present case, the cruelty has been proved and even the demand of dowry is proved.Thus, the provision of section 113-B of Evidence Act needs to be used in the present case.::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:37:06 :::The Trial Court has considered the aforesaid record and law.Appeal No. 108/13 15 and in this case, minimum penalty of seven years can be given.To that extent only, the judgment and order needs to be altered.::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:37:06 :::So, the appeal is partly allowed.The conviction given for both the offences is hereby maintained.But, the substantive sentence given in respect of offence punishable under section 304-B of I.P.C. is reduced from ten years R.I. to seven years R.I.[ T. V. NALAWADE, J. ] ssc/ ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:37:06 :::::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:37:06 :::

['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', '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.

The facts leading to conviction are as follows :The appellant Kalaisamy Nadar and the deceased Mahalingam hail from Mamsapuram Village situate in the Mamsapuram Police jurisdiction in Srivilliputhur Taluk.The appellant at the relevant time was working as a Helper in Rajalakshmi Mill at Rajapalayam.The deceased Mahalingam, who was the Chief Secretary of Mamsapuram D.M.K. Party, was owning a licensed arrack shop in the same village.P.W. 2 Seeniappan was the Accountant working under him in the arrack shop.P.W. 1 Kalaisamy Nadar, aged about 71 years, is having some Palmirah Trees at Karucku thope near Mamsapuram Village.He used to go to his thope daily and collect toddy from his Palmirah trees and arrange to distribute the same to the various licensed toddy shops.On 24-3-1985 P.W. 12 Isakkimuthu Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Prohibition Enforcement Wing at Rajapalayam Police Station arrested the appellant and four others for their having been found in possession of Toddy without any permit.The next day on 25-3-1985 they were produced before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate No. 1, Srivilliputhur, along with the Chargesheet for the offences under Section 4(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The appellant and others pleaded guilty before the Court and paid a fine of Rs. 50/- each.The judgments are Ex. P. 11 series.The appellant thought that he was booked along with others under prohibition offences only at the instance of the deceased Mahalingam, who is owning a licensed Toddy Shop.So, he had a grudge against him.Though the appellant was working as a Helper in the Rajalakshmi Mill, he did not attend the work from 24-3-1985 onwards.On 26-2-1985 at 6.30 a.m. P.W. 1 Kalaiswamy Nadar went to Karukku thope and arranged through his servants to collect the toddy from the Palmirah trees.After finishing his work, he went to Mamsapuram Village to take coffee.It was at about 9 a.m. on the way, the deceased Mahalingam came on a cycle behind him.On seeing P.W. 1, the deceased Mahalingam stopped his cycle ahead of him and asked P.W. 1 'Vernacular matter omitted'.The deceased was on the cycle putting his right leg on the ground and the left leg on the left side pedal.At that point of time, the accused suddenly emerged in the scene coming from the western direction with Palai aruval.He exclaimed shouting at the deceased 'Vernacular matter omitted'.So saying, he gave a cut on the left leg.It fell on the back side of the left leg.As soon as he received the injury on the left leg, the deceased lost his balance and fell down on the right side in a pit.He further declared 'Vernacular matter omitted' and gave indiscriminate cuts on the nape and on the back of scalp.On seeing this unfortunate incident, P.W. 1, who was standing nearby intervened and prevented the accused from attacking the deceased further.In that process a cut fell on his left index finger.P.W. 2 Seeniappa Nadar, who was working as Accountant in the shop of the deceased Mahalingam and three other persons who happened to come on that side, also rushed to the scene.The appellant on seeing them, took to his heels.P.W. 2 then went to Guhan Match Factory and with the help of P.W. 3 Madasami, who is working in that factory, contacted the Petrol bunk at Srivilliputhur requesting to send a Taxi.On receipt of the telephonic message, P.W. 4 Vijayan who is working in Jayaram Petrol Pump at Srivilliputhur, arranged to send a taxi to Mamsapuram driven by P.W. 5 Ayyanar, the driver.In the meantime, information was also sent to the wife of the deceased through the servant, who was working in the toddy shop belonging to the deceased.P.W. 5 Taxi driver came to the spot on receipt of the message.P.W. 2 and the wife of the deceased took the victim in the said taxi and brought him to his family Doctor P.W. 13 Dr. Neerathilingam at Srivilliputhur.Dr. Neerathilingam P.W. 13 is having a clinic at Srivilliputhur under the name of Ponniah Hospital.On seeing the victim, who had injuries on the left leg, and on the nape, asked P.W. 2 and the wife of the deceased to take the victim immediately to some Surgeon either to Sivakasi or Rajapalayam.The wife of the deceased in order to give immediate and effective treatment, requested P.W. 2 to take the victim to Sivakasi instead of taking to Government Hospital at Srivilliputhur.So at the instance of the wife of the deceased, the victim was immediately taken to Sivakasi.P.W. 14 Srinivasan was a compounder in the Graham Nursing Home at Sivakasi.Since the Surgeon was not available, the victim was taken to Dr. Prabhakaran P.W. 15 who is having a Nursing home at Vembakottai road Sivakasi.At 10.45 a.m. on 26-3-85 P.W. 15 Dr. Prabhakaran examined the victim and found injuries on the leg and on the nape.He immediately gave First-Aid treatment by putting bandage in the wound and giving injection.Muscles exposer and cut.After giving treatment, since his condition was serious, he was referred to Government Rajaji Hospital Madurai for further treatment.In the meantime he sent intimation to the Police Ex. P-13 and a requisition Ex. P-14 to the Magistrate to record Dying Declaration, since the injured was conscious at the time of examination.Before he was taken to the Madurai Hospital.P.W. 19 Mr. Ayyapan Judicial II Class Magistrate, Srivilliputhur, on receipt of Ex. P-14, came to the hospital at 12.20 p.m. The victim was conscious at that time and P.W. 16 Dr. Sakthivel was also present.P.W. 16 Dr. Sakthivel also gave a certificate that he was conscious throughout when the Dying Declaration was recorded by the Magistrate.Along with the victim P.W. 16 Doctor sent the Accident Register Ex. P-28 to the Rajaji Hospital at Madurai.In the meantime, P.W. 1 went to Mamsapuram Police Station and gave a complaint to P.W. 23 Sub-Inspector of Police at 10 a.m. After recording statement from P.W. 1, P.W. 23 read over the same and obtained his signature.He registered it in crime No. 78/85 under section 307, I.P.C. and arranged to send Express Reports to the Court as well as to Senior officials.Ex. P. 26 is the printed F.I.R. He then sent P.W. 1, who was found with injuries to Srivilliputhur Government Hospital along with the memo.P.W. 25 Inspector of Police, attached to Srivilliputhur Police Station, on receipt of the message through wireless at 11.30 a.m. on 26-3-1985, received the F.I.R. copy at 11.45 a.m. and took up the case for investigation.He recovered M.Os.He recovered the blood-stained clothes M.Os.3 and 4 from P.W. 2, who was examined on the spot.30 a.m. on the same day.Since he came late, P.W. 9 watchman did not allow him to enter into the Mill for attending the work.The appellant told him at that point of time that he attacked the victim deceased earlier.x 4 c.m.x bone deep cutting the left tibia up to marrow.Skin flap downwards.He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries sustained by him.P.W. 21 after postmortem was over, recovered the clothes of the deceased M.O. 14 and the waist card M.O. 15 from the body of the deceased.He then produced them in the police station and handed over the body to the relatives.At that time his dresses also were found with blood-stains.So P.W. 25 recovered the blood-stained clothes M.Os.At about 4.30 p.m. the accused took the police party to Karukku thope and took out M.O. 1 Palai aruval which was kept concealed inside the bush.JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.This appeal is directed against the Judgment in S.C. No. 39 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, convicting the appellant for the offence under section 302, I.P.C. for having caused the death of one Mahalingam and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also convicting for the offence under section 326, I.P.C. for having attacked P.W. 1 Kalaisamy Nadar and caused grievous injuries and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.The sentences were directed to run concurrently.The crux of the charge is that on 26-3-1985 at about 9 a.m. at Vandipathai near Mamsapuram, the appellant with Palai aruval attacked the deceased Mahalingam, while he was talking with P.W. 1 Kalaiswamy Nadar on the left leg and nape of the neck indiscriminately and while P.W. 1 intervened, he attacked him also and caused grievous injuries on the left index finger.With the result the deceased Mahalingam died at Madurai Rajaji Hospital at 2.30 p.m. on the same day.He also advised the concerned to take the victim immediately to General Hospital since it was a medico-legal case.Ex. P-2 is the Trip sheet marked through P.W. 5, Taxi Driver.7A. At 11.45 a.m. P.W. 16 Dr. Sakthivel attached to Srivilliputhur Government Hospital admitted the victim Mahalingam in the Hospital and examined him.He found the following injuries :An oblique cut injury of 10" x 4" bony depth, starting from the middle of the back of right ear to angle of mandible on the left side vessels, muscles and Tendons on the rest back of neck cut and spine exposer.Cut injury of 5 c.m. x 1 c.m.x 1 c.m.on the middle of Right ear lobe.Cut injury of 7.5 c.m. x 3 c.m. x bony depth on the left side of occipital region of scalp front middle of back of left ear.Cut injury of 8 c.m. x 5 c.m.x 3 c.m.on the upper part of back of left leg.At about 12.15 p.m. P.W. 1 came to the Hospital with the Memo sent by P.W. 23 Sub-Inspector.P.W. 16 examined him and found the following injuries :i. Incised wound of 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bony depth on the back of left Index Finger at the middle phalanx.He gave his opinion that the injury is grievous.Since the deceased died at 12.30 p.m. P.W. 17 Doctor who was on duty in the accidental ward sent death intimation Ex. P-18 to Police P.W. 20 constable attached to Mamsapuram Police Station received Ex. P. 18 and gave intimation to the Sub-Inspector at about 7.00 p.m. on the same day, P.W. 23 on receipt of Ex. P-18 altered the F.I.R. under Section 302, I.P.C. and sent reports to the concerned officials and Court.Ex. P27 is the Express Report.P.W. 25 took up further investigation after alteration of the F.I.R. He went to the hospital between 6.30 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. He conducted inquests on 27-3-1985 and examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and others.He found the following injuries :An oblique vertical gaping cut injury back of neck cutting the pinna of the right ear for 4.5 c.m. through and through except the root 26 c.m. x 6 c.m.x bone deep.Lower end situated 8 c.m. below the left ear lobula.Skin flap downwards cutting underlying structures obliquely downwards and cutting the 6th cervical vertebreae including the vessels into cord level.ii) An oblique transeverse cut injury back of scalp left side 8 c.m.x 2.5 c.m. x bone deep.Underlying occipital bone fractured for 5 cms-3 c.m. away from the back of root of left ear and 4 cm.iii) An oblique cut injury outer and back of the left leg 10 c.m.On 5-4-1985 P.W. 25 sent the MOs.under Ex. P-21 requisition to the Court for causing the same to be sent for forensical examination.P.W. 22 Court clerk on receipt of the M.Os.with the covering letter Ex. P.-22 sent them for examination.The Chemical Report is Ex. P.23 and Serological Report is Exs.After finishing investigation on 15-7-1985 P.W. 25 filed a chargesheet against the appellant for the offences under sections 302 and 326, I.P.C.On committal learned trial Judge framed charges against the appellant as referred above and questioned the accused.The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.To substantiate the charges framed against the appellant, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 25, filed Exhibits P-1 to 31 and marked Exhibits Mos.On the side of the defence Ex. D 1 was marked.After the evidence was over, the appellant was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating materials brought on record.The appellant denied having participated in the commission of the offence and stated that he was taken by the Police on 26-3-1985 at 10.00 a.m. when he was in his house and on the next day i.e. on 27th his wife sent a telegram regarding his illegal detention in the police station and that he was innocent and he had no connection whatsoever with the commission of the offence.Regarding the question put to the accused for his having paid a fine for the offence under section 4(1)(a) of the Prohibition Act, he stated that though he was having a permit to have the possession of today, he paid the fine in order to avoid the agony of a trial.Even though he was having a permit in his name Ex.D-1 was marked.On termination of the trial, learned Sessions Judge, on appraisal of the evidence oral and documentary adduced by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the case beyond doubt and thereby convicted the accused for the offences referred to and sentenced him thereunder.Being aggrieved over this verdict, the present action has been resorted to by the appellant by filing an appeal before this Court.Mr. A. A. Selvam, learned Counsel for the appellant effectively and strenuously contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case after having read over the entire evidence before this Court.He would also submit that the case of the prosecution as projected through the dying declaration recorded by the Police Officer and the Magistrate is quite contrary to the case of the prosecution as put forward through P.Ws. 1 and 2 ocular witnesses.It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the narration of the events as referred to in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 would be so artificial and does not merit acceptance.He would also further submit that even assuming that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, who are chance witnesses, is to be ignored or rejected in toto, the dying declaration recorded by the Police Officer at 12.10 on the same day and the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate at 12.20 p.m. would make it clear that the conviction imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court is legal and the verdict against him given by the trial Court is unassailable.We have carefully considered the divergent contentions urged by the respective counsel.The materials collected by the prosecution and produced before the Court are as follows :i. Ocular testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2 ii.The Dying Declaration recorded by the Inspector of Police as well as the Magistrate.Recovery of the weapon on the confession by the accused.v. The blood group of the deceased found in the blood-stains in the clothes of the deceased tallies with the blood group of the blood from the clothes recovered from the appellant.According to Ex. P.-15 the dying declaration recorded by Magistrate the deceased went to the well for taking bath at 9 a.m. on 26-3-1985 and on his way to the well, the accused came and cut on the back of the scalp and on the nape of the neck and when he ran from the place, after leaving the cycle there itself, the accused chased him and gave another cut on the left leg.Whereas, the evidence of P.W. 1 as projected through Ex. P.-1 the complaint and the deposition given before the Court is that the deceased was in conversation with P.W. 1 while he was going on cycle and at that time, the accused suddenly appeared there and gave a cut on the back of the left leg and on receipt of the injury, the deceased fell down on the roadside and that then the accused inflicted incriminating cuts on the nape and head.So on the basis of this contradiction, counsel for the appellant requests this Court to reject the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, the ocular testimony, in view of the vital contradictions found available between the dying declaration and the deposition.He also further pointed out that the wound certificate and the post-mortem certificate would show that there is a serious injury with considerable depth on the back of the left leg of the deceased and the accused, who was coming from the opposite direction could not have caused that injury with the Palai aruval by aiming at the back of the left leg and that too this cut definitely could not have caused this much of depth.He further pointed out that there is no necessity for P.Ws 1 and 2 for being present there and they are only chance witnesses.So in view of the direct conflict between the evidence of ocular testimony and the medical evidence especially when it is not in consonance with the dying declaration, according to the counsel for the appellant, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 becomes suspicious and highly doubtful.Per contra, Mr. Elango, learned Government Advocate would vehemently contend that P.Ws. 1 and 2 may be chance witnesses, but they have given the reasons both in the FIR and in the deposition for their coming to the spot.According to P.W. 1, he came to Mamsapuram after finishing his work at Karukku thope, in order to take coffee, at Mamsapuram Village.P.W. 2 Seeniappan, who is the accountant working in the Toddy shop belonging to the deceased, came to the spot on the way to the Toddy shop after taking bath in the well at Karukku thope.So it is not as if there was no reason for these people to come near the place.There is no dispute with this proposition of law.But, we must, at this stage, point out that these citations could not be applicable to the present case, because, in those cases the only evidence available before the court was the dying declaration.In those circumstances, the Court considered the genuineness and voluntariness of the dying declaration and came to the conclusion that the dying declaration could be acted upon to base the conviction.But in the instant case, we have dying declaration and the testimony tendered by P.Ws. 1 and 2, who had witnessed the occurrence.Now the question is which version is to be believed, especially, when there are two versions relating to the sequence of events, narration of occurrence as projected by the two sets of materials.At this stage, we may point out that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 who speak to the fact that the occurrence had taken place at about 9-00 a.m. on 26-3-1985 when the deceased was going to take bath in the well and when P.W. 1 was talking with the deceased, the appellant came with Palai aruval and gave indiscriminate cuts on the deceased.The complaint had been given by P.W. 1 to the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W. 23 immediately after the occurrence.This was recorded by P.W. 23 at about 10-30 a.m. The distance between the scene of occurrence and the police station is only six kilo metres.The original records would show that the FIR which has been registered under S. 307, IPC has reached the Court at 4-00 p.m. on the same day.The earliest document which has been registered by P.W. 23 and the statement from P.W. 1 would go to show as to how the occurrence had taken place.Both P.Ws. 1 and 2 would give the explanation as to why they had to come to the spot at the relevant time.P.W. 1, who is aged about 71 years, is neither interested in the deceased nor having any enmity towards the accused.Moreover P.W. 1, who was in conversation with the deceased, while he saw the accused being attacked, be immediately intervened, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injury.For this injury he was examined by Dr. Sakthivel P.W. 16 at 12-15 p.m. on the very same day.So, the reading of the deposition of P.W. 1 would inspire confidence in the mind of this Court to hold that P.W. 1 is the witness of truth.Of course, P.W. 2 may be termed to be an interested witness, for the reason that he is working as Accountant in the Toddy shop belonging to the deceased.But it is well settled law that merely because an eye witness is interested in the victimation party, evidence of this witness cannot be rejected in toto; but it must be approached with care and caution in order to exclude the possibility of any false implication.The Inspector of Police, after receipt of the information at 11-30 a.m., collected the FIR from the constable at 11-45 a.m. and straightway went to the hospital at Srivilliputhur.He recorded a statement from the deceased, who was in a critical condition.Though, according to him, Doctors were available, he did not think it fit to get the document attested through the Doctor.Admittedly, P.W. 25 did not obtain any certificate from P.W. 16 Doctor, who was available there.The reason is obvious.At that time, it is not known whether P.W. 25 was informed by the Doctor that he was likely to die.So as an investigating Officer, on being informed by P.W. 23 Sub-Inspector of Police and on getting the FIR copy, he recorded the statement from the deceased under S. 161, Cr.P.C. Further more it is to be noted that though the occurrence had taken place at 9 a.m. on 26-3-1985, he was admitted in the Government Hospital only at 11-45 a.m. The evidence adduced by P.W. 5 Driver would make it clear that they were not interested in giving any complaint to the Police station, but they want to have several Doctors in order to see that immediate and effective treatment was being given to the deceased to save his life.The victim was taken to the Family Doctor first and then from there, on his advice he was taken to Sivakasi for meeting a Surgeon.Since he was not available, another Doctor who was at Sivakasi in Vembakottai road gave first aid treatment and advised the parties to take him to Government Hospital since it was a medico-legal case.P.W. 19 Magistrate recorded the dying declaration Ex. P. 15 between 12-20 and 12-25 p.m. Of course in Ex. P-29 which was recorded by the Inspector of Police, the deceased gave the narration of events in a general way.The relevant portions of the statement of Ex. P. 29 is as follows :But while he gave a statement Ex. P-15 to the Magistrate he made the following statement :It must be borne in mind that though the deceased was conscious throughout while these dying declarations were recorded by the Inspector of police and the Magistrate and as referred to in the evidence of the Doctor P.W. 16, that the deceased who was driven from pillar to post in order to take effective treatment by going to Sivakasi and then by coming back to Srivilliputhur and he must be in a state of shock.That may be the reason why he was not consistent in the dying declarations made before the Police Officer and the Magistrate.So in these circumstances, we need not give much importance to the dying declarations Ex. P-15 and Ex.The inconsistency is not because of the fact that the deceased had not come out with true version but for the reason that he was taken to different hospitals and he was in a state of shock, he must have given these statements.Of course, the counsel for the appellant, pointed out as to how the Palai aruval could cause injury on the back of the left leg when he comes in the front of the deceased.But, as could be seen from the evidence, the weapon is not vettu aruval.The Serologist's report Ex. P-24 would make it clear that the blood group of the deceased as found in the blood-stained in the clothes of the deceased would tally with the blood group found in the clothes recovered from the accused.Though the blood group on the weapon was not able to be detected, as per the report, the blood contained on the weapon M.O. 1 was found to be human.So in these circumstances, especially when there are overwhelming materials through P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, medical evidence of P.Ws. 16 and 18 and the Serologist's report it would go to show that the accused is the real culprit who has committed this crime.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Shri Raj Mani Bansal, learned counsel for the complainant.Heard through Video Conferencing.Heard on I.A.No.16453/2020, an application under Section 301 (2) of Cr.P.C.For the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A.No.16453/2020 is allowed and counsel for the complainant and his associates are permitted to assist the State counsel in the matter.The applicant has filed this second application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 20.6.2020 by Police Station Gwalior, District Gwalior (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.318/2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/Ss. 307, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC.First application was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.8.2020 with liberty to revive the prayer after completion of investigation and filing of charge-sheet It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that it is a case of no injury and general allegations are being made against the present applicant.Co-accused Banti Singh Kamariya has already been 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.33994/2020 (Rakesh Yadav Vs.State of M.P.) enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 28.07.2020 in M.Cr.C. No.33994/2020 (Rakesh Yadav Vs.The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 23.03.2020 passed in the case of IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS in SUO MOTU W.P. (C) No.1/2020 has directed all the States to constitute a High Level Committee to consider the release of prisoners in order to decongest the prisons.We direct that each State/Union Territory shall constitute a High Powered Committee comprising of (i) Chairman of the State Legal Services Committee, (ii) the Principal Secretary (Home/Prison) by whatever designation is known as,(ii) Director General of Prison(s), to determine which class of prisoners can be released on parole or 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.33994/2020 (Rakesh Yadav Vs.State of M.P.) an interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate.For instance, the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are under trial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or without fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser number of years than the maximum.It is made clear that we leave it open for the High Powered Committee to determine the category of prisoners who should be released as aforesaid, depending upon the nature of offence, the number of years to which he or she has been sentenced or the severity of the offence with which he/she is charged with and is facing trial or any other relevant factor, which the Committee may consider appropriate."The application is allowed subject to verification of the affidavit submitted by the applicant to the effect that he is not an accused in the offence registered under section 302 of IPC.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.33994/2020 (Rakesh Yadav Vs.The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.The applicant will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned Police Station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the State counsel to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station as well as concerned Superintendent of Police who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.In case of involvement of the present applicant in any other offence the benefit of bail granted by this Court shall stand cancelled automatically.Application stands allowed and disposed of.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The prosecution's case, in short is that, on 24.5.2011, Shayam Singh (PW-1) resident of village Bikore (Police Station Babai, District Hoshangabad) went to the jungle for grazing of his she-buffalo and calf buffalo.Calf buffalo went in the field of the applicant and the applicant threw a stone on it.Calf buffalo ran away from the field but she-buffalo could not run from the spot and therefore, the applicant gave a blow of an axe on rear right leg of she- buffalo and therefore, she-buffalo fell down on the earth.Thereafter, the applicant gave a second blow to that buffalo and Shyam Singh ran away from the spot and he called some villagers to the spot and ultimately, she-buffalo was taken in a bullock cart to the house of Shyam Singh.The FIR was lodged by the complainant Shyam Singh.She- buffalo and calf buffalo were referred for their medical examination.Dr. Amit Agrawal (PW-2) examined she-buffalo on 26.5.2011 and gave a report that she-buffalo sustained a fracture on right rear leg and its metatarsal bone was found broken, whereas calf buffalo had swelling on its right front leg.A report Ex.P/4 was recorded.He found that due to injuries, she-buffalo could not stand on its feet and therefore, due to less eating and secondary bacterial infection, she-buffalo had died.In Criminal Appeal No.66/14, vide judgment dated 16.9.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad confirmed the conviction recorded to the applicant, but the sentence has been reduced to the period of six months' R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/-.In default of payment of fine, one month's S.I. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments the applicant has preferred the present revision.2 Criminal Revision No.2005/2014After few days, she- buffalo had expired due to injuries and its body was referred for the postmortem.Dr. Amit Agrawal performed the postmortem on the body of she-buffalo and gave a report 3 Criminal Revision No.2005/2014 Ex.After death of she-buffalo, SHO Police Station, Babai had registered the FIR Ex.After due investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshangabad and ultimately, case was transferred to the JMFC.The applicant abjured his guilt.He did not take any specific plea in the case, but he has stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter.In defence, FIR Ex.D/1 and case diary statements of Shyam Singh, Ranjeet Singh and Vikram Singh were referred.The J.M.F.C., Hoshangabad after considering the prosecution's evidence convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above, whereas appeal filed by the applicant was disposed off by reduction of jail sentence.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.In the Criminal Revision, generally re-appreciation of evidence is not required.The concurrent findings of the Courts below should not be interfered in a criminal revision unless there is any exceptional case.In the present case, the evidence of Shyam Singh (PW-1), Ranjeet Singh (PW-3) and 4 Criminal Revision No.2005/2014 Vikram Singh (PW-4) gives arise to re-appreciate the evidence.Both the Courts below have considered that FIR Ex.If Shyam Singh had lodged the FIR directly after death of she-buffalo then, it was highly delayed, but looking to the MLC report Ex.P/4 proved by Dr. Amit Agrawal (PW-2), it is apparent that Dr. Agrawal examined the calf buffalo and she-buffalo on 26.5.2011 at the house of complainant Shyam Singh.He has stated that he got a letter from the Police Station, Babai to do so.Hence, there must be some intimation to the Police Station, Babai and it may be considered as FIR.However, such Rojnamchasanah was not produced before the trial Court.In the FIR Ex.D/1, the complainant Shyam Singh has mentioned that he was grazing the buffaloes near the field of the applicant.The applicant gave a blow of an axe on rear right leg of she-buffalo and therefore, leg was broken.It is further submitted that the incident was viewed by Ranjeet Singh (PW-3) and Vikram Singh (PW-4).In the trial Court, Ranjeet Singh (PW-3) and Vikram Singh (PW-4) have stated 5 Criminal Revision No.2005/2014 in the cross-examination that they did not see the incident of assault.They did not go alongwith their father Shyam Singh for grazing the buffaloes.It is also apparent that in the FIR Ex.D/1, there is no indication that the applicant threw a stone causing injury to the calf buffalo.If the applicant had assaulted the calf buffalo as well as she- buffalo then, there is no reason so that Shyam Singh would not have left the story of injury caused to calf buffalo and she-buffalo.Looking to the FIR Ex.D/1, it appears that calf buffalo sustained the injury due to any other reason, which was not known to the complainant Shyam Singh therefore, he did not mention about that incident in the FIR Ex.As discussed above, Ranjeet Singh (PW-3) and Vikram Singh (PW-4) were not present at the spot, whereas the complainant Shyam Singh (PW-1) has categorically mentioned in the FIR Ex.D/1 that the incident was seen by Ranjeet Singh and Vikram Singh sons of the complainant Shyam Singh.It would be apparent that the complainant Shyam Singh introduced his sons as witnesses in the FIR Ex.D/1 without any basis.According to the FIR Ex.D/1, the incident took place on 24.5.2011 at about 4:00 p.m., whereas the FIR was lodged on the next day.Since the concerned Rojnamchasanah was not produced before the 6 Criminal Revision No.2005/2014 trial Court therefore, time of lodging the FIR was not proved by the prosecution.However, it is apparent that the FIR was lodged with the delay of at least one day.Shyam Singh (PW-1) has shown his age to be 80 years when his statement was recorded and his evidence was recorded on 9.7.2012, therefore at the time of incident, he was 79 years old.According to him, he went alongwith the she-buffalo and calf buffalo at about 9:00 a.m., in the morning and incident took place at about 4:00 p.m. When FIR has been lodged with the delay of one day and Shyam Singh introduced his sons Ranjeet Singh and Vikram Singh as eyewitnesses then, possibility cannot be ruled out that since she-buffalo was found injured near the field of the applicant therefore, Shyam Singh (PW-1) had imaginated the story.Looking to the conduct of the witness Ranjeet Singh, he gradually developed the story.Initially on the day of incident, he did not lodge the FIR and secondly, on the next day, he lodged the FIR Ex.D/1 in which, he did not mention the story of calf buffalo and introduced his sons as eyewitnesses, whereby both the Courts below have accepted that they did not go to graze she-buffalo or calf buffalo.However, Ranjeet Singh and Vikram Singh had denied that they were the eyewitnesses.Thirdly, in the Court, the complainant Shyam Singh 7 Criminal Revision No.2005/2014 introduced the story of calf buffalo.Since Dr. Amit Agrawal (PW-2) examined the calf buffalo and found some swelling on its right front leg then, it was added that the applicant assaulted the calf buffalo by pelting stone and the applicant gave a blow of an axe causing fracture in rear right leg of she-buffalo.Since the FIR was lodged with the delay of one day therefore, the entire prosecution's story comes in the cloud of doubt because of material contradiction in the FIR Ex.D/1 and the evidence given by Ranjeet Singh and Vikram Singh.A person aged 79 years goes to graze his cattle when he has two sons and he must have some servants in the house.Also, if he went alongwith the cattle at about 9:00 a.m. in the morning then, it was not possible that he would have stayed in the jungle upto 4:00 p.m. Also, a specific allegation was made by the complainant Shyam Singh that the applicant assaulted she-buffalo on its rear right leg with an axe but, Dr. Amit Agrawal (PW-2) did not find that injury caused by sharp cutting weapon.Hence, there is a material contradiction between the factual statement given by Shyam Singh and the medical report Ex.P/4 proved by Dr. Amit Agrawal.Hence, a doubt is created that she-buffalo of the complainant Shyam Singh was sent for grazing and in the 8 Criminal Revision No.2005/2014 evening, when it was found lying near the field of the applicant then, it was presumed that the applicant gave a blow of an axe on its leg.Shyam Singh has also accepted that there was a field of Golu Dubey, which was cultivated by Devendra Singh son of Moorat Singh near the place of incident and it was possible that someone else would have assaulted she-buffalo.Hence, the present revision filed by the applicant appears to be acceptable.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, since appreciation of evidence done by the Court below is not appropriate and they recorded the perverse findings in the case, it is necessary to interfere in the judgment passed by 9 Criminal Revision No.2005/2014 the Courts below.Consequently, the present revision is hereby allowed.

['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In the matter of : Giridhari Saha...... Petitioner.Mr. Debasish Nandy..... For the Petitioner.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, J. ) (SUBRATA TALUKDAR, J.) 2

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The petitioner herein at the relevant point of time was an employee in the capacity of a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) with Guru Harkrishan Public School, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi, the respondents being part of the management thereof in the capacity of Chairman, Manager and Principal respectively.On the basis of some enquiry, a chargesheet was issued for disciplinary action against the petitioner on 08.02.2010, the same having been served on the petitioner under the cover of memorandum dated 12.02.2010 calling him upon to submit his reply within the period specified.On 03.04.2010, the petitioner presented a criminal complaint against the respondents alleging offence under Section 500 read with Crl.MC 4514/2015 Page 1 of 13 Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) having been committed.The Magistrate took cognizance on the said complaint and eventually summoned the respondents as accused persons.After their presence had been secured, the Magistrate by order dated 06.08.2011, decided to follow the procedure prescribed for summons trial and issued a notice, presumably under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), to proceed ahead.The said order was challenged by the respondents before the court of sessions by criminal revision (no.84/2011).The revision petition was allowed, by order dated 31.07.2015, thereby setting aside and closing the proceedings in the criminal case.MC 4514/2015 Page 1 of 13The petitioner though alleging that each and every allegation in the chargesheet with which he was served was false, baseless and defamatory in nature chose to confine his case on a certain paragraph (which is not being extracted here in his interest) quoted by him, in (para 6 of) the complaint terming it as "annoying" and "defamatory", he made out a case for criminal action for the offence of defamation against the respondents by certain averments (in paras 5, 7, 9 and 10) which may be quoted as under :-That in order to take vengeance and as a counterblast, the accused persons have all of a sudden framed false and baseless charges against the complainant without any basis and documentary evidence.

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

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

The respondent herein has filed a charge sheet stating that on 06.05.2008 at about 4 p.m at Tholarkudikadu Village within the jurisdiction of the Avinankudi police station, when the de-facto complainant Tmt.Palaniyammal and her husband Thiru.Mayavel were in front of their house, the appellant / accused went there and asked to re-pay the loan amount of Rs.30,000/- and for that, the said Mayavel replied that he is not having money and enraged by the same, the appellant / accused attacked the said Mayavel with Billhook (Koduval) on his head and on right shoulder with an intention to murder him and also used obscene words and caused simple injuries and on seeing the said occurrence, the de-facto complainant Tmt.Palaniyammal intervened and that the appellant / accused has attacked her also with the same Billhook on her head and also used obscene words and caused simple injury and hence the appellant / accused is liable to be punished under Sections 294(b), 324, 341 and 307 of I.P.C.,Based on the aforesaid charge sheet, the learned District Munsif  cum  Judicial Magistrate, Thittakudi, has taken the case on file as P.R.C.No.27 of 2008 and after appearance of the accused, furnished copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Cuddalore.The learned Principal Session Judge, Cuddalore, has taken the case on file in S.C.No.393 of 2008 and made for the same to the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court, No.3), Virudhachalam.The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court, No.3), Virudhachalam, after appearance of the accused, perusing the records and hearing both sides, has framed charges under Sections 294(b) (2 counts), 324 (2 counts), 341, 307 of I.P.C and read over and explained to the same to the accused.The accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty.Thereafter, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge fixed the date for trial and examined the witnesses, which were produced on the side of the prosecution.The case of the prosecution, in brief, as follows:On 06.05.2008 at about 4.00 p.m., at Thittakudi Village, P.W.1 Tmt.Palaniyammal, her husband P.W.2 Thiru.Mayavel and their daughter-in-law P.W.3 Tmt.Elavarasi were doing some domestic work in the front yard of their house.At that time, the accused came there and asked the P.W.2 to repay the loan amount of Rs.30,000/-. P.W.2 replied that he will repay the said amount as soon as his son returned to India from abroad where he is working.Not satisfied with the said answer, the accused uttered some filthy words and also said that he won't leave him without murdering and also attacked him with a Billhook (M.O.1) and caused simple injuries on his head and right shoulder.On seeing the same, the P.W.1 intervened.The accused attacked her also with the same Billhook on her head by saying that he wont to leave her also without murdering and caused simple injury on her head.P.Ws 1 to 3 raised alarm and on hearing the same, the neighbours namely Devi, Paranjothi, Palaniammal, Murugan, Pazhamalai, Aarimuthu came there.Aarimuthu and Pazhamalai took the P.Ws 1 and 2 to the Government Hospital, Thittakudi.After providing first aid, P.W.2 was referred to the Government Hospital, Cuddalore, for further treatment.6. P.W.5 Dr.Kumaravel, on 06.05.2008 at about 5.30 p.m. when he was working at Government Hospital, Thittakudi has seen the P.W.2 and noticed the following injuries on his body.(i) lacerated injury measuring about 10 x 4 x 2 c.m on the head and bone exposed.(ii) lacerated injury measuring about 10 x 3 x 4 c.m on the back side of the right shoulder.He referred PW2 to the Government Hospital, Cuddalore for further treatment.There X-rays have been taken to the aforesaid injuries and found that there was no fracture in the bone.Hence, he issued the wound certificate (Ex.P4) stating that the aforesaid injuries are simple in nature.On the same day, at about 6 p.m., he has seen P.W.1 in the same hospital and noticed an incised wound on her head measuring about 10 x 2 x 2 c.m.For her, he took X-ray and CT scan and found that there was no fracture in the bone and hence he issued a wound certificate (Ex.P5) stating that the said injury is simple in nature.P.W.5 has sent intimation to the police.7. P.W.8 Thiru.Pushparaj, when he was working as Sub-Inspector of Police at Aavinankudi police station, on 06.05.2008 at about 7 p.m., he has received an intimation from the Government Hospital, Thittakudi, in which, it was stated that the person mentioned in the said intimation referred to the Government Hospital, Cuddalore.Hence, he went to the Government Hospital, Cuddalore and there he found that the P.W.1 was admitted as inpatient.He has recorded the statement with the P.W.1 (Ex.P1) and returned back to the police station and registered a case on 07.05.2008 at 11.00 a.m., in Crime No.23 of 2008 u/s.294(b), 341, 324, 506(ii) and 307 IPC.Kumara Balan, when he was working as Inspector of Police in Thittakudi Circle, on 07.05.2008, he received the case file from the P.W.8 and took the matter for investigation.He went to the place of occurrence on 07.05.2008 at about 2 p.m. and prepared an Observation Mahazer (Ex.P2) in the presence of P.W.4 Thiru.Kandhasamy and one Rajendren.He also prepared a Rough Sketch (Ex.P9).Thereafter, from the place of occurrence at about 3.30 p.m. he has seized M.O.1 Billhook; he took sample for the blood stained soil (M.O.5) and Ordinary Soil (M.O.6), under the Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P3) in the presence of P.W.4 and one Rajendren.He also seized the blood stained saree of the P.W.1 (M.O.2), Blouse (M.O.3) and blood stained towel (M.O.4) under the same mahazar and sent the same to the Court.Annadurai and one Thiru.The signature of P.W.6 found in the said confession has been marked as Ex.The printed copy of the First Information Report (F.I.R) has been marked as Ex.He has forwarded a complaint and the F.I.R. to the concerned Judicial Magistrate and submitted the case file to the Inspector of Police, Thittakudi for investigation.In continuation of the investigation, the P.W.9 has arrested the accused near the Kodikalam Selliamman Kovil at about 8.30 p.m. on the same day and enquired with the accused.The accused gave a confession voluntarily and the same has been recorded by the P.W.9 in the presence of P.W.6 Thiru.Thereafter, he examined other witnesses.He has submitted a requisition before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,Thittakudi to send the Material Objects to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Villupuram, for chemical analysis.Accordingly, the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate has sent the Material Objects for chemical analysis.P.W.7 Dr.Shanmugam, when he was working as Scientific Assistant, Grade II at Regional Forensic Science laboratory, Villupuram, has received a letter from the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thittakudi, along with the material objects with a request to analyse those material objects and submit a report.Accordingly, he has analyzed the material objects and found blood stain in all the items except in M.O.6 and he has sent a report to that effect.The report submitted by him has been marked as Ex.11. P.W.9 after receipt of the wound certificates and examining other witnesses filed a charge sheet against the accused under the aforesaid Sections.Thereafter, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the circumstances found against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.He has admitted that on that date, he went to the house of PWs 1 and 2 and demanded for repayment of loan.He further stated that he did not see P.W.3 in the place of occurrence.He further stated that he is having witnesses on his side and subsequently, he did not examine any witness on his side.After hearing both sides and on perusing the materials placed before him, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offences under Sections 294(b) (2 counts), 341 and 307 of I.P.C., However, he found the accused guilty under Sections 324 (2 counts) of I.P.C. and after questioning the accused with regard to the sentence to be awarded against him convicted the accused and awarded 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment for each count of the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. He also ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently.He also ordered that the period of custody during the investigation and trial shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred the present appeal.Heard Mr.M.R.Chellapan, learned counsel for the appellant / accused and Mr.Arulmozhimaran, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent.The points for consideration are as follows:-''1. Whether the trial Court was right in convicting the accused under Section 324 of I.P.C. (2 counts)?Points Nos.1 and 2 In this case on the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.9 were examined as witnesses; Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 were marked as exhibits and M.O's 1 to 6 were marked as material objects.On the side of the accused, witnesses were not examined; exhibits and MOs also not marked.Points Nos.1 and 2The case of the prosecution is that P.Ws 1 and 2 are liable to repay the loan amount of Rs.30,000/- to the accused and on 06.05.2008 at about 4 p.m., the accused went to the house of the P.Ws 1 and 2 and demanded to repay the said loan.Its further case is that the P.W.2 told the accused that his son is working in abroad and after his return, he will repay the said loan.Not satisfied with the said reply, the accused attacked the P.W.2 with M.O.1 Billhook on his head and right shoulder by saying some obscene words and that he won't leave him without killing him.With regard to the aforesaid charges, the P.W.1 has stated in her evidence that on 06.5.2008 at about 4 p.m., she was doing some cleaning work in the front of the yard of their house and at that time, the accused came there and demanded to repay a sum of Rs.30,000/-.For that her husband (P.W.2) has replied that their son is working in abroad and after his return, he will pay the amount and not satisfied with the said reply, the accused attacked the P.W.1 with the Billhook and caused simple injuries on his head and right shoulder.19. P.W.5, the Doctor who gave treatment to the PWs 1 and 2 has deposed that on the same day at about 5.30 p.m., he has seen the P.W.2 and noticed lacerated injuries on his head and right shoulder.He also deposed that on the same day at about 6 p.m., he has seen the P.W.1 and found an incised wound on her head.He opined that those injuries could have been caused by the weapon like M.O.1 Billhook.So, it is clear that the evidence of injured persons (P.Ws 1 and 2) and eye witness (P.W.3) is corroborated by the Doctor's evidence (P.W.5).The evidence of P.W.8 would show that after receipt of intimation from the hospital, he went to the Government Hospital, Cuddalore and recorded the statement (Ex.P1) from the P.W.1 and thereafter he went back to the police station and registered a case and submitted the case file to the P.W.9 for investigation.The evidence of the P.W.9 would show that after receipt of the case file from P.W.8, he took the matter for investigation and rushed to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar in the presence of P.W.6 and one Rajendren and also seized the material objects under the mahazar in the presence of the same witnesses and also prepared a Rough Sketch.His evidence further shows that he has arrested the accused and him for remanded.His evidence further shows that he has examined the witnesses and recorded the statements under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C and after completing investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.The evidence of the injured persons (P.Ws 1 and 2) and eye witnesses (PW3) has been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5 (Doctor).The Court has to scrutinize their evidence with care and caution.In this case, the accused has not denied the allegation that on the date of occurrence, he went to the house of the P.Ws 1 and 2 and demanded the repayment of loan.In fact, he has admitted in his answer to the questions asked under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, that he went to the house of the P.Ws 1 and 2 and asked the repayment of loan.So, it is clear that at the time of occurrence, he was present in the place of occurrence.The Doctor's evidence would clearly show that Pws 1 and 2 sustained injuries.Further the Doctor has stated that the injuries which were sustained by the PWs 1 and 2 could have been caused by the M.O.1 - Billhook.Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the P.Ws 1 to 3 are interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be accepted without corroborating evidence by the independent witness, is not acceptable.Further the contention of the learned counsel that the injuries sustained by the P.Ws 1 and 2 would not have been caused by M.O.1 - Bill hook also cannot be accepted.This Court does not find any infirmity in the said findings of the Trial Court.On coming to the question of the sentence awarded by the trial Court, taking into consideration of the fact that since the Pws1 and 2 caused delay in repaying the loan amount, the accused attacked the P.Ws 1 and 2 with M.O.1 - Billhook and caused simple injuries and also the fact that the accused was in custody for 52 days during investigation stage and 44 days after conviction, totally 96 days (as per the letter sent by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Virudhachalam dated 10.08.2018), this Court is of the view that awarding of the sentence to the period which was already undergone by the accused would meet the ends of justice.Accordingly, these points are answered.vsaPre-delivery Judgment made in CRL.A.No.609 of 2009 11.08.2018

['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 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 story of the prosecution, the prosecutrix was staying with co-accused Gaurav Sarathe in his house as tenant during the period from 5.6.2013 to 5.4.2015 and it is said that on the date of the offence, the co-accused Gaurav Sarathe committed rape on the prosecutrix by giving her some drug in the garb of the same being a medicine to clear her headache.It is, further, alleged that the co-accused Manoj Sarathe captured the entire action and the manner, in which the offence was committed by the co-accused Gaurav Sarathe and Manoj circulated it amongst other persons and it is said that present applicant Ashok Sarathe and his wife Madhuri and co-accused Gaurav and Manoj Sarathe were present.As far as the allegation against the present applicant is concerned, the allegation against him is based on the statement of the co-accused Manoj Sarathe and from the narration of event, the only presence of the present applicant Ashok Sarathe is made out.Applicant (Ashok Sarathe) is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.With the aforesaid, this application stands allowed and disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MENON)

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

4.The brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of these petitions, are as follows:-4-1.The land measuring to an extent of 7.16 acres in S.F.No.36 in Krishnarayapuram Village, Coimbatore, originally belonged to one Ramasamy Naidu.The said Ramasamy Naidu had two children; a daughter by name Kamala @ Kamalam and a son Nithyanandam.The said Kamala @ Kamalam has two sons viz. Santharam (2nd respondent herein/complainant) and Yuvaraj.Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records and to quash the FIR in Crime No.39 of 2014, dated 20.05.2014 on the file of the first respondent-police.3.The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.17143 of 2014 are the accused 1 & 2 and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.16551 of 2014 are the accused 3 & 4 respectively, in the said case.The 2nd respondent herein viz., Santharam lodged the complaint with the 1st respondent-Police as against the petitioners herein and two others and the same was registered in Crime No.39 of 2014 for the alleged offences under Sections 120(B), 468, 471 & 420 IPC.The petitioners 1 & 2 viz., N.Arun Prakash and Jayanirmala are the son and wife of the said Nithyanandam respectively.4-2.It is the case of the prosecution that out of the total extent of 7.16 acres of the land, the said Ramasmay Naidu and Nithyanandam settled 4.00 acres of land in favour of the complainant's mother Kamala @ Kamalam on 10.05.1974 vide Settlement Deed registered as Doc.The said 4.00 acres of land was only with the mother of the complainant.Further, in the said Will dated 23.03.1997, the Legal Heirs Certificate issued by the Tahsildar on 27.10.1999 which is of a later date to the date of Will was referred, which shows that the said Will is a forged one.Thus, the accused persons, by forging the Will dated 23.03.1997 as if it was executed by the said Ramasamy Naidu, and by creating forged sale deeds, sold the properties belonging the 2nd respondent/complainant.Now, the petitioners have come forward with the present petitions seeking to quash the FIR.5.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that out of the total extent of 7.16 acres of land, the 1st petitioner's grand-father Ramasamy Naidu and father Nityhanandam settled 4.00 acres in favour of Kamala @ Kamalam (mother of the complainant), vide Settlement Deed dated 10.05.1974 registered as Doc.Thereafter, the said Ramasamy Naidu and Nithyananam were jointly entitled to = share in the remaining extent of 3.16 acres.After the deminse of Nithyananam, his father Ramasamy Naidu executed a Will dated 23.03.1997 in favour of the petitioners 1 & 2 in respect of the said 0.94 > acres.After demise of Ramasamy Naidu, the 2nd petitioner herein executed a Release Deed dated 08.03.2013 in favour of her son 1st petitioner, releasing her 1/3rd share in the 0.94 > acres of land in the total extent of 3.16 acres and thus, the 1st petitioner became absolute owner in respect of 0.94 > acres of land in the total extent of 3.16 acres, comprised in S.F.No.36 in Krishnarayapuram Village, Coimbatore.Thereafter, the 1st petitioner formed a layout and conveyed the same to the third parties.6.It is further submitted by the learned for the petitioners that in fact, the 2nd respondent herein/complainant along with his mother and brother, filed a suit in O.S.No.1517 of 2013 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge at Coimbatore, seeking to declare the Released Deed executed by the 2nd petitioner in favour of the 1st petitioner and also the subsequent Sale Deeds executed by the 1st petitioner in favour of the third parties, as null and void.Therefore, according to the petitioners, the matter is purely civil in nature and if the said Suit is decreed, automatically all the said Sale Deeds and Release Deed would be set aside.It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute between the parties is only with regard to the right over the property and that the Civil dispute has been converted into criminal complaint by the respondents.State of Punjab and others], the learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that in the absence of any material to support the allegations in the FIR, the FIR is liable to be quashed.For the second time, the 2nd respondent has filed the present complaint dated 20.05.2014, containing the very same allegations of land grabbing to the same extent of land against the petitioners as stated in his previous complaint.Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is nothing but a second complaint and it has been given only to harass the petitioners.Further, the present complaint has been filed only to gather evidence for the civil suit filed by the 2nd respondent, which is not permissible.According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, since earlier complaint was closed, the FIR registered on the basis of the second complaint is not maintainable.Thereafter, during the period from 02.12.1980 to 13.09.1982, the said Ramasamy Naidu and his son Nithyananam sold the remaining extent of 3.16 acres by way of 16 sale deeds, to the third parties and thereafter, they did not have any land in the said S.F.No.36 in Krishnarayapuram Village, Coimbatore.While so, by creating a forged Will, dated 23.03.1997 as if it was executed by the late Ramasmay Naidu, stating that out of 3.16 acres, 0.94 > acres was retained by him, now, the accused 1 & 2 are claiming that they are owning 0.94 > acres in S.F.No.36 and based on the said forged Will, they also executed sale deeds in favour of different persons.Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, there is a clear intention of cheating on the part of the petitioners/accused.10.It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that in the said forged Will dated 23.03.1997, they have referred a legal heir certificate issued by the Tahsildar on 27.10.1999 which is of a later date to the date of Will, and the same would clearly show that the said Will is a forged one.It is further submission of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that though the said Will can be challenged in the Civil Court, in the instant case, by forging the Will, the accused have executed sale deeds in favour of different persons; therefore, the allegation made in the complaint would show that there is criminal liability on the part of the petitioners.Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, the FIR cannot be quashed at this stage.In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has also relied upon the following decisions_Awadh Kishore Gupta]iii)2012(10) SCC 155 [ State of M.P. Vs.Surendra Kori]iv)2013(2) SC SCC 801 [Arun Bhandari Vs.Stae of U.P]11.With regard to the second contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present FIR is registered based on the second complaint, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the earlier complaint was closed on 09.10.2013; thereafter, the 2nd respondent has given the present complaint.The earlier complaint was not culminated into FIR.The present complaint was given along with further materials.Since the earlier complaint was closed, second complaint is permissible in law.In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has also relied upon the following decisions_1)(2013) 5 SCC 148 [Surender Kaushik and others Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh and others)2)(2012) 1 SCC 130 [Shivshankar Singh Vs.State of Qiqihar and anothers]12.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted that though there is a civil dispute pending between the parties, the allegations made in the complaint would clearly show that the matter appears to be criminal in nature.Therefore, at this juncture, the complaint cannot be quashed, as the investigation is under progress.13.Keeping the submissions made on either side, I have carefully gone through the entire materials available on record.14.The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are mainly on the following grounds_1)The matter is purely civil in nature; but, the 2nd respondent/complainant is trying to convert the civil dispute into criminal liability.The remaining portion of the land viz., 3.16 acres was sold by his grand-father Ramasamy Naidu and his uncle Nithyananam, by way of 16 sale deeds during the years from 1980 to 1982, to various third parties.19.In fine, the criminal original petitions fail and the same are dismissed.However, the petitioners are at liberty to produce all the documents before the Investigating Officer in support of their claim.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras.

['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The deceased Ajay andAnil, PW3 Deepak Kumar, PW-8 Kalawati and Ram Das, father of Deepak Kumar are residents of House No.A-42/4, Hardevpuri.The Appellants and the members of their family were also residents of the same area.A plot of land opposite the complainant partys house was vacant.20/25 days before the occurrence, the accused party started a factory for manufacturing aluminum utensils.According to the prosecution, there was use of acids and chemicals in the utensils production.As a result thereof, there used to be emission of toxic and foul smell.The complainant party had been making grievance in this regard to the accused party.Crl.A.1/1998 & 456/1997 Page 2 of 22The deceaseds father requested the Appellants to install a chimney in their factory to obviate the fumes and foul smell reaching the complainant partys house; the accused party did not bother to install the said Chimney.On the other hand, the appellants quarreled with the deceased and their father whenever the issue was raised.According to the prosecution Ram Das(father of the deceased and PW-3) was in service in Naya Bazaar.He used to leave for work at about 7:30 AM and would return at about 10:30 PM.The deceased also used to leave for their work at 8:00 AM and would return at 8/9 PM.It is alleged that on the evening of 16.10.1992 Deepak (PW-3) returned from the school at about 6:30 PM.Appellant Sripal and his two sons hurled abuses at Deepak (PW-3) and Kalawati (PW-8) and threatened to kill them when the issue of fumes and foul smell was raised.According to the prosecution, the Appellants used derogatory language stating, "Tum Haram Ke Bij Hamari Factory Ke Duhven ke liye Kehte Ho.Hum Tumhe Jaan Se Maar Denge".Out of fear PW-3 and PW-8 returned home.On 17.10.1992 at about 6:30 AM deceaseds and Deepaks father left for work.At about 7:30 AM, Anil and Ajay took up the issue of the fumes and foul smell with the Appellants and Ramesh (juvenile).They (Ajay and Anil) requested the Appellants to make some arrangement to minimize the ill effects of fumes failing which they (the complainant party) would lodge a police report.Appellant Sripal got enraged and exclaimed that they (complainant party) would be able to lodge a report only if they are permitted to leave the place.Appellant Sripal and Ramesh (Juvenile), armed with knives, Appellant Mahesh armed with hammer and one of the Appellants servant armed with Saria came out of the factory and pounced on Ajay, Anil and Deepak exclaiming "Aaj Tumahara Kaam Nipta Detey Hain".The Appellant Mahesh caught hold of Anil, their servant caught hold of Ajay and Deepak, whereas Ramesh (Juvenile) and Crl.A.1/1998 & 456/1997 Page 3 of 22 Appellant Sripal started inflicting knife blows on the person of Anil.Ajay got himself freed from the grip of the servant.Ramesh, however, overpowered him at a distance of 8/10 paces and inflicted several knife blows.Crl.A.1/1998 & 456/1997 Page 3 of 22On hearing the noise Kalawati (PW-8) came out of her house and intervened to save the deceased.Thereupon, Appellant Sripal attacked Kalawati with the knife.Deepak Kumar (PW-3) ran from the spot and hid himself in a house.In the meanwhile a crowd gathered.Deepak also came out of the hiding and noticed Appellant Mahesh and Ramesh (Juvenile) being beaten by the persons of the public.Ajay, Anil and Kalawati were removed to GTB Hospital.Deepak (PW-3) also reached the Hospital.On receipt of DD No.2A (Ex. PW-19/A) Inspector Kanwar Singh PW-19 (IO) reached the spot.He was informed that the injured had been removed to the Hospital.Since, no eye witness was available at the spot the IO proceeded to GTB Hospital while leaving some police staff at the spot.The IO came to know that Ajay and Anil were declared "brought dead" in the Hospital while injured Kalawati was in the Operation Theatre.He met Deepak and recorded his statement Ex.PW-3/A and made endorsement Ex.PW-13/A on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PW-5/B was recorded in Police Station Nand Nagri.The IO returned to the spot along with Deepak (PW-3).He prepared the site plan Ex.PW-19/P on Deepaks instance; got the scene of incident photographed, lifted blood from four places and seized it by Memo Ex. PW-18/A. After sealing the bottle with the seal of KS, the inquest proceedings were held in respect of the dead body of Ajay and Anil and the dead bodies were sent to the mortuary with a request to the doctor to conduct the post-mortem examination.Appellant Mahesh and Ramesh (Juvenile) were found to be admitted in the Hospital.MLC Ex.PW-19/G of Appellant Mahesh was Crl.A.1/1998 & 456/1997 Page 4 of 22 received by the IO.PW-19/H and pursuant to it a dagger Ex.PW-14/1 was recovered.Appellant Sripal was arrested by SI Laxmi Chand.Dagger Ex.PW-14/1 was shown to Dr. Anil Kohli, seeking his opinion with regard to the injuries found on the person of deceased Ajay and Anil.The IO collected CFSL reports Ex.PW-19/K and Ex.PW- 19/L in respect of the clothes of the two deceased and the blood / blood stained earth lifted from the spot.He (PW-3) ran from the spot and hid to save himself and later returned to the spot.He came to know that his brothers and his mother have been removed to GTB hospital.He also reached the hospital and came to know that his two brothers had been declared brought dead.He also identified the under garments of the deceased.He opined that injuries No.3, 4, 7 and 8 collectively as well as independent of each other were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.18. PW-18 had accompanied Inspector Kanwar Singh, the then SHO of Police Station Nand Nagri to Gali No.4 Hardev Puri on 17.10.1992 on receipt of information regarding the incident of stabbing by DD No.2-A. They came to know that the injured had already been removed to GTB Hospital.The same is also corroborated by the testimony of PW-3 Deepak in all material particulars as also by the MLC Ex.PW-11/A of PW-8 Kalawati and the Postmortem report Ex.Crl.A.1/1998 & 456/1997 Page 1 of 22G.P. MITTAL, J.1. Appellants Sripal and Mahesh along with one Ramesh (Juvenile) are accused (hereinafter accused party) of committing murder of Ajay and Anil and causing injuries on the person of Kalawati (PW8) (hereinafter complainant party) with such intention and knowledge that if she had died they would have been guilty of murder.By the impugned order the appellants were held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 3,000 each or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for three months each for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC.They were further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years each and pay a fine of ` 2,000 each or in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 15 days each.The sentences were to run concurrently.Feeling aggrieved the two Appellants have approached this Court by way of two separate Appeals.Deepak Kumar (PW-3) raised an alarm and got himself freed.Appellant Mahesh was interrogated on 19.10.1992 after he was declared fit to make the statement.Crl.A.1/1998 & 456/1997 Page 4 of 22Appellant Mahesh made a disclosure statement Ex.Accused Ramesh (Juvenile) made a disclosure statement Ex.After completion of the investigation a charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against the Appellants.In support of its case, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses.He deposed that there was a factory for manufacturing of aluminum utensils belonging to the Appellants.There was use of acids for utensils production which led to emission of foul smell and smoke.There were three servants working with the Appellants.He testified that since they had difficulty on account of the smell and fumes, a complaint was made to the Appellants.They requested the Appellants to install a Chimney in the factory.The Appellants instead of installing a Chimney used to quarrel with them.Crl.A.1/1998 & 456/1997 Page 5 of 22He further deposed that on 16.10.1992, he returned from his school at 6:30 P.M. There was an altercation and exchange of hot words between the Appellants (and the Juvenile) on the one hand and his mother (PW-8) and him on the other.The Appellants threatened to kill them and used foul language towards them.On account of fear of the Appellants, they returned to their house.On 17.10.1992 his (PW-3) father left for work at 6:30 A.M. At about 7:30 A.M. they (PW-3 and the two deceased) again made a complaint to the Appellants about the foul smell emanating from their factory.They (PW- 3 and two deceased) also informed the Appellants that they would lodge a complaint against them (the accused party, if they did not install a Chimney) to the police.The Appellants servant, whose name the witness did not know, took out a pointed iron rod; Appellant Sripal armed with a knife, accused Ramesh (Juvenile) also armed with a knife and Appellant Mahesh armed with a Dagger came out.The servant caught hold of PW-3 whereas the Juvenile stabbed his brother Ajay with a knife.The servant of Appellant Sripal caught hold of his brother Ajay and Appellant Sripal inflicted knife blows on his brother Anil.Appellant Mahesh hit his brother Ajay with a hammer.In order to save himself, Ajay freed himself and tried to run away.Appellant Mahesh caught hold of him (PW-3) whereas Juvenile Ramesh caught hold of Ajay by chasing him for a distance of about 8-10 steps.He (Ramesh) repeatedly inflicted knife blows on the person of Ajay.On hearing an alarm, his mother reached the spot in order to save them and Appellant Sripal stabbed his mother with knife.He identified his statement Ex.PW-3/A made to the IO.PW-14 Dr. Anil Kohli testified that on 18.10.1992 at about 10:15 A.M. he conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Anil and proved the postmortem report No.369/1992 Ex.PW-14/A. He found as many as 14 serious injuries on the person of deceased Anil.Most of which were incised wounds inflicted by a sharp object.PW-14 opined the cause of death to be shock due to hemorrhage produced by multiple ante mortem injuries caused by a sharp edged weapon.He further opined that injuries No. 1, 4 and 10 collectively as also independent of each other were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.On that very day at 11:30 A.M., PW-14 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ajay and proved the post mortem report Ex.PW-14/B. In case of Ajay PW-14 found 15 injuries; most of which again were incised wounds caused by a sharp object.The doctor opined the cause of death to be shock due to hemorrhage produced by multiple ante-mortem injuries.Inspector Kanwar Singh while leaving SI Brijesh Kumar at the spot proceeded to GTB Hospital.He deposed about lifting of the blood from various places in Gali No.4, Hardev Puri by the IO, its sealing with the seal of KS and its seizure by memo Ex.PW-18/A.PW-19 Inspector Kanwar Singh, the then SHO Police Station Nand Nagri deposed about his visit to the spot, to GTB Hospital, recording of statement of Deepak, and completion of various other formalities during investigation of the case.Crl.A.1/1998 & 456/1997 Page 7 of 22On close of the prosecution evidence, the Appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in order to enable them to explain the incriminating evidence appearing in the trial.The Appellants took the plea that there was delay in recording of the FIR.The FIR was recorded after a lot of deliberations and that is why the special report could be delivered to the Illaqa Magistrate only at 8:30 P.M. They pleaded innocence and false implication.The Appellant Sripal took an additional plea that he was not even present at the spot as he had gone to see his sister at Ghaziabad who was not keeping good health.The Appellants admitted that aluminum factory was started by them but stated that there was no emission of foul smell or smoke as they had installed a Chimney of 10-12 feet inside their house.The Appellants examined five witnesses in their defence in order to show that Sripal was not present on the date of the incident and that the incident had not taken place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution.The Appellants also summoned MHC (R) who produced two copies of the FIR out of which one was received by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 17.10.1992 at 8:20 P.M. which was purported to have been received by the learned Illaqa Magistrate on 17.10.1992 at 4:30 P.M.By the impugned judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) repelled the contentions raised on behalf of the Appellants that there was a delay in recording the FIR resulting into an introduction of coloured version; that the Appellants were not involved in the incident or that Appellant Sripal was not present at the spot.We have heard Mr. Gauri Shankar Sharma, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Lovkesh Sawhney, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State.It is argued by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the FIR is purported to have been recorded at 10:05 A.M. on 17.10.1992, yet the copy of the FIR Ex.DW-5/A was received by the Illaqa Magistrate only at 8:20 P.M. This shows that the FIR was ante-timed.It is contended that the injuries were inflicted on the person of Appellant Mahesh and Juvenile Ramesh by the complainant party and it were the Appellants servants who got enraged on seeing their Masters being beaten that they caused injuries on the person of the deceased and Kalawati.The prosecution has failed to establish any motive on the part of the Appellants to cause injuries on the person of the deceased and Kalawati.The incident, according to the prosecution version, had taken place in broad daylight at 7:30 A.M., yet, no independent witness has been produced in support of the case which coupled with the delay in recording the FIR would cast serious doubt on the credibility of the two relation witnesses, who are interested in the success of the case.There was consistent dispute between the two families on the installation of Chimney in the factory and thus, there was a strong motive for the Appellants to teach the complainant party a lesson.Crl.A.1/1998 & 456/1997 Page 9 of 22DELAY IN LODGING THE FIRAccording to PW-19 Inspector Kanwar Singh, statement of PW-3 Deepak was recorded in GTB hospital at about 9:30 A.M. and the rukka Ex.PW- 13/A was sent to the Police Station for registration of the case at about 9:55 A.M.The testimony of DW-5 Vijay Kumar, Ahlmad in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara, that the copy of FIR No.385/1992, Police Station Nand Nagri bore endorsement of the Metropolitan Magistrate and the time of receipt of the FIR is mentioned as 8:20 P.M. on 17.10.1992, was not challenged during cross-examination.Photocopy of the FIR purported to have been received by the Illaqa Magistrate was proved as Ex.DW-5/B.It is argued by the learned APP that merely because the special report is received late by the Illaqa Magistrate, no inference can be drawn that the FIR was ante-timed.No suggestion was given to the IO Inspector Kanwar Singh that rukka was not sent at 9:55 A.M. or that the FIR was ante-timed.In order to prove the recording of the FIR and sending it to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the prosecution examined PW-13 ASI Harkesh Singh who was posted as Duty Officer in Police Station Nand Nagri on 17.10.1992 from 8:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. This witness testified that rukka Ex.PW-13/A was received by him from Inspector Kanwar Singh at 10:05 A.M. through Constable Lila Ram; he thereupon recorded FIR No.385/1992 and proved the same as Ex.PW-13/B. He deposed that the copy of the special report was sent immediately after recording the FIR to the Senior Officers and the area Magistrate through special messenger.DD No.6-A was also recorded simultaneously at the time of recording of this FIR to incorporate the substance.The testimony of this witness that the FIR was registered at 10:05 A.M. was not challenged by in cross- examination.The fact that the copy of the special report was dispatched to Crl.A.1/1998 & 456/1997 Page 10 of 22 the Illaqa Magistrate immediately after recording the FIR was also not challenged.Crl.A.1/1998 & 456/1997 Page 10 of 22The learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) was moved by the Appellants on 26.05.1997 for recalling of PWs 13, 19 and 20 for their cross-examination.A perusal of the orders dated 26.06.1997 and thereafter till the passing of the impugned judgment show the application was never pressed on behalf of the Appellants.She testified that about four years ago (the statement of this witness was recorded on 30.10.1996 and the incident had taken place on 17.10.1992) her three sons (Anil, Ajay and Deepak) felt disturbed on account of the smoke coming from the factory of the Appellants.They went outside to complain to Sripal.On hearing the noise, she came out of her house and saw that Appellant Mahesh had caught hold of her elder son Anil and the Appellant Sripal and Ramesh (juvenile) were inflicting knife blows on Anils person.Her sons Ajay and Deepak were caught hold by the servants of Sripal.Ajay was trying to extricate himself from the grips of the servants and thereupon Ramesh (Juvenile) inflicted knife blows on the person of her son Ajay.She deposed that Mahesh had also inflicted knife blow on the person of Anil.As she advanced towards Appellant Sripal, he inflicted three knife blows on her person on the left side of her body.Her injured son started bleeding at the spot.She became unconscious.The factum of receipt of three stab injuries on the person of PW-8 Kalawati establishes her presence at the spot at the time of occurrence.Crl.A.1/1998 & 456/1997 Page 14 of 22There is a small discrepancy in the role assigned to Appellant Mahesh by PW-8 Kalawati and PW-3 Deepak.PW-8 Kalawati had made Appellant Mahesh also responsible for inflicting knife blow on the person of Anil.She had not stated this fact in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. made to the police.She was confronted with her statement Ex.PW-8/DA recorded by the IO.PW-3 Deepak assigned the role of catching hold, giving hammer blow on the person of Ajay.PW-3 also testified that when his brother Ajay extricated himself from the clutches of the servant (of Sripal), Appellant Mahesh caught hold of him and then Ramesh (Juvenile) repeatedly inflicted knife blows on the person of Ajay.PW-14/A and Ex.PW-14/B of deceased Anil and Ajay respectively.The involvement of the two Appellants and Ramesh son of Appellant Sripal is established.Crl.A.1/1998 & 456/1997 Page 15 of 22The defence tried to make out a case that it was the servant of Appellant Sripal who caused injuries on the person of the two deceased and PW-8 Kalawati.We do not agree with the plea raised on behalf of the Appellants.It has been proved on record that there was a constant complaint by the complainant party regarding the emission of smoke and foul smell from the factory belonging to the accused party.It is proved from the testimony of PW-3 Deepak that the Appellants had threatened and used foul language against the deceased and PW-3 when they had lodged a protest on this issue, the previous evening.Therefore, the servant of Appellant Sripal may have helped his Master, but, it was the Appellant Sripal and his two sons who were leading the attack.Of course, the aforesaid servant of Sripal was not arrested to face trial but that cannot absolve the Appellants of their criminal act.The Appellants examined DW-1 Rakesh Khosla who deposed that on 17.10.1992 he went to the factory of Sripal in Hardev Puri.He saw two persons assaulting two boys who had fallen on the ground.He gave the names of the two persons who had fallen (as per DW-2 Harender Kumar to be Ramesh (Juvenile) and Mahesh (The Appellant)).He deposed that two persons holding a knife came out of the factory of Sripal and assaulted the persons standing there.To the same effect is the testimony of DW-2 Harender Kumar.DW-3 Sudesh and DW-4 Kirno deposed about the visit of Appellant Sripal to their house in Modi Nagar and then accompanying them to Ghaziabad.54. DWs 1 and 2 are completely silent about the presence of any lady (i.e.PW-8 Kalawati).They did not make any complaint to the higher authorities nor did they ask Appellant Sripal to lodge a report.Their version does not explain injuries on the person of PW-8 Kalawati.Crl.A.1/1998 & 456/1997 Page 16 of 22Otherwise also, it is not believable that a servant or two servants would cause such serious injuries on unknown persons simply on the ground that such persons had caused some injuries on the person of the sons of the owner of the factory.From the sequence of events, it is established that the Appellants had a motive to teach a lesson to the complainant party because of the nagging complaints being made by them (complainant party) for running the factory for manufacture of utensils.56. PWs 3 and 8 are the most natural witnesses at the time of the incident.Their presence is also established by spontaneous recording of the FIR and the injuries on the person of PW-8 Kalawati.An attempt was made by the learned counsel for the Appellants to show that PWs 3 and 8 were not aware of the identity of the Appellants as the factory was started just 20-25 days prior to the incident.This contention of the learned counsel for the Appellants is misconceived.It is true that the accused party had started the factory 20-25 days prior to the incident.PW-3 Deepak deposed that prior to this, the accused persons used to visit to look after the premises which was lying vacant for 15-16 years.PW-3 further deposed that the construction on the above plot was also raised by the accused persons after selling half portion of the plot.Thus, both PWs 3 and 8 had the opportunity to see the Appellants for 20-25 days prior to the incident.PW-3 even saw the accused persons while construction was raised on the plot of land (for starting factory).The names of the accused persons were given in the FIR.Thus, there is no manner of doubt about the identity of the assailants.The contention raised on behalf of the Appellants that there was no motive for commission of the crime is also misconceived.As we have discussed earlier, there was motive on the part of the Appellants to teach the Crl.A.1/1998 & 456/1997 Page 17 of 22 complainant party a lesson for their constant nagging for running the factory.Crl.A.1/1998 & 456/1997 Page 17 of 22PW-19 IO of the case testified in his cross-examination that there was no Chimney in the factory of the Appellants, though a suggestion was given that a Chimney was installed in the centre of the factory with a height of 15-20 feet.Yet, no documentary evidence was produced regarding the purchase or installation of the Chimney.An attempt was made on behalf of the Appellants to make out a case that the cause of quarrel was some buffaloes.DWs 1 and 2 also deposed about the presence of two buffaloes in the street outside the factory of the Appellants.A suggestion was given to PW-3 that the complainant party owned three buffaloes and that PW-8 used to tie them outside the Appellants house.No suggestion was given to PW-3 that any buffalo was owned by the complainant party.A suggestion was also given to the IO that the complainant party used to tie three buffaloes in front of the factory of the accused party which was objected to by Ramesh (Juvenile) or that he was given beatings on that account by deceased Anil and Ajay with sticks and that when Appellant Mahesh intervened, he was also given beatings.The appellants did not suggestto PW-3 and PW-8 about details of purchase of the buffaloes and when the first complaint was lodged by the accused party and what was the reaction in respect of the first complaint.We are, therefore, not inclined to believe the Appellants version that any buffalos were owned by the complainant party or that the cause of quarrel was the tethering the buffaloes outside the factory of the accused party resulting into nuisance to them.We are of the view that this story has been invented by the Appellants just to put up a defence to the incident.MLC of Appellant Mahesh is on record, he had suffered three injuries by a blunt object.The MLC of Ramesh (Juvenile) is not on record.On the other hand, when the Appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they completely denied the incident.Appellant Sripal took the plea that he was not present at the time of the incident.It was claimed that he was not even in Delhi.Crl.A.1/1998 & 456/1997 Page 18 of 22Appellant Mahesh simply stated that there was some altercation regarding the nuisance caused by the presence of buffaloes in the street which was objected to by them and that is why the case had been made against them.Thus, it is not even suggested either in the cross-examination as to how the quarrel started or how the Appellants caused injuries on the person of deceased Anil, Ajay and PW-8 Kalawati.We have already disbelieved the defence that it were the servants who had caused knife blows numbering 14-15 each on deceased Anil and Ajay.It is established that the Appellants Sripal and Ramesh (Juvenile) were armed with knife.Appellant Mahesh was armed with a hammer.Appellant Mahesh gave a hammer blow on the person of Ajay.Initially, servant of Appellant Sripal caught hold of deceased Ajay; Ajay freed himself and tried to run away when Appellant Mahesh overpowered him and Ramesh (Juvenile) followed Ajay and stabbed him repeatedly.The Appellants shall surrender before the Trial Court on 3rd May, 2011 to serve the balance of their sentence.The Registry shall transmit the Trial Court records and this judgment, forthwith, to ensure compliance.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This Revision has been preferred against judgement and order dated 13.10.1999 passed by learned 7th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in Complaint Case No. 607 of 1999 (Basant Narain Dubey Vs.Kripa Shanker) under Sections 407, 504, 506 of IPC whereby complaint filed by revisionist has been dismissed and opposite party no. 2 has been acquitted.None has appeared for revisionist whereas this Revision is pending since the year 1999 and thus, it is being decided finally.Heard learned AGA for the State and perused the record.Perusal of record shows that revisionist has filed a complaint against opposite party no. 2 mainly alleging that regarding a land dispute between the parties, civil court has passed order in favour of complainant.Thereafter, on 09.09.1995 opposite party no. 2 has tried to take forcibly possession over disputed land and when resisted, he has abused the complainant and after that on 28.09.1995 at around 06:00 am, accused persons forcibly tried to take possession over his land and dig in a peg in his land and abused and threatened to kill him.The complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and two witnesses namely PW-1 Dukhran Dubey and PW-2 Basant Narain Dubey were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, opposite party no. 2 was summoned for trial under Sections 447, 504, 506 of IPC.After recording evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. charges were framed under Section 447, 504, 506 of IPC and thereafter, evidence under Section 246 Cr.P.C. was recorded.After evidence, opposite party no. 2 was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., however, no oral evidence was led.In documentary evidence, certain statements of witnesses recorded in Crime No. 162 of 1992 and some documents of Civil Suit No. 31/1963 (Basant Narain Vs.Rajaram) were filed.He has stated date of incident as 28.09.1995 whereas in notice dated 15.09.1995 he has told that incident took place in October month.

['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.2 The applicant is praying to quash the proceedings initiated against the applicant in pursuance to lodging of First Information Report by Respondent No.2, bearing Crime No.1131 of ::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:18:21 ::: {2} crappln710116.odt 2016, dated 27.10.2016, registered at Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 354-D and 507 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:18:21 :::3 In the First Information Report lodged by Respondent No.2-complainant, it is alleged that on 26.10.2016, while she was working at the office of Regional Transport Office, Aurangabad, one unknown person came and enquired about his pending work.It was informed by Respondent No.2 that due to work of upgradation of online process, there is some difficulty and work got delayed.The unknown person thereafter requested her to talk with his master on his mobile hand set.It is alleged that that the applicant herein, who was on the other side, threatened the complainant.He asked her as to why the work is delayed and how much money she want for doing the work.He further stated that tomorrow the Commissioner of Transport as well as Hon'ble Minister for Transport will call her on phone about the pending work.It is alleged that the applicant herein, who talked with the complainant on the the handset of his employee, was talking in such a manner, which amounts to offence within the ambit of Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code.4 Section 354-D describes "Stalking", as, any man who follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking.::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:18:21 :::According to the complainant, the applicant has disclosed his identity.There was also no allegation that there was any precaution taken by the applicant to conceal his identity.::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:18:21 :::{4} crappln710116.odt 8 On perusal of the First Information Report, there does not appear to be any allegation relating to extending of threats to the complainant at the instance of applicant.What is recorded in the First Information Report, is that one Mr.Shelke, RTO official, informed the complainant that the caller on mobile number 9552460003, which allegedly belongs to the applicant, had extended threats to the complainant.On consideration of the allegations recorded in the First Information Report, neither the offence under Section 354-D nor under Section 507 of the Indian Penal Code can be said to have been made out.9 For the reasons recorded above, criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant at the instance of complainant - Respondent No.2 herein, bearing Crime No.1131 of 2016, dated 27.10.2016, registered at Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 354-D and 507 of the Indian Penal Code, deserves to be quashed and same are accordingly quashed.10 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:18:21 :::

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Shri Vinod Tiwari, learned counsel for the objector.Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.181/2019 registered at Police Station Gorakhpur, Jabalpur, District Jabalpur under Sections 376 (2) (N) and 495 of the Indian Penal Code.The case of the prosecution is that, the prosecutrix, aged about 31 years has solemnized marriage with applicant Anant Pandey on 21.11.2018 as per Hindu rites and rituals.After marrying with the applicant, the prosecutrix came to know that applicant had already married to a lady named Jaya Pandey and was having female child of 6 years of age out of their wedlock.It is alleged by the prosecutrix that applicant contracted marriage with her concealing the fact of former marriage and has made physical relation with her.On that basis, crime under the aforementioned offence has been registered against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the crime.It is further submitted that the prosecutrix herself was a married woman and has the tendency to falsely implicate number of persons and extort money from them.The prosecutrix had already solemnized marriage with one Virendra Tiwari and after deserting him lodged a report against him.Prior to marrying Virendra Tiwari, she had solemnized marriage with Prashant Kumar Dubey and Ashish Pathak.In view of the aforesaid, a prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State and the learned counsel for the objector on the other hand have opposed the bail application.In the order dated 28.04.2008 it is specifically mentioned that complainant Shobha Pandey was legally married wife of Prashant Kumar Dubey.On visualization of the photographs, the prosecutrix seen with the applicant in an intimate condition.On perusal of the FIR bearing Crime No.1106/2018 registered at Police Station Adhartal, Jabalpur, it seems that prosecutrix Shobha Pandey had lodged an FIR against Saurabh Urmaliya, who is said to be the brother-in-law of the applicant for the offence under Sections 354, 354 (gha) (1) (ii), Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 26/04/2019 03:13:47 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-13622-2019 (ANANT PANDEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 3 506 and 507 of IPC.In view of the aforesaid, it appears that after performing marriages the prosecutrix is in the habit of implicate persons in similar offences.Consequently, this first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of applicant-Anant Pandey, is allowed.It is directed that in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- and a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge taj.Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 26/04/2019 03:13:47

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

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

Accused taking Asha from the house of Bharat on the plea of illness of her mother.Accused's expression of ignorance about whereabouts of Asha to PWs 1, 2, 10 and 16 when they had been to his house to enquire about Asha and later his confession of crime before them.Recovery of the dead body of Asha from the shallow pit on the basis of information derived from the accused.Accused last seen going to the P.O on a bicycle with the victim.Recovery of victim's ornaments from the house of the accused.Injuries sustained by the accused as deposed by the doctor examining him as well as by other witnesses who had been to the P.O.

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

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

Dated: September 25, 2013 ...After examining the respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant' for the sake of convenience and clarity), the Chief Judicial Magistrate formed an opinion that a prima facie case of an offence p/u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code was made out and hence, by his order dated 28.12.2010 directed issue of process requiring the petitioner to appear and answer to the charge of an offence p/u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:21:28 :::2. Being aggrieved by the order issuing process, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions by filing an application for revision, but, the learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the revision application was of the view that order issuing process was proper, legal and correct.Holding so, he dismissed the revision.It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this court invoking its Constitutional jurisdiction, contending that the initiation and continuation of the said proceedings against him, is contrary to law, and praying that the order issuing process and the proceedings of the said RCC Case No.459/2010 be quashed.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:21:28 :::3 CRI WP 590.11.odtI have heard Mr.B.A.Dhengle, the learned counsel for the petitioner.I have also heard Mr.V.B.Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the complainant.I have also heard Mr.P.N.Muley, the learned APP for the State.With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the petition and the annexures thereto.I have carefully gone through the complaint and the impugned order.The substance of the complaint filed by the complainant is as follows :-That, the complainant is a resident of Osmanabad and is a retired primary teacher.That, the petitioner is working as a Teacher in the Primary School at Pimpri which is run by Zilla Parishad.That, as per the Government notification No.PRS/1088/1370/CR/226/15, Mantralaya Mumbai-32, dated 14.6.1989 the Government have directed all the teachers and Gramsevaks under the control of Zilla Parishad to remain at the Headquarters.That, as per the Government Notification dated 26.6.1993, the Government have directed all the employees of the Zilla Parishad to stay at the Head-Quarter.That, if an employee of Zilla Parishad would not be residing at the Head Quarters, he would have no right to demand any house rent allowance and that, therefore, no house rent allowance should be paid to an employee of Zilla ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:21:28 ::: 4 CRI WP 590.11.odt Parishad who does not stay at the Head Quarter.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:21:28 :::That, the petitioner (accused) is in the employment of Zilla Parishad and though, he has not been staying at the Head-Quarters, he had taken house rent allowance amounting to Rs.13,228/- for the period from November 2008 to May 2010 and has, therefore, deceived the Government ("kklukph Qlo.kqd dssysyh vkgs).In the verification statement of the complainant, he stated that the petitioner was a teacher in the Primary School at Pimpri but, that instead of residing at the Headquarters, he was residing at Osmanabad and that, inspite of not being residing at Head Quarters, the petitioner had taken House Rent Allowance to the extent of Rs.13,228/- for the period from November, 2008 to May, 2010 and has, therefore, 'deceived the Government.'The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad while issuing process against the petitioner observed as follows :-"Therefore, prima facie it appears that, accused has dishonestly induced the Government to deliver house rent allowance and thereby committed offence of cheating.Hence, issue process under section 420 of I.P.C. against the accused.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:21:28 :::5 CRI WP 590.11.odtThe learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision did not consider whether the ingredients of an offence p/u/s 420 of the IPC were disclosed.However, no person from the Government has been examined to claim that the petitioner had made any particular false representation, pursuant to which such person - while working for and on behalf of the Government - was deceived.The least that was expected before issuance of process was to ascertain, prima facie, as to who is the ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:21:28 ::: 6 CRI WP 590.11.odt person who had been deceived.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:21:28 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:21:28 :::On what basis, he comes to the conclusion 'that Government have been deceived', is not indicated; and from the tenor of the complaint, the complaint's notion seems to be that the very act of receiving House Rent Allowance amounts to cheating.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:21:28 :::Petition succeeds.

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

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

Deceased Perumal is the one year old child of P.W. 2 Raji through his second wife.There was longstanding enmity between A-1 Dhandayutham and P.W. 2 Raji on account of a ridge dispute.Besides, A-1 Dhandayutham was nurturing a grievance that P.W. 2 Raji was having illicit intimacy with his wife P.W. 8 Santhi. A-1 Dhandayutham often used to beat and torture his wife.Once he had snatched away the Mangalyam of P.W. 8 Santhi.The latter complained to P.W. 2 Raji about the conduct of A-1 Dhandayutham.Two years prior to the occurrence A-1 Dhandayutham drove away his wife to her parent's house.While P.W. 8 Santhi chose to reside with her grand mother and eke out her livelihood by making Beedies, her three children were living with A-1 Dhandayutham.On 26-9-1988 Monday A-1 Dhandayutham took his three children to the Employer of P.W. 8 Santhi, enquired about her, entrusted the children with him and went away.On the next day Santhi took custody of the children.A-1 Dhandayutham chased him stating that he was going to annihilate the entire family of P.W. 2 Raji.When A-1 Dhandayutham continued to cut P.W. 2 Raji, the latter tried to ward off the blows.Two cuts fell on his left hand.P.W. 2 Raji scaled over the well wall and ran towards the cotton field.A-1 Dhandayutham chased him further and cut on his left head and right shoulder.Then A-1 Dhandayutham began to chase P.W. 1 Nandhavanam shouting that he was going to do away with her entire family members.P.W. 1 Nandhavanam ran from that place, entered her house and bolted it from inside.Deceased Lakshmi and Perumal were also available in the house at that time.A-1 Dhandayutham opened the door by kicking the same with his leg and cut on the left palm of P.W. 1 Nandhavanam.Lakshmi shouted not to cut.Thereupon, saying that he would not stop without killing all of them, A-1 cut Lakshmi indiscriminately with M.O. 1 Aruval.He removed the jaw part of Lakshmi from her body and placed it near the threshold of the house.Lakshmi died instantaneously.A-1 Dhandayutham also cut on the chest, right and left shoulders and neck of the child Perumal and the child also died immediately.A-1 Dhandayutham tried to chase away two other persons also.There P.W. 2 Raji was lying unconscious with injuries, P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 took P.W. 2 Raji to Government Hospital, Mathur in a bullock cart.Vazhipatti village on the way is 3 K.M away from the scene place.There P.W. 1 Nandhavanam met P.W. 9 village Administrative Officer and gave Ex. P. 1 complaint at about 1-30 p.m. P.W. 9 V.A.O. saw P.W. 2 Raji lying unconscious in the bullock cart.He proceeded to the scene place in a cycle and verified that Lakshmi and Perumal were lying dead.He returned to Vazhipatti and sent P.W. 2 Raji and others to Mathur Police Station.He also followed them in a cycle.At about 3 p.m. they reached the police Station which is at a distance of 6 k.m. from Vazhipatti.P.W. 18 Head Constable was incharge of the Police Station.P.W. 9 V.A.O. handed over Ex. P. 1 complaint and his report Ex. P. 2 to the Head Constable.He received the same and registered the complaint as his Station Crime No. 152/88 under Ss. 302, 307, 326 and 324 read with S. 109, IPC.He also prepared Ex. P. 29 Express F.I.R. and sent the documents to J.S.C.M. Court and the copy of the FIR to his higher authorities.He also sent the injured witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2 to Government Hospital with Medical Memo.In the Meanwhile, A-1 Dhandayutham had gone to the house of his relative P.W. 6 Pandurangan in Naravandhampatti at 10 a.m. This house is two furlongs away from the house of P.W. 2 Raji.There were blood stains over his body and clothes and M.O. 1 aruval in his hand.He asked for water to drink.With the water provided by P.W. 6 Pandurangan, he washed blood stains.He also confessed to P.W. 6 Pandurangan that he had done away with the entire family of P.W. 2 Raji.He told him that he was going to surrender in Court and went away.When P.W. 6 Pandurangan went to P.W. 2 Raji's house, he found Lakshmi and Perumal lying dead.On receipt of information P.W. 19 Inspector, Mathur took up investigation of the case and visited the scene village at 5.00 p.m. He prepared Ex. P. 3 observation mahazar regarding the house of P.W. 2 Raji.At about 5.30 p.m. he prepared Ex. P. 4 observation mahazar regarding the scene of crime near the well and cotton field.Ex. P. 30 is the combined rough sketch showing all the relevant places.The Inspector got the scene place photographed.M.O. 31 series and M.O. 32 series are the relevant photographs and negatives.At 6.30 p.m. P.W. 19 Inspector recovered M.O. 3 blood stained stone from near the well under Ex. P. 5 mahazar.From the same place he recovered M.O. 4 blood stained earth and M.O. 5 sample earth under Ex. P. 6 mahazar.At 7.00 p.m. he recovered M.O. 6 and M.O. 7 cement floorings underneath the bodies of Lakshmi and Perumal respectively, M.O. 8 Mangalyam cord, M.O. 9 plaster from the wall of P.W. 2's house, M.O. 10 Key, M.O. 11 hair, M.O. 12 series bangle pieces, M.O. 13 coin, M.O. 14 blood stained dhoti, M.O. 15 slack and M.O. 16 bed sheet under Ex. P. 7 mahazar.P.W. 9 V.A.O. who was present throughout has attested all these mahazars.On the same day P.W. 19 Inspector held inquest over the dead body of Lakshmi from 8.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. At that time he examined P.W. 1 Nandhavanam and others.Ex. P.31 is the inquest report.From 12.00 midnight to 3.00 a.m. on 28-9-1988 he held inquest over the body of child Perumal in the presence of some Panchayatdars and witnesses.Ex. P. 32 is the inquest report.Then he handed over the bodies to P.Ws.Ex. P. 21 is the post-mortem certificate issued by her.After post-mortem was over, P.W. 10 constable removed M.O. 23 saree, M.O. 24 Skirt, M.O. 25 colour towel, M.O. 26 jacket, M.O. 27 bangle pieces, M.O. 28 nose ring and M.O. 29 metti from the body and entrusted the same in Mathur Police Station.At 1.00 p.m. P.W. 19 Inspector examined P.W. 2 Raji at the Government Head-quarters Hospital, Dharmapuri and recorded his statement.P.W. 2 Raji produced M.O. 17 bloodstained towel.The Inspector recovered the same under Ex. P. 9 mahazar which was attested by P.W. 9 V.A.O.On the same day at 1.30 p.m. P.W. 12 Doctor commenced post-mortem over the body of child Perumal at Government Hospital, Uthangarai.Pelvis intact.In the opinion of the Doctor, the deceased would appear to have died of shock, and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries about 25 to 30 hours prior to post-mortem.The injuries are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and they could have been inflicted by a weapon like M.O. 1 aruval.Ex. P. 20 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him.After post-mortem, P.W. 11 Constable removed M.O. 30 silver waist-cord and handed it over in Mathur Police Station.At 3.00 p.m. P.W. 19 Inspector arrested A-1 Dhandayutham on the tank bund of Uthangarai and examined him.He gave a confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex. P. 10 This reads that if he is taken, he would produce the handless aruval concealed in a bush near Echampadi and he would also show the place where the cycle is kept.He produced M.O. 18 cycle key which was recovered by the Inspector under Ex. P. 11 mahazar.Thereafter he took the police party to the bridge in Echampadi and produced M.O. 1 aruval from under the bush.The Inspector seized the same under Ex. P. 12 mahazar.At 6.30 p.m. on the same day A-1 Dhandayutham produced M.O. 2 cycle kept under a tamarind tree near the Laundry of one Kulla Maistry on Echampadi main road.The Inspector recovered the same under Ex. P. 15 mahazar.P.W. 9 V.A.O. who was present has attested Exs.Ex. P. 24 is the wound certificate issued by the Doctor.It was represented to the Doctor that the injury was sustained due to assault by known persons with kathi at about 9.00 a.m. on 27-9-1988 at Velavalli Kattu Kottai.JUDGMENT Thangamani, J.R.T. No. 4 of 1993 is a reference made by learned Sessions Judge of Dharmapuri District Krishnagiri is S.C. No. 60 of 1992 on his file under section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking confirmation of the death sentence passed on A-1 Dhandayutham, while Criminal Appeal No. 611 of 1993 has been preferred by the said A-1 Dhandayutham Challenging his conviction and sentence.The prosecution examined 19 witnesses, filed 33 documents and marked 32 material objects.They disclose these facts :- P.W. 2 Raji alias Raji Gounder is residing in his field shed in Velavallikadu of Vazhipatti village with his first wife deceased Lakshmi and second wife P.W. 1 Nandhavanam.helped his wife in lifting the grass bundle to her head.When P.W. 1 Nandhavanam proceeded towards her house, P.W. 2 Raji was sitting on the stone near the well.At that time A-1 Dhandayutham came there from behind and cut on the right ear side of P.W. 2 Raji with M.O. 1 Aruval.P.W. 1 turned round and saw her husband running for his life towards a pit inside the well.On hearing the noise, P.W. 3 Pandurangan who had come as guest to the house of one Murugan, came there and tried to prevent A-1 from cutting P.W. 2 Raji.Thereupon A-1 Dhandayutham cut on the right side of the neck of P.W. 3 Pandurangan asking who was he to question his act P.W. 1 Nandhavanam witnessed his incident from at a distance of 10 feet.P.W. 4 Kesavan who came there on hearing the noise also saw the occurrence.A-1 Dhandayutham cut P.W. 2 Raji on his hands and neck shouting (vernacular matter omitted) P.W. 2 Raji fell down then he got up, ran for some distance and swooned in the sugarcane field.P.W. 5 Kullachi who was plucking grass in her sugarcane field also saw the entire episode from at a distance of 70 feet.A crowd gathered there.P.W. 4 Kesavan also saw Lakshmi and Perumal lying dead in a pool of blood.P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 proceeded to the sugarcane field.Sometime later P.W. 7 Ramasamy an astrologer and palmist by profession saw A-1 Dhandayutham coming from the opposite side along Natham - Naradhampatti road.A-1 Dhandayutham got M.O. 2 cycle which P.W. 7 was riding and rode away.There were blood stains on the shirt worn by A-1 Dhandayutham.P.W. 7 Ramasamy got afraid and did not ask A-1 Dhandayutham anything.On the same day at 5-10 p.m. P.W. 15 Doctor admitted P.W. 2 Raji in Government Head Quarters Hospital, Dharmapuri on police Memo.He found these injuries on him :Incised wound upper third of left forearm encircling the medial, posterior and lateral aspects cutting through both radius and ulna.Incised wound anterior side and lower third of left forearm 3" x 1 1/2" x 1/2".(Fracture) both bones.Incised wound medial aspect of left wrist 1" x 1/2" x 1/2".Incised wound left side upper part of neck 2 1/2" x 1" x 1 1/2".Incised wound upper side of left shoulder 2" x 1" x 1".Incised wound behind right ear 1 1/2" x 3/4" x 1/4".Incised wound vertically placed over the right wrist antaomedial aspect extending to the palm and forearm 3" x 1" x 1/2".Abrasion portion side of lower third and right forearm 2" x 1".X-Ray :-(Fracture) 1/3 radius and ulna (lower 1/3).(Fracture) upper 3rd ulna with dislocation of radius.In the opinion of the Doctor, injury Nos. 2 and 1 are grievous and injury Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are simple.Ex. P. 23 is the wound certificate issued by him which reads that the injured was accompanied by a police Constable for report as to certain injuries said to have been caused on the same day at about 10.00 a.m. and to be due to assault by two persons with koduval at velavalli.10 and 11 police Constables with Exs.P. 16 and P. 18 requisitions for post-mortem.On 28-9-1988 at 7.00 a.m. P.W. 19 Inspector arrested A-2 Mani in Thippampatti Road and produced him in the court on the same day.On 28-9-1988 at 11.00 a.m. P.W. 14 Doctor examined P.W. 1 Nandhavanam at the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri and found :An incised wound 5" x 1" x 1" extending from distal portion of left middle finger to the distal portion of left thumb-palmer aspect.X-ray Left hand 1 X AP/tat ? No bony injury.The injury was simple in nature.Ex. P. 22 is the wound certificate issued by him which discloses that P.W. 1 was accompanied by a police constable for report as to certain injuries said to have been caused on 27-9-1988 at about 9.00 a.m. and to be due to assault by a known person with knife near her house.On the same day at 12.00 Noon P.W. 13 Doctor commenced post-mortem over the body of Lakshmi at Government Hospital, Uthangarai.She found these injuries :External Injuries :A linear incised wound seen over left angle of eye up to left ear 8" x 1/2" x 1/2" size.Bloodscap present.An incised wound seen over left lower part of ear 2" x 1" x 1/2".Bloodscap present.Another incised wound 2" x 1/2" x 1/2" size in between right mandible and right side of lower lip.The left lower 4 teeth divided from jaw.Incised wound seen above right mandible ravius starts from chin up to mandible joint 9" x 1/2" x 1" size.Right ear lobe is cut and is missing.Three punctured wound one below the another just below the left ear 2" x 1" x 1/2" size each.An incised wound over right temporal region about 3" x 1/2" x 1/4" size.Scalp bone is exposed.Just 1/2" below the 7th wound, another incised wound is seen 4" x 1/2" x 1/4".Scalp bone is seen.A big punctured wound 3" x 2" x 2" size over nape of neck.Another punctured wound seen over right supra-clavicular region 2" x 1" x 1" size.Incised wound seen over right upper lip 3" x 1/2" x 1/2" size.Blood scalp present.Punctured wound seen over left check 2" x 1/2" x 1/2" size.Another punctured wound 2" x 1" x 1" size over parietal region.A long incised wound about 9" x 1" x 1/2" seen over left upper part of left neck.Another punctured wound seen just 1/2" below the 14th wound about 2" x 1" x 1" size.Another incised wound seen 1/2" below the 15th wound size about 2" x 1" x 1" size.An incised wound seen over left shoulder.Bone deep 5" x 1" x 1" size.Another incised wound left supra-scapular region 3" x 1" x 1" size.Multiple punctured wound about 6 in number each about 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" size over right and left scapular regions.Incised wound over left wrist joint both radius and ulna bones divided 5" x 1" x 1" size.Incised wound over left elbow joint 2" x 1" x 1/4" size.Internal Examination of Injuries : Hyoid bone intact.Stomach empty.He noticed these injuries on the child :-Rigor Mortis was seen in all limbs.External injuries :-A big incised wound seen over upper part of right neck semi-circular in nature, stab from chin upto region.Major V.S., N.S., Muscles are cut.Right shoulder cut upto bone, size 6" x 1" x 2".Another incised wound size 2" x 1/4" x 1/4" seen over right clavicle.Punctured wound seen over right chest 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2".Incised wound seen on right scapular region 1" x 1/2" x 1/2".Incised wound 2" x 1/2" x 1/2" right forearm muscle.Internal Examination :-Stomach contains digested food particles, Heart, Lungs, Liver, Spleen are normal and no injuries seen.Spinal Column intact.Thereafter A-1 Dhandayutham took the police party to Velavalli Panchayat Road and produced M.O. 10 the handle of aruval.P.W. 19 Inspector recovered the same under Ex. P. 13 mahazar which was also attested by P.W. 9, V.A.O. Ex. P. 33 is the sketch of the aruval prepared by the Inspector.The Inspector examined P.Ws. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 and recorded their statements.At 10.00 p.m. on that day the Inspector brought A-1 to the Police Station, gave him clothes to exchange and recovered M.O. 20 dhoti, M.O. 21 banian and M.O. 22 slack shirt worn by him under Ex. P. 14 Form No. 95, P.W. 9 V.A.O. who was present has attested this Form also.On 4-10-1988 the Inspector examined P.W. 3 Pandurangan and sent him to Government Hospital, Mathur for treatment of the injury found on him.P.W. 16 Doctor examined him at 11.30 a.m. at the Primary Health Centre, Mathur.He noticed :A healed wound over the right side of the neck.On 17-11-1988, P.W. 17 Head Clerk of J.S.C.M. Court, Arur, on receipt of Ex. P. 25 Requisition from the Inspector arranged to send M.Os. 1, 3 to 17 and 20 to 30 for chemical examination under the original of Ex. P. 26 covering letter.P. 27 and P. 28 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist.They disclose that M.O. 8 Mangalyam cord pieces, M.O. 20 dhoti M.O. 21, skirt, M.O. 22 shirt, M.O. 23 saree, M.O. 25 cloth pieces and M.O. 26 blouse contain same 'B' Group of human blood.On 29-4-1989 the Inspector completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet.When examined under S. 313, Cr.P.C. the accused denied the allegations against them.They did not examine any defence witness.After trial, learned Sessions Judge absolved A-2 Mani of all the charges and acquitted him.He found A-1 Dhandayutham guilty under Sections 302 (2 counts), 307 (2 counts), 449 and 324, IPC and convicted him accordingly.Since he sentenced him to death on two counts under section 302, IPC he did not award any separate sentence under Ss. 307 (2 counts), 449 and 324, IPC.An old ridge dispute between A-1 Dhandayutham and P.W. 2 Raji and suspicion entertained by A-1 Dhandayutham that there is illicit intimacy between P.W. 2 Raji and his wife P.W. 8 Santhi are stated to be the motive for his dastardly crime.The evidence of P.W. 2 Raji on the ridge dispute is not challenged in his cross-examination.P.W. 8 Santhi while denying the intimacy states in her evidence that besides making the insinuation, her husband had driven her away from his house two years prior to the occurrence for this reason.Her evidence discloses that thereafter she was living apart from her husband and eking out her livelihood by making beedies.From the testimonies of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 8, it is seen that A-1 Dhandayutham was under the impression that P.W. 2 Raji was responsible for his unhappiness in domestic life.It is immaterial whether his grievance is real or imaginary.Suffice there is reason to hold that A-1 Dhandayutham was having sufficient motive to do away with P.W. 2 Raji.And his conduct in taking the children to his wife's place and entrusting them with the boss of P.W. 8 Santhi on the day prior to the occurrence indicates that he was having some plan in his mind as to his action on Tuesday.P.W. 1 Nandhavanam, P.W. 2 Raji, P.W. 3 Pandurangan, P.W. 4 Kesavan and P.W. 5 Kullachi are all eye-witnesses to the occurrence herein.Of them P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have sustained injuries.P.Ws. 1 and 2 are husband and wife and as per their evidence, on 27-9-1988 at about 9.00 a.m. A-1 Dhandayutham dealt the first blow on the right side of the head of P.W. 2 Raji with aruval near the well in their field.That P.W. 19 Inspector had recovered M.O. 3 blood stained stone and M.O. 4 blood stained earth from this place shows that this is also a scene of crime.These two witnesses state that P.W. 1 Nandhavanam was cutting grass in her field on that morning.P.W. 2 Raji who came there helped his wife in lifting the grass bundle to her head.Soon after he was assaulted by A-1 Dhandayutham.He had run to the scene place on hearing the noise of P.W. 2 Raji pleading with A-1 Dhandayutham not to cut him.P.W. 3 Pandurangan had come to the house of one Murugan as guest from his village Vellaiyampathi.He also rushed to the field of P.W. 2 Raji on hearing the same noise.And he was injured by A-1 Dhandayutham when he went to protect P.W. 2 Raji from the assault of A-1 Dhandayutham.All the four are natural witnesses and they satisfactorily account for their presence there at the time of occurrence.That P.Ws. 1 to 3 had been treated by Doctors P.Ws. 14, 15 and 16 of their wounds and that they had represented before their respective Doctors that they were assaulted at the time and place and in the manners spoken to by them in the witness box give credence to their testimonies.The nature of injuries sustained by the three witnesses and the two deceased as disclosed from Exs.P. 22, P. 23, and P. 24 wound certificates and Exs.P. 20 and P. 21 post-mortem certificates also support their ocular versions.P.W. 2 Raji appears to be the main target of attack by A-1 Dhandayutham.He was chased and assaulted till he fell down swooned in the sugarcane filed.P.W. 3 Pandurangan and seen this part of the incident only.After P.W. 2 Raji fell down the wrath of A-1 turned on P.W. 1 Nandhavanam who was witnessing helplessly her husband being attacked. A-1 Dhandayutham began to chase her when she ran for her life, entered her house and bolted it from inside.Besides speaking about the assault on her husband, she narrates how she was chased by A-1 and how he broke open the door, came inside and cut her with M.O. 1 aruval.According to her version, when Lakshmi pleaded not to cut this witness, A-1 Dhandayutham attacked not only Lakshmi indiscriminately but also he butchered child Perumal and caused their death.P.W. 4 Kesavan had seen A-1 Dhandayutham chasing P.W. 2 Raji and cutting him till he swooned.The narration of this witness covers the sustaining of injury by P.W. 3 Pandurangan, chasing of P.W. 1 Nandhavanam, her bolting the house from inside and A-1 Dhandayutham trespassing into it.Though in chief examination he deposes that A-1 Dhandayutham cut Lakshmi and ran towards child Perumal, saying that he was going to do away with him also, he admits in cross-examination that he did not see what had happened inside the house.But immediately after A-1 Dhandayutham had run away from that place, he went inside and saw Lakshmi and Perumal lying dead in a pool of blood.That he had accompanied P.W. 2 Raji and P.W. 1 Nandhavanam to the police station lends credence to his version.P.W. 5 Kullachi was weeding grass in her sugarcane field at 9.00 a.m. on that day.The field was 70 feet away from the well where P.W. 1 Nandhavanam was cutting grass.On hearing the noise she also had come to the scene place and found A-1 Dhandayutham cutting on the right neck of P.W. 2 Raji and chasing him till he fell down in the cotton field.She had also seen the assault on P.W. 3 Pandu when he tried to intervene.She ran along with P.W. 4 Kesavan and others to the house of P.W. 1 Nandhavanam when the latter was chased by A-1 Dhandayutham.According to P.W. 5 Kullachi, she had witnessed the occurrence inside the house since the door was not closed after A-1 Dhandayutham broke open it and went inside.None of the other eye witnesses speaks about the presence of this witness on the scene of crime.But it is significant to note that according to P.W. 5 Kullachi, she was only a spectator watching the episode from at a distance of 70 feet.So P.Ws. 1 to 4 would not have had any occasion to notice her presence.P.W. 1 Nandhavanam has lodged Ex. P. 1 complaint with P.W. 9 V.A.O. on her way to the hospital.And after verifying the correctness of her version, the Village Administrative Officer has handed over Ex. P. 1 complaint as well as Ex. P. 2 his report in Mathur Police Station at about 3.00 p.m. P.W. 18 Head Constable who has registered the complaint has despatched them to J.S.C.M. Court immediately and they have been received there at 6.00 p.m. on the same day.This complaint which has been lodged promptly narrates the events as spoken to by the eye witnesses in the witness box.Pandurangan and P.W. 4 Kesavan is made mention herein.And this complaint amply corroborates the verbal testimonies of the above said witnesses.And we are not impressed with the contention of learned counsel for M. 1 that the omission of P.W. 9 V.A.O. to mention in Ex. P. 1 complaint at what time he recorded the same affects in any manner the sanctity of this document.Inspector has held inquest over the dead bodies from 8.00 p.m. on 27-9-1988 to 3.00 a.m. on the next day.Nandavanam alone has been examined since the other two injured witnesses had to undergo treatment in the hospital.That P.Ws. 1 to 3 have sustained injuries finds a place in these inquest reports.And it is significant to note that the inquest reports along with the statement of P.W. 1 Nandhavanam as well as the 161 statement of P.W. 2 Raji have reached the Court at 12.00 noon on 28-9-1988 itself.Dhandayutham contained same 'B' group of human blood.Dhandayutham in the crime.Yet another piece of evidence which goes in support of the prosecution version is the testimony of P.W. 7 Ramasamy.Dhandayutham coming along Natham - Naradhampatti road with blood stained clothes.He further states that A. 1 Dhandayutham got the cycle from him and rode fast.Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of this witness as to why his evidence also should not be accepted.Dhandayutham produced M.O. 1 aruval concealed in a bush near the bridge in Echampadi.Since the Serologist's report does not throw any light on the group of human blood found on the same, the confession and the consequential recovery are not of any assistance to the prosecution.Dhandayutham chose P.W. 6 Pandurangan to make this extra judicial confession.Their evidence appears to have a ring of truth.They overwhelmingly corroborate the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, the victims of assault.In the present case for an imaginary grievance entertained by him against P.W. 2 Raji, the accused had chosen to do away with two other innocent persons, a hapless woman and an infant.Deceased Lakshmi had only come to the rescue of P.W. 1 Wandhavanam when she was chased and assaulted by the accused.He has simply butchered the lady inflicting as many as 21 cut injuries.Appeal dismissed.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Brief facts are :a. Chinnathallapadi and Periya Thallapadi are two tiny villages and the distances between them is about 1 k.m.Both the villages are situate within the jurisdictional limits of Singarapettai Police Station.All the accused 1 to 6 are the residents of Chinna Thallapadi, while one Vedian, (since deceased) was the resident of Periya Thallapadi.His wife is one Manonmani, who is none-else than the sister of 1st accused.Ever since, their marriage, there were frequent skirmishes and quarrels between the spouses.Consequently, the wife Manonmani had very often resorted to take shelter in her parents house.b. Some three months prior to the occurrences, which event happened on 7-7-1995, the wife Manonmani as usual, had gone to the house of her parents, obviously after picking up quarrel wife her husband the deceased.The deceased took steps for bringing back his wife to the matrimonial abode by reporting the matter to P. Ws. 5 and 6 who it is said, tried their best to effect mediation between the spouses.However, such a mediation proved colossal failure two months prior to the occurrence.c. The first accused was stated to have some sort of an embittered relationship with his brother-in-law, the deceased as a consequence of his not having good marital relationship with his wife, the sister of first accused.It appears that the first accused, in a bid to do away with the deceased, had been moving in the company of the other accused, viz., accused 2 to 6 some time prior to the occurrence.On 7-7-1985 at about 7.30 P.M. or 7.45 P.M., 6th accused went to the grocery shop of P. W. 7 and purchased a coir rope and then at 8.00 P.M. he purchased two bottles of arrack from P. W. 8 the salesman of No. 3 arrack shop at Periya Thallapadi, obviously for the consumption of the arrack by him and his associates.d. P. Ws. 3 and 4 residing in the vicinity of the house of 1st accused, heard some hue and cry emerging from the house of first accused.Attracted by such hue and cry, they went there and had the fortuitious opportunity of observing the presence of all the accused and the deceased lying on the floor in the house of first accused at 10.00 P.M. They were able to presume from such a situation that the deceased had been done to death by the accused.e. In the meantime the deceased, who was stated to have gone out of his house in his cycle M. O. 6 at 10.00 A.M. on 7-7-1985, did not at all return to his house.His daughter P. W. 2 waited for his arrival and return till up to 17-7-1985 on which date she went and reported to her uncle Selvaraj, as to her father's missing for quite long and he in turn enquired about the whereabouts of the deceased and despite the efforts so taken, he could not locate him.Consequently, P. W. 2 went and reported the matter to P. W. 19, the Sub Inspector of Police Singarapettai Police Station Exhibit P. 2 is the complaint.In the said complaint she had given the description of the clothes worn by the deceased, her father when he last departed from his house.On the strength of the said complaint, P. W. 19 in turn, registered a case in Crime No. 68/85 as a man missing case.He prepared express reports and send the same to the concerned officials.Exhibit P. 21 is the express First Information Report.The body was found tied by means of a rope on the neck and hip region with two stones dangling on either side of the ends of the rope.Suspecting some foul play P. W. 1 went and reached Oothangarai Police Station at 12 noon and lodged Exhibit P. 1 information to P. W. 22, the then Sub Inspector of Police in charge of the station, who in turn on receipt of the same, registered a case in Crime No. 110/85 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. He prepared express reports and sent the same to the concerned officials.Exhibit P. 25 is the copy of the express report.g. P. W. 23 was the then Inspector of Police.On receipt of the express First Information Report at 12.00 P.M., he took up further investigation of the case.He then rushed and reached Pambar dam at 12.50 P.M. After inspecting the scene, he prepared Exhibit P.3 observation mahazar.He caused the body to be removed from the dam.Between 2.00 P.M. and 4.30 pm., he held inquest over the body of the deceased.Exhibit P.27 is the inquest report.During inquest, he examined P. W. 1 and others.Since the body was in an advanced stage of putrefaction, he sent Exhibit P. 10 requisition through the Constable P. W. 21 for the purpose of conducting the autopsy over the body of the deceased at the spot itself.M. Os.14 and 15 series are respectively negatives and photo copies.At 4.45 P.M. he recovered the peeled of loose skin from the left palm of the deceased under Exhibit P.4 mahazar.At 5.00 P.M. he recovered from the body M. O. 4 two rupee note, M. O. 9 coir rope, M. O. 10 series two stones, besides recovering blood stained earth M. O. 11 from the place where the body was allowed to lie under Exhibit P.5 mahazar.h. P. W. 11 was the then Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to Primary Health Centre, Mathur.On receipt of Exhibit P. 10 requisition, P. W. 11 rushed and reached the spot at 4.45 P.M. on 10-7-1985 and straightway commenced the autopsy.Exhibit P. 11 is the post mortem certificate he issued.He would opine that the deceased would have died 60 to 70 hours prior to autopsy due to the fracture of skull bone and fracture of upper jaw and removal of right eye.i. After the autopsy was over, P. W. 23 seized the right hand fingers of the deceased from the Doctor P. W. 11 who severed it from the body of the deceased under Exhibit P. 28 mahazar at 5.45 P.M. for the purpose of taking the impression of those fingers.k. Since the autopsy revealed that the deceased died of homicidal violence, P. W. 23 altered the case into one under Section 302 I. P. C. and sent express reports to concerned officials.Exhibit P. 29 is the express copy of the first information report.On 11-7-1985 he examined P. Ws. 17 and 21 and recorded their statements.On 17-7-1985, P. W. 19 the then Inspector of Police Singarapettai Police Station, caused Exhibit P. 21 the copy of the express first information report concerned in Crime No. 68/85 of his Police Station to be handed over to P. W. 23 Inspector of Police through the medium of P. W. 2 P. W. 23 showed the photographs M. O. 15 series to P. W. 2 on that day itself, he sent Exhibit P. 30 requisition to the Judicial II Class Magistrate's Court.Oothangarai, for identifying the Material objects, viz., M. O. 1 shirts, M. O. 2 banian, M. O. 3 inner garment and M. O. 5 thread waist cord found on the body of the deceased.M. O. 1 shirt was stated to have been stitched by the deceased some time prior to the occurrence by purchasing cloth from the shop of P. W. 16 with the aid of the tailor P. W. 15, P. W. 23 obtained permission from the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Oothangarai and got back M. O. 1 shirt so as to enable him to have the same identified by P. Ws. 2 and 15, who on the production of the same, identified as the shirt of the deceased.At 10.00 A.M. on that day he made an inspection of the house of the first accused.Pursuant to Exhibit P. 6, 2nd accused took P. W. 23 to his house and produced M. O. 7, dothi, which was seized under Exhibit P. 7 mahazar.Likewise 5th accused, pursuant to Exhibit P. 8 confession, also took P. W. 23 to his house and produced M. O. 12 bamboo stick, which was seized under Exhibit P.9 mahazar.Exhibits P.6 to P.9 were all attested by P. W. 10 and another.He took both accused 2 and 5 along with the seized properties to Oothangarai Police Station and put them in the lock up of the Police Station.On the next day he sent them to Court for remand.m. P. W. 13 was the then Village Administrative Officer, Chinnathalapadi Village.He was stated to be having an office at Mittapalli village.While he was available in the said Office at 6.00 A.M. on 19-7-1985, the first accused appeared before him and gave an extra judicial confession implicating himself and the rest of the accused, viz., accused 2 to 6 in the commission of the murder of the deceased by beating him with a wooden log and subsequently dropping the body of the deceased at Pambar dam.Exhibit P. 13 is the extra Judicial confession statement stated to have been given by first accused.P. W. 13 then took the first accused and went and reached Oothangarai Police Station at 9.00 A.M.n. P. W. 23 was then available in the Police Station.On interrogation, he gave a voluntary confession statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Exhibit P. 15 is the admissible portion of the confession statement.Pursuant to the said confession statement, he took P. W. 23 to his house and produced M. O. 6 cycle M. O. 8 Aruvamanai kattai kept concealed in the left of his house and they were seized under Exhibit P. 16 mahazar attested by P. W. 14 and another on the way at 5.00 P.M. P. W. 23 also arrested 4th accused in front of Singarapettai Bus Stand.He then brought both the accused 1 and 4 to the Police Station, and later, sent them to Court for remand.o) On 19-7-1985, P. W. 23 examined P. W. 6, who in turn, divulged the factum of 4th accused making an extra judicial confession statement to him in the sense of himself joining hand with first accused committing the murder of the deceased and subsequently dropping the body at Pambar dam.30 P.M. he arrested 3rd accused at Ramagoundan valasu.He brought him to the Police Station at 9.00 P.M. The next day he sent 3rd accused to Court for purpose of remand.On 22-7-85 he examined P. W. 16 and others.On interrogation, 6th accused gave a confession statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Exhibit P.22 is the admissible portion of the confession statement, 6th accused pursuant to the said confession statement, took P. W. 23 to his house and produced M. O. 16 series empty bottles-two in number and M. O. 17 aluminium tumbler, which were seized under Exhibit P.23 mahazar.Exhibits P.22 and P.23 were all attested by P. W. 20 and another.r) On 11-8-1985 P. W. 23 sent Exhibit P. 17 requisition to the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Oothangarai for the purpose of sending the incriminating Material Objects to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of examination.s) P. W. 18 was the then Head Clerk attached to Judicial Magistrate's Court, Oothangarai.JUDGMENT Sunday, June 15, 2003 Janarthanam, J.The appellant was first accused in S. C. No. 44/86 on the file of Court of Session, Dharmapuri Dist.Division at Krishnagiri.The first accused and others, viz., accused 2 to 6 faced charges under sections 147, 302 read with 149 I.P.C. and 201 I.P.C. 1st accused alone was found guilty under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. and R.I. for three years under Section 201 I.P.C., with a direction for the sentences to run concurrently.The rest of the accused, viz., accused 2 to 6 were found not guilty of the offences with which they stood charged and they were acquitted thereof.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present action had been resorted to by the first accused.On receipt of Exhibit P. 18 requisition, he after obtaining the orders of learned Magistrate, despatched the incriminating Material Objects to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of examination under the original of Exhibit P. 18 office copy of the letter.Exhibits P. 19 and P. 20 are respectively the reports of the Chemical Examiner and Seriologist.t) P. W. 23 after completing the formalities of investigation, filed the final report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate, Oothangarai on 31-12-1985 against the accused 1 to 6 for alleged offences under Sections 147, 302 read with 149 and 201 I.P.C.On committal, learned Sessions Judge, framed charges against accused 1 to 6 Sections 147, 302 read with 149 and 201 I.P.C.The accused, when questioned as respects the charges so framed, denied the same and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in proof of the charges so framed, examined P. Ws. 1 to 23, filed Exhibits P. 1 to P. 31 and marked M. Os.The accused when questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, denied their complicity in the crime.They, however, did not choose to examine any witness on their behalf.Learned Sessions Judge on consideration of the materials placed and after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the defence and learned Public Prosecutor, however, rendered the verdict, as stated above.Mr. P. Venkatasubramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/first accused would submit that the evidence available on record is so grossly inadequate and insufficient as is not possible to mulct or fasten criminal liability for any offence whatever upon the appellant-first accused and in that view of the matter, he would say, the appellant/first accused deserves to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt after setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon him, as had been done by the Court below, to which course, Mr. R. Raghupathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would strike a discordant note.In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant/first accused, the prosecution relied upon various pieces of evidence as below :-2) The emergence of a hue and cry from the house of the first accused at 10.00 P.M. on 7-7-1985 and daunted by curiosity of such cries, P. Ws. 3 and 4 rushing towards the house of the first accused and having had the opportunity of perceiving what transpired within the house of first accused then.P. W. 5 of course, would state that there was want of cordial relationship between the deceased and his wife Manonmany and he in fact, tried to mediate and settle the difference between them and brought the wife of the deceased to his custody from her parents house, some two months prior to the occurrence and the efforts he made towards that direction proved a colossal failure.He would not at all advert to anything relatable to the embittered relationship the first accused had towards the deceased on account of his not having good marital relationship with his wife Manonmani, who is none else than the sister of the first accused.Even otherwise, his testimony, along with the testimony of P. W. 5 cannot at all be stated to have advanced the case of the Prosecution to any extent whatever, inasmuch as already indicated, P.W. 5 did not at all whisper anything as to the first accused-appellant having any sort of animosity towards the deceased on account of his not having a good marital relationship with his wife Manonmani, the sister of the first accuse.As such, the so called incriminating pieces of evidence as disclosed by P. W. 6 and 5 relatable to motive aspect of the prosecution case bristle next to nothing.No doubt, P. Ws. 3 and 4 had been residing in the vicinity of the house of the first accused-appellant.Both of them had been cited by the prosecution to prove that at 10 P.M. on the fateful night in question, the first accused-appellant and his associates, viz., Accused 2 to 6, were bodily present in the house of the first accused-appellant and their presence was noticed by them on the emergence of hue and cry from the house of the first accused.Alas! unfortunately, to the prosecution, both of them, viz., P. Ws. 3 and 4 turned hostile wholesale.The prosecution, of course, brought their earlier versions made during the course of investigation, in the manner allowed by law.In the absence of any other evidence available on record to point out the hands of first accused and his associates in the henious crime the resiled version of P. Ws. 3 and 4 throwing light on the criminality of the first accused and his associates on the fateful night in question cannot at all be safely relied upon, inasmuch as the evidenciary value attached to their testimony, as already stated, is practically nil.Consequently, the testimony of P. Ws. 3 and 4 has to be eschewed out of consideration, and as such the criminality on the part of the first accused-appellant, as sought to be projected by the prosecution, is of no consequence.The so-called extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant/first accused implicating himself in the commission of the murder of the deceased, along with his associates-accused 2 to 6 and screening the commission of such an offence by throwing the body of the deceased in the Pamber dam is sought to be unfolded by the testimony of P. W. 13, Village Administrative Officer of Chinna Thallapadi.He would further say that he handed over the appellant/first accused, along with Exhibit P. 13 extra judicial confession and his special report, Exhibit P. 14 to P.W. 23, when he was at Oothangarai Police Station at 9.00 A.M. on the same day.It was not as if P. W. 13 was the best friend of the first accused-appellant, so that he could convey to him the secrets of his life.After all, P. W. 13 is a Village Administrative Officer.If P. W. 13 happened to be the best friend of the first accused-appellant, it is well wigh possible for him to have gone to him and disclosed the mystery of the murder of the deceased at least in a bid to remove the burden from his mind by way of LOCUS PENETENTIAE.It is here we have to notice the suggestion made by the defence when P. W. 13 was in the box.The suggestion thrown by the defence to P. W. 13 was that the recording of extra judicial confession under Exhibit P. 13 was a stage managed show and the so-called extra-judicial confession had been recorded in the Police Station.The suggestion so thrown and categorically denied by P. W. 13 cannot at all be stated to be remaining as a shot aimed in darkness without any purpose whatever on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.She would categorically depose in her cross-examination that on the next day of her preferring the complaint, i.e., to say on 18-7-1985, when she had been to the Police Station to identify the cycle of his father, the deceased, she had seen the first accused and the other accused, viz., accused 2 to 6 in the lock up of the Police Station.In such state of affairs, to say that the first accused-appellant appeared before P. W. 13 in his office at Mittapalli on 19-7-1985 at 6.00 A.M. and gave an extra-judicial confession under Exhibit P. 13 and his being subsequently produced at 9.00 A.M. before P. W. 23 and his giving a confession statement under Section 27 leading to the recovery of certain Material Objects, viz., M. Os. 6 and 8 as had been stated earlier, cannot be anyone, other than the one of the stage managed show for the purpose of making otherwise an inadmissible place of evidence into one of the admissible piece of evidence.In such state of affairs, we are unable to place any safe reliance on the so-called extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the first accused-appellant to P. W. 13 and his making a confession statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the admissible portion of which is Exhibit P. 15, leading to the recovery of M. Os.For the reasons as above, the appellant-first accused deserves to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt after setting aside the conviction and sentence as had been imposed upon him by the Court below under Sections 302 and 201 I. P. C.In fine, the appeal is allowed.Appeal allowed.

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

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

Cr.M.P.No.11/2010, dated 02.03.2010, passedby the 2nd respondent is quashed.The detenu R.Panaimarathan @ Rajaram,S/o.Ramaiah, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his presence, inaccordance with law, is required in connection with any other case.gbTo1 The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.[Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J] Challenge is made to the order of the 2nd respondent, dated02.03.2010, whereby one R.Panaimarathan @ Rajaram, husband of the petitioner,was ordered to be detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of DangerousActivities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, ImmoralTraffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982,terming him as a "Goonda'.2.The affidavit and the materials filed in support of thepetition, in particular the order under challenge, are looked into.The Courtheard the learned counsel for the petitioner.3.It is not in controversy that pursuant to therecommendations made by the Sponsoring Authority that the alleged detenu was tobe detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, as he was involved in five adversecases, as detailed below,Sl.Police Station Provisions of law & Crime NumberKrishnankovil Police U/ss.148, 387, 427, 506(ii) IPC Station Cr.Krishnankovil Police U/s.354 IPC and S.4 of Women Station Cr.N.42/2010 Harassment ActKrishnankovil Police U/s.379 IPC Station Cr.Krishnankovil Police U/s.379 IPC Station Cr.Krishnankovil Police U/s.380 IPC Station Cr.No.47/2010and also in the ground case in Crime No. 53/2010, registered under Section 397IPC on the file of Krishnankovil Police Station for a crime that had taken placeon 23.02.2010, in which he was arrested on the next day and remanded to judicialcustody, on scrutiny of the materials placed before him, the detainingauthority, the 2nd respondent herein, after recording his subjectivesatisfaction that the activities of the alleged detenu were prejudicial to themaintenance of public order, branded him as a "Goonda" and ordered him to bedetained under Tamil Nadu Act, 14 of 1982, which is the subject matter ofchallenge before the Court.4.At the time of advancing arguments on behalf of thepetitioner, the learned counsel raised two grounds.In adverse cases in Cr.No.34/10 and Cr.No.42/10 of KrishnankovilPolice Station against him, he obtained bail in the concerned court.Under suchcircumstances, the order impugned in the present petition has got to be setaside.In the absence of specific answer as required, the contentionraised by the petitioner has got to the accepted..2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Virudhunagar District.3.The superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.4.The Secretary, Advisory Board, 32, Rajaji Salai, Singaravelar Maligai, Chennai Collectorate, Chennai.5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

31.03.2011 CRR No. 2230 of 2009 In Re:- Swarup De @ Swarup Kumar De & Ors.assisted by Mr. Pravash Bhattacharyya, appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Mr. Barin Roy, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State.The quashing has been sought for on two fold grounds.The first ground is this that the allegations are false.The second ground is this that Jhargram P.S. Case No. 74/09 was registered pursuant to an order passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat on an application moved before him invoking Section 156(3) of 2 the Code of Criminal Procedure.According to him, the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barsat has no jurisdiction to direct the Jhargram P.S. which is located beyond his territorial limit to register a First Information Report.On the other hand, Mr. Barin Roy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted before this court that it is not correct to say that Jhargram P.S. Case No. 74/09 was registered on the basis of an order passed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat.Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent photostat certified copy of this order to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In default of payment of fine, the appellant was further directed to undergo the Rigorous Imprisonment of one year.2. Necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal are that on 10.1.1998 at about 1:00 AM in the night the complainant Ram Lakhan lodged a FIR to the effect that, on 9.1.1998 at about 8:00 PM, he was sitting in front of the door of his house when five armed dacoits came there, out of which one was (Paper torned) Adiwasi, Bhura Kachhi dacoit of 2 Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2003 Morena and Ram Baran Kachhi dacoit of Kot Sirthara and two were unknown persons.The accused persons demanded grocery from him and he gave four Kg. of wheat flour.In the meanwhile, two dacoits brought Niranjan from his house and asked the complainant and Niranjan to accompany them.On the way, one Jaswant met from whom also the dacoits took wheat flour and reached to furnace of one Dulare where Patiram and Malkhan were sitting.Thereafter the dacoits called the villagers and demanded grocery.All the villagers brought wheat flour, ghee, pulses, spices and handed over the same to the dacoits.The dacoits along with the material took the complainant, Niranjan, Jaswanit and Patiram towards the forest where the materials were kept down, hands of Niranjan were tied by the appellant, and the complainant and another persons were asked to go back.When the complainant requested to release Niranjan also, then the appellant said that Niranjan has teased his sister and his uncle Mangal has sold his land, therefore, he is his enemy.Thereafter, Brijlal got a letter written by Bhura dacoit and handed over the same to Patiram and pointed out his gun towards Niranjan.Patiram and the complainant requested him with folded hands not to kill Niranjan but the appellant assaulted Patiram by the butt of the gun.The complainant and others requested Bhura dacoit and Ram Baran to convince the appellant to leave Niranjan but Bhura simply denied to intervene on the ground that Niranjan is the enemy of the appellant.The appellant fired the gunshot which hit on the chest of Niranjan as a result of which Niranjan fell down.Another gunshot was fired which hit on the back of Niranjan and Niranjan died then and there.It was mentioned in the F.I.R. that the dead body of Niranjan is lying there and the dacoits after collecting the grocery went towards the forest.On this FIR, the police started investigation and 3 Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2003 prepared the spot map.The inquest report, the blood stains and blood earth were seized from the spot.One gunny bag carrying 15 Kg. of wheat flour and one bag carrying potatoes, red chilly, salt etc. were seized.One letter from the possession of Patiram was also seized.The dead body was sent for postmortem.Amputation of thumb of right hand and lacerated and the death has occurred within 18 hours."On internal examination, 11th and 12th ribs were found fractured, upper lobe of left lung was found ruptured, pulmonary artery was found fractured, right kidney was found ruptured.Three rounded pallets were found in the body which were preserved and sealed and handed over to the police.According to the Dr. J.R. Trivediya (PW-2) the cause of death was excessive hemorrhage caused by gunshot injury.The gunshot was fired from a distance of more than 3 feets as the signs of blackening and scrotching were absent.The death was homicidal in nature.J.R. Trivediya (PW-2) was cross- examined in detail.In cross-examination, this witness has stated that all the five small wounds were situated at a distance of 10 cm.The margins of three wounds were inverted and remaining two were also lacerated but their margins were not clearly inverted.He further submitted that the upper part of the left lung was ruptured and his right kidney was also ruptured.Patiram (PW-3) has stated in his court evidence that about two and half years back he was in his house and at that time the dacoits came to the village, out of whom he knows the appellant and Bhura and the other dacoits were not known to him.They came to the village and demanded grocery and water.Wheat flour and pulses were given to them.But this witness has specifically stated that he could not identify the said letter.Thereafter the appellant and his companions went to the forest.However, this witness stayed on the place of incident.The police reached on the spot in the morning and started the investigation.In the cross- examination, this witness has specifically stated that there is electricity connection in his village and about 4 to 6 houses are having electricity connections.There was no fog on the date of incident.He also stated that he had given wheat flour, pulses and potatoes to the dacoits.Ram Lakhan (PW-4) has also stated that at about 8:00 PM, five dacoits who were having firearms with them came to him, out of three were appellant, Bhura and Ram Baran and two were unknown.They demanded wheat flour and this witness gave them 4 Kg. of wheat flour.Two dacoits went to call Niranjan and three stayed back with this witness.Thereafter, the dacoits took this witness and Niranjan with them.On the way they met with Jaswant and from him also the dacoits demanded wheat flour.(07/12/2016) PER JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA:This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 15.11.2002 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in S.T. No. 132/1999 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo the Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-.As none could be arrested at that time therefore, a charge sheet under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. was filed.The Trial Court framed the charges for offence punishable under Sections 148, 302, 323 of IPC.The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.The Trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as the defence evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C.We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.The prosecution in order to prove its case examined Mohan Singh (PW-1), Dr. J.R. Trivediya (PW-2), Patiram (PW-3), Ram Lakhan (PW-4), Jaswant (PW-5), Malkhan (PW-6), Mangal Singh (PW-7), Uttam Singh (PW-8), Moti Singh (PW-9) and Shivraj (PW-10).The appellant in support of his defence examined Ashok Singh (DW-1) and M.Khan (DW-2).First of all, it has to be seen that whether the prosecution has proved that the death of Niranjan was homicidal or not? Dr. J.R. Trivediya (PW-2) had conducted the postmortem of the dead body of Niranjan on 10.1.1998 and postmortem report is Ex.As per postmortem report, Dr. J.R. Trivediya (PW-2) found the following injuries:-"Body in lying position.Both arms are flexed and finger clinched.Mouth closed, blood coming from left nostril (nose), eyes are semi closed.Body pallov in colour, 5 small wounds present on the label of clavicle bone to 3rd ribs of left side of chest 5 to 8 inches from left shoulder joint.3 wounds are 1x1 cm circular and 4 Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2003 lacerated and margins are inverted.10 small wounds present on the label of 12 th ribs to 3rd vertebra back right side.This witness also specifically stated that the margins of the wounds were inverted in nature and the pulmonary artery had got ruptured because of the injuries caused by the pallets.He has specifically denied the suggestion that three pallets were not recovered from the dead body of Niranjan.From the the postmortem report, Ex. P-4, the evidence of Dr. J.R. Trivediya (P.W. 2), this Court is of the view that the death of the deceased Niranjan was homicidal in nature.Bhura and the appellant and their companions took Ram Lakhan (PW-4) and the deceased Niranjan with them.This witness also followed them.This witness requested the appellant and Bhura to release the deceased Niranjan and Ram Lakhan but they did not agree to that, and tried to assault this witness.Thereafter the appellant fired at Niranjan causing injury on his chest.Second gunshot was fired by the appellant on the back of the deceased Niranjan as a result of which Niranjan died on the spot.The members of the gang gave a letter to him which was handed by the witness to the police.He further stated that he had seen the entire incident in the light of moon and it was not a dark night.On earlier occasions also, the dacoits used to take grocery from the villagers.He denied the 6 Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2003 suggestion that he was not present on the spot at the time of incident.Since Niranjan had died instantaneously, therefore no effort was made to take him to the hospital.Except minor omissions and contradictions in the evidence of this witness, which do not have any effect on the veracity of his evidence, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any material infirmity in the evidence of this witness to make his evidence unreliable.Jaswant also gave them wheat flour and he too was taken by the dacoits with them.All the three witnesses along with the dacoits reached to the furnace of one Dulare where Patiram and Malkhan were sitting.Thereafter the dacoits called the villagers to provide grocery which was given to them by the villagers.It was further stated by this witness that thereafter the dacoits along with this witness Patiram, Jaswant and Niranjan took them to a place known as "Gula Ke Than" where the witnesses were asked to keep the grocery on the ground.The hands of Niranjan were tied by the appellant and the remaining three witnesses were asked to go back.When this witness and Niranjan inquired that why he is tying the hands of Niranjan then appellant said that as Niranjan has teased his sister and his uncle Mangal has sold his land, therefore, both are his enemies and he will kill Niranjan.This witness and Patiram requested him with folded hands not to kill Niranjan then 7 Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2003 Brijlal assaulted Patiram by means of butt of gun and thereafter shot at Niranjan causing injury on his chest.Niranjan fell down on the ground and second gunshot was fired on the back of Niranjan.Niranjan died instantaneously and thereafter the dacoits went towards the forest along with the grocery and some material was left on the spot itself.This witness has proved the FIR which was marked as Ex.After the FIR was lodged, the police went to the spot.Spot map Ex.P/6 was prepared which bears his signatures.Dead body Panchnama is Ex.The police had seized blood stained earth, clean earth, 5 Kg.wheat flour which was kept in a bag.Potatoes, red chili, garlic, salt and pulses etc. were seized.Pieces of dot and pallets were also seized and the seizure memo is Ex.In cross-examination, this witness has stated that on earlier occasions also the dacoits had come to the village and had taken grocery from the villagers.This witness further stated that he did not refuse to give grocery to the dacoits because they were having guns with them.The entire grocery which was given by the villagers was transported by the witnesses upto the place known as "Gula Ke Than".Although this witness has admitted that there was no electricity at "Gula Ke Than" but he specifically stated that there was sufficient light because of full moon.It was further stated by this witness that the hands of Niranjan were not tied towards his back but were kept in front of his chest as a result of which when he sustained gunshot injury on his chest, the thumb of his one hand got amputated.This witness has specifically stated that even when the dacoits asked them to go back they did not come back as Niranjan was not released.Niranjan did not try to run away as his hands were tied.The first gunshot landed on the chest of Niranjan whereas the second gunshot 8 Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2003 was fired on the back of Niranjan.This witness was also cross- examined in detail but the learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any material omissions or contradictions in the evidence of this witness which may make his evidence unreliable.Jaswant (PW-5) has also stated that at about 8:00 PM when he came out of his house after taking meals, he saw that Niranjan was being taken by the appellant.Bhura, Ram Baran and two unidentified persons were accompanying him.When they reached to the furnace of one Dulare, Patiram was also there.This witness and Patiram followed the dacoits and requested that Niranjan be released.The appellant got a letter written by Bhura.Inspite of his request that they should release Niranjan, the appellant fired a gunshot causing injury on the chest of Niranjan as a result of which Niranjan fell down.Another gunshot was fired by the appellant on the back of the deceased Niranjan who died instantaneously on the spot.In cross-examination, this witness has stated that the police recorded his case diary statement near about two hours of incident.The statement was recorded on the spot itself.The police had recorded the statements of Patiram and Ram Lakhan.When the appellant fired the gunshot the incident was witnessed by Patiram and Ram Lakhan and no other had seen the incident.This witness has further stated that after Niranjan was shot, all the three witnesses stayed back on the place of incident and did not run away.The dacoits stayed on the place of incident for 2 to 4 minutes after killing Niranjan.This witness has further stated that although the dacoits had demanded grocery from him and he had given the grocery to Bhura and Ram Baran but the dacoits did not ask this witness to accompany them.However, this witness followed the dacoits as they had taken Niranjan with them.9 Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2003 This witness was cross-examined in detail about the manner in which the incident took place.However, this witness has specifically denied the suggestion that he had not seen that which dacoit caused firearm injury to Niranjan.He has specifically stated that he had seen the incident of firing.This witness has denied that it was a dark night and nothing was visible.On the contrary, he has specifically stated that it was a full moon night and further denied the suggestion that the appellant had not killed Niranjan.It was stated by this witness that the gunshot was fired from a distance of three feet or slightly more.After killing Niranjan, the dacoits went towards the forest after 2 to 4 minutes.This witness further stated that he stayed back on the place of incident and nobody touched the dead body of Niranjan about two hours of incident.The police reached on the spot.The dead body was taken by the police in the morning.Malkhan (PW-6) had stated in his examination-in- chief that the appellant, Bhura and 2-3 more persons had taken Niranjan with them.He had heard the noise of two gunshots fires from his house.This witness was declared hostile and was confronted with his case diary statement Ex.However, this witness has specifically stated that the appellant had taken Niranjan with him and this part of this witness is reliable as the similar statement was given by this witness in his case diary statement which was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.Mangal Singh (PW-7) has stated that the deceased Niranjan was the son of his brother-in-law.About 5-6 years back the appellant had purchased 09 beeghas of agricultural land from this witness and the appellant had carried out agricultural activities on this land for two years.As the Goojar and Thakur of Ram Nagar were not allowing the appellant to cultivate the fields, therefore, the appellant returned the 10 Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2003 land to him.According to this witness the consideration amount was returned by this witness to the appellant.However, later on the appellant joined the gang of Bhura Dacoit.This witness was also cross-examined in detail.However, the learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any material omissions or contradictions in the evidence of this witness.Thus, it is clear from the evidence led by the prosecution that all the eye witnesses have given a consistent version which was supported by the evidence of Malkhan (P.W.6) and Mangal (P.W.7).Further more, it was the statement of the eye witnesses that the dacoits had collected grocery, pulses, spices from the villagers and after killing Niranjan, the dacoits had left some of the grocery on the spot also.Further more, from the appreciation of evidence of the eyewitnesses Patiram (PW-3), Ram Lakhan (PW-4) and Jaswant (PW-5) as well as the witness Malkhan (PW-6) who had seen Niranjan in the company of the appellant for the last time and Mangal Singh (PW-7) it is clear that the appellant had a motive to kill Niranjan.According to the eyewitnesses the grievance of the appellant was that as Niranjan has teased his sister and Mangal Singh (PW-7) has taken his agricultural land, therefore, Niranjan was one of his enemies.Although the prosecution has not examined any witness to show that Niranjan had ever teased the sister of the appellant but considering the evidence of Mangal Singh (PW-7) it is clear that the appellant had a motive to kill Niranjan.It is a well established principle of law that "Motive"11 Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2003 has great importance in a case based on circumstantial evidence.On going through the evidence of the eyewitnesses as well as the FIR and the evidence of Dr. J.R. Trivediya (PW-2) it is clear that the witnesses had specifically stated that first gunshot injury was caused on the chest of the deceased Niranjan and after he fell down, the second gunshot was fired on the back of the deceased Niranjan.Dr. J.R. Trivediya (PW-2) has also found five small wounds present on the left side of chest out of which three small wounds were circular and their margins were inverted.Similar 10 small wounds were found on the right side of the back of the dead body of the deceased Niranjan.On going through the FIR Ex.P/5 it is clear that the incident is alleged to have taken place at 10:00 PM in the night and the FIR was lodged at 1:00 AM in the night itself which means that the FIR was lodged within three hours of the incident and the police station was situated at a distance of 12 Kms.The appellant in his defence has examined Ashok Singh (DW-1) and M.Khan (DW-2).Ashok Singh (DW-1) has stated that he is posted as Moharir in Police Station Nirar and 18 Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2003 as per the record of Police Station Nirar, Crime No. 19/2000 under Sections 447,294 of IPC, under Section 3 (1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Crime No.20/2001 under Sections 447, 147, 294, 506-B of IPC and under Section 3 (1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were registered against Mangal and Malkhan.However, this witness has stated that he had not brought the record of the cases.This witness has further stated that Crime No.44/1980 registered under Section 392 of IPC against Patiram and Crime No.49/1980 was registered under Section 212, 216 of IPC against Malkhan and Patiram.He further stated that in Police Station Pahargarh Crime No.26/1967 was registered under Section 212 of IPC and Crime No.14/1968 under Section 212 of IPC and Crime No.40/1968 under Sections 212, 216 of IPC was registered against Malkhan.Similarly, in police station Pahargarh Crime No.18/1969 was registered under Section 216-A of IPC against Patiram.This witness has stated that Mangal and Malkhan are criminals.Similarly, M.Khan (DW-2) has stated that in Police Station Pahargarh Crime No. 81/1995 was registered under Section 379 of IPC against Niranjan Singh and Ram Lakhan.Thus, the contention of the appellant was that the deceased as well as some of the witnesses had criminal record to their credit.Although these defence witnesses have stated about the registration of the criminal offences against the witnesses and the deceased but these witnesses have not stated that these cases are pending or have already been decided.Further, even otherwise merely if criminal cases were registered against some of the witnesses, it would not be sufficient to discard their evidence on this ground only.Therefore, the evidence which has been led by the appellant in 19 Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2003 his defence is not sufficient to discard the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which have been otherwise found to be of credible and unimpeachable nature.After considering the evidence of Patiram (PW-3), Ram Lakhan (PW-4), Jaswant (PW-5) it is held that these witnesses had seen the incident and their presence on the spot was natural and they cannot be termed as mere chance witnesses.Minor omissions or contradictions in their evidence do not make their evidence unreliable.In light of the fact that the FIR was lodged within three hours of the incident, there is no contradiction in the ocular as well as the medical evidence, the appellant had a motive to kill Niranjan and the deceased Niranjan was seen in the company of the appellant for the last time, it is held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the appellant Brijlal has killed Niranjan by causing firearm injury on his chest as well as on his back.Accordingly, he is held guilty of offence under Section 302 of IPC.The judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court is affirmed.The sentence of Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence under Section 302 of IPC is maintained.The appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In Crl.A.No.402 of 2012:-For Appellants : Mr.A.Raghunath, Senior Counsel, for Mr.K.Selvakumaraswami For Respondent : Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor, In Crl.A.No.445 of 2012:-Accused 1,2,4,5 to 9 in S.C.No.153 of 2011 dated 22.06.2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District Sessions Judge, Salem are the appellants in Crl.The deceased in this case was one Mr.The appellants are the residents of Elumanathanoor Village in Salem District.The deceased also hailed from the same village.The deceased was a known rowdy element and he had lot of cases against him.He was causing immeasurable problems to the Villagers.On 08.11.2010, when A.1 and A.2 were taking food in a local hotel known as Srinivasa Hotel, the deceased came there, developed a quarrel with A.1 and attacked him with knife on his head.After the said incident, A.1 and A.2 had gone to the hospital.After treatment, A.1 and A.2 along with A.7 and A.8 were returned to their village.Then all the accused went to the village and informed the villagers.With a view to retaliate, A.1 to A.9 started from the village and went in search of the deceased.The deceased was found near the Oodai in the village.It is further alleged that A.1 and A.2 had wooden logs in their hands.On finding the accused at the place of occurrence, A.1 who was having the wooden log attacked the deceased on his head, right elbow, nose, right knee and the other parts of the body.A.2 attacked the deceased with the wooden log on his head, face, left shoulder, left elbow and other parts of the body.Common Prayer:- Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment and conviction passed in S.C.No.153 of 2011 on 22.06.2012 by the learned II Additional District Sessions Judge, Salem.A.3 in S.C.No.153 of 2011 dated 22.06.2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District Sessions Judge, Salem is the appellant in Crl.By judgment dated 22.06.2012, the trial Court convicted the accused under all the charges and sentenced them as under:-Accused Section of lawSentenceAccused 1,2, 3 and 5 302 I.P.C.,Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each.Accused 4, 6, 7, 8 & 9323 I.P.C.,Rigorous Imprisonment for year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.Accused 1 to 6201 I.P.C.,Rigorous Imprisonment for year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with these Criminal Appeals.A.3 attacked the deceased with a leaf stalk of coconut tree (thennai muttai).A.4 attacked the deceased with hand; A.5 attacked the deceased with legs; A.6 attacked the deceased with hands; A.7 attacked him with hands; A.8 kicked the deceased with legs and A.9 attacked the deceased with a stone.The deceased having sustained injuries at the hands of the accused, died on the spot.Then with a view to cause disappearance of the evidence, all the accused threw the dead body of the deceased into Oodai and disappeared from the place of occurrence.3.It is alleged that P.Ws.4 to 6 were witnessed the occurrence.P.W.1 is the father of the deceased and P.W.2 is the sister of the deceased.On the next day morning at about 7.00 am, P.W.2 came to know that the dead body of the deceased was found lying near Oodai.When she rushed to the place of occurrence, she found already a crowd of villagers witnessing the same.Then she returned to the house and informed P.W.1 (her father) about the occurrence.P.W.1 thereafter went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased with multiple grievous injuries.Thereafter, he went to the police station and made a complaint under Ex.In Ex.P.1, P.W.1 had mentioned that the assailants were not known.5.P.W.16 took up the case for investigation at 8.30 am on 09.11.2010 and proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and rough sketch in the presence of P.W.9 and another witness.Then he recovered blood stained earth and the sample earth from the place of occurrence under a mahazar in the presence of same witnesses.Then he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the place of occurrence and then he forwarded the body for post mortem.6.P.W.14, the Doctor conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased and found the following injuries:-Injuries:- Abrasions Dark Reddish Brown in Colour 1.5x4 cm over upper part of right forehead 2.4x2.5 cm over right forehead extends from medial aspect lower part of right eyebrow with a laceration M-1.5x0.75x0.25 cms over the eyebrow 3.1.5x1ms over right side root of nose 4.1x1cm over infra orbital region 5.1.25x0.75 cms over left side upper part of cheek and it lies 2.5cms lateral to the previous injury 6.1.25 x 0.75 cms over right cheek 7.1.25 x 0.75 cms over right side cheek towards right side nostrils8.A curve linear nail mark seen over right side cheek M-1.25 cms and it is dark reddish brown colour9.A curve linear nail mark seen over lower aspect of right side mandibular region at the level of angle of mandible 1.25 cms 10.2x1, 1x3, 3x1cms over back of right elbow11.Grazed abrasion 4x4.5 cms over outer aspect of middle 3rd of right arm12.Grazed abrasion over upper part of outer aspect for right arm M-6x4x0.25 cms 13.8x2.5cms over right side hypochondrial region just below the epigastric region 14.3x1cms over top of left shoulder 15.4x1.5 cms over left supra scalpular region 16.4x1.5cms over lower aspect of back of left arm17.Linear abrasion over middle 3rd of left forearm 5x0.25 cms 18.1x1, 2x1cms over front of left knee 19.7x3cms over inner aspect middle 3rd of left leg 20.4x3, 3x4 2x1 cms over back of upper part of right abdomen21.Multiple small abrasion over the back of lateral wall of back side of chest and abdomen22.A incised wound over M-3.5x0.5x0.5 cms over back of upper 3rd of right forearm and it is situated 6cms above right elbow and 19.5 cms above right wrist23.A incised wound over at the level of the back of the right elbow M-4x1.5x0.5cms24.A punch out injury over right middle forearm M-0.75x0.75xbone deep25.A incised wound over the outer aspect of upper part of right knee 2.x0.25x0.25 cms and it is situated 62 cms above right foot26.A incised wound over front of upper 3rd of right leg M-1.5x0.25x0.25 x bone deep and it is situated 3cms below right knee and 40 cms above right foot27.A punched out injury over inner aspect of middle 3rd of right leg 0.75x0.75x0.25 cms and it is situated 3cms below right knee nad 40 cms above right foot28.A incised wound over front of middle 3rd of right leg  M-1x0.25 x bone deep29.A incised wound just below previous injury 3.5x0.25x0.25cms and it is situated 26 cms above right foot.30.A incised wound over front of lower 3rd of right leg 3x0.25x0.25 cms and it is situated 15 cms above right foot31.A punched out wound over the inner aspect of lower 3rd of right leg 0.75 x 0.25x0.25x0.25 cms and it is situated lateral to the previous injury and 15 cms above right foot.32.Lacerated injury over back of right soul M-0.75x0.5x0.25 cms33.A punched out wound over lower aspect of back of left arm M-0.75x0.75x0.5x0.75 cms and it situated 8cms above left elbow and 29 cms below acromilal process34.A punched out injury over back of lower 3rd of left arm M-0.75x0.5x0.5 cms and it lies 6cms parallel and medial to the previous injury35.A punched out injury over inner aspect of back of left elbow joint 0.75x0.5x0.5 cms.36.A punched out wound over back of left elbow M-0.75x0.5x0.5 cms and it lies 2cms below the previous injury37.A punched out injury over inner aspect of lower 3rd of left knee 0.5x0.5x0.5cms38.A incise wound over front of upper 3rd of left leg M-1.5x0.5x0.5 cms bone deep and it is situated 4cs below left knee and 38cms above left foot39.Swelling with deformity over upper 3rd of left forearm O/D fracture involving upper end of left radius and ulna with surrounding soft tissue contused.40.A incised wound over left side posterior parietal region 3x0.5x5 bone deep and it is situated 11 cms above and lateral to the occipital protuberanceP.W.14 opined that these injuries could have been caused by assault with wooden logs and also with hands and legs.He further opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries.P.17 is the post mortem certificate.7.When the investigation was in progress, it is alleged that A.1 appeared before P.W.9, the then Village Administrative Officer on 10.11.2010 at 9.30 am and made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed that he along with A.2 to A.9, had committed the murder of the deceased and threw the dead body into Oodai.Then, by 10.30 am on 10.11.2010, he produced A.1 to the Inspector of Police (P.W.16) along with Ex.P.4 and his report under Ex.P.W.16 arrested A.1 and on such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the wooden log.In pursuance of the same, he took P.W.16, P.W.9 and another witness to his house and produced the wooden log.On such arrest, A.2 gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the wooden log.In pursuance of the same, he took P.W.16 and another witnesses to his house and produced a wooden log from the backyard of his house.P.W.16 recovered the same under a mahazar at 4.10 pm; A.3 gave a voluntary confession out of which, he produced the leaf stalk of coconut tree (thennai muttai).He forwarded all the accused to Court for judicial remand.At his request, the recovered material objects were sent for chemical examination.The report revealed that there was no blood stains on any of the material objects allegedly recovered from the accused.Then the investigation was taken up by his successor (P.W.17).P.W.17 continued the investigation and laid a charge sheet against all the accused.8.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges as stated 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 17 witnesses were examined and 24 documents were exhibited, besides 8 Material Objects.9.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 & 2 have stated that they found the dead body of the deceased near Oodai and P.W.1 has stated that he gave the complaint to the Police.P.Ws.3 & 4 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner, though they were examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence.P.W.5, the brother-in-law of the deceased has stated that he saw the entire occurrence at about 9.00 am on 08.11.2010 and after that, he went to his house and slept without informing the same to anybody.P.Ws.6, 7 & 8 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.9 is a star witness for the prosecution.He has further stated that at 9.30 am, on the next day, when he was in his office, A.1 appeared before him and gave a voluntary confession.It was reduced into writing by him and Ex.P.4 is the said extra judicial confession.Thereafter, according to him, he produced A.1 to P.W.16 along with his special report (Ex.P.5).On such production, P.W.16 arrested A.1 and while in custody, A.1 gave a disclosure statement out of which, a wooden log was recovered.He further stated about the arrest of A.2 and A.3 and on whose confession, yet another wooden log and leaf stalk of coconut tree (thennai muttai) were recovered.P.W.10 has spoken about the arrest of A.9 and on his confession, a stone was recovered.P.W.11, a Constable attached to the respondent police has stated that he handed over the F.I.R., at 9.30 pm on the same day.P.W.12 is the Constable who carried the dead body to the hospital for post mortem.P.W.13 has spoken about the registration of the case.P.W.14 has spoken about the post mortem conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death of the deceased.P.W.15 is the Constable who took the material objects to the Court and handed over the same.P.Ws.16 & 17 have spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.10.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any of the witnesses nor did they marked any documents on their side.Their defence was a total denial.11.Having considered all the above, the trial Court found the accused guilty under the said charges and accordingly, sentenced them as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.Aggrieved over the same, the accused/appellants are before this Court with these Criminal Appeals.12.We have heard Mr.A.Raghunathan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused 1,2,4 to 9/appellants in Crl.A.No.402 of 2012; Mr.C.Vijaya Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for A.3/appellant in Crl.A.No.445 of 2012 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.13.Admittedly, in this case, the deceased was a rowdy element.His dead body was found by P.W.2 on 09.11.2010 at about 7.00 am near Oodai in the Village.In the F.I.R., it is mentioned that the assailants were not known, which means till 7.30 am, the assailants were not known.P.W.5 has stated that he witnessed the entire occurrence.P.W.5, in a vivid fashion, has described the overt acts of each accused.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for accused 1,2,4 to 9/appellants in Crl.A.No.402 of 2012 would assail the evidence of P.W.5 and would state that the conduct of P.W.5 is highly un-natural, which makes it to disbelieve his evidence.Since after seeing the above occurrence, in which, his own brother-in-law was done to death, he quietly went to his house and slept for the whole night on 08.11.2010 and he not even disclosed the same to his wife, who happens to be the sister of the deceased though she was very much available in the house for whole night.Neither he went to his father-in-law (P.W.1) to inform about the occurrence.On the next day morning, by about 7.00 am, P.W.2 saw the dead body lying near the Oodai.Even before, she could reach the place of occurrence, there was a huge crowd of people.She was not aware of the assailants.Certainly, had it been true that P.W.5 had seen the occurrence, he would have informed at least at that point of time either to P.W.1 or to P.W.2 about the same, in which case, the names of the assailants should have been mentioned in the complaint.The very fact that in Ex.P.1, P.W.1 had mentioned that the assailants were not known, would go a long way to show that P.W.5 did not inform either P.W.1 or P.W.2 about the above occurrence.This conduct of P.W.2 is highly unnatural.This conduct, in our considered view raises enormous doubts about his credibility.We hold that P.W.5 would not have seen the occurrence at all and he has been later on planted by the Police as though he saw the entire occurrence.If once the evidence of P.W.5 is rejected, then what remains for the prosecution is the reliance on the extra judicial confession said to have been made by A.1 to P.W.9 on 10.11.2010 at his office.A.No.402 of 2012 would submit that P.W.9 is not an independent person as he had fully involved in the matter of investigation along with P.W.16 from the time when the dead body was found near Oodai.16.We have considered the above submissions.17.A perusal of the evidence of P.W.9 would go to show that on 09.11.2010, he visited the place of occurrence as the Village Administrative Officer of that village and he assisted P.W.16 for preparing observation mahazar and rough sketch and for recovery of blood stained earth and the sample earth.Thus, he associated with P.W.16 for the whole day.It is quite surprising that on the next day suddenly at 10.30 am, A.1 allegedly appeared before him and made a voluntary confession.18.Assuming that the said extra judicial confession could be believed, the same cannot be treated as a substantive evidence against A.2 to A.9, as per Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act has been interpreted on many occasions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in particular, in Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952 AIR 159) wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an extra judicial confession of the co-accused is not a substantive evidence against the other accused and the proper approach to the confession of the co-accused is to keep the same aside first and then, to marshal the other evidences available against the accused excluding the confession altogether from consideration and on such marshaling and on such appreciation, if the court is able to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the said offence, the court can look into the confession given by the co-accused as a last resort to add strength to the said conclusion.In the instant case, as against A.2 to A.9, absolutely there is no other evidence so as to arrive at a conclusion that they have committed the crime as charged.Suspicion however strong it may be, it cannot take the place of proof.In this case, the prosecution has not even able to succeed in creating a very strong suspicion against these accused.The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to them.1.The II Additional District Sessions Judge, Salem.

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

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

This petition has been filed to quash First Information Report in crime No.29 of 2019 under Section 498(A) IPC on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioners/A2 and 3 concerned.2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 29 of 2019 under Section 498(A) IPC as against the petitioners/A2 and 3 are concerned.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.O.P.(MD) No.15078 of 20199. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents.A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents.The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial.At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused.Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature.O.P.(MD) No.15078 of 2019Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdictional Magistrate.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.25.11.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no Arul To1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tallakulam, Madurai2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station on the first Monday of every month between 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m, till the conclusion of the trial, except if the date in the trial Court falls on a Monday;(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2019 23:04:10 :::

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

[ M. G. SEWLIKAR, J. ] [ T. V. NALAWADE, J. ]ndm ::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:22:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:22:21 :::

['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the record.The present anticipatory bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant with prayer to enlarged him on bail in Case Crime No.464 of 2019, under Sections 147, 323, 308, 504, 506, IPC, Police Station Moghalsarai, District Chandauli.The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; that the matter needs deeper and fairer investigation before any arrest should be given effect to; that the applicants are willing to participate and cooperate with the investigation.Therefore the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned AGA appearing for the State has very strongly opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, with the contention that the applicant has criminal history of three cases.The same being Case Crime No.69 of 1997, under Sections 307 and 302, IPC, Police Station Moghalsarai, District Chandauli, Case Crime No.25 of 1998, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Alinagar, District Chandauli and Case Crime No.190 of 2007, under Sections 302 and 201, IPC, Police Station G.R.P, Moghalsarai, hence the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the FIR and also the anticipatory bail rejection order.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In his deposition before the Court he stated that, he resides in Mangalwar Peth, Hamal Galli, Ambajogai.The deceased was his brother.They have joint family.The deceased Ram was doing business of construction.On 25th July, 2007, he was at home.Ram left the house for his work at about 9.00 a.m. He went for work in Chousalkar Colony.He remained there till 12.00 noon.At about 12.00 in the noon one phone call was received on his mobile.Ram told labours to pick material of centering and take it to construction site of Mr. Gambhire.He also told them that, he will come within 15 minutes.After 15 minutes Ram went somewhere.Thereafter, Ram did not return back.On 25.07.2007 in between 6.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m., he made few phone calls on the mobile phone of Ram.He found phone was not working.On 26.07.2007 he went to Police Station, Ambajogai and lodged missing complaint regarding Ram.He ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 13 along with his relatives continued search of Ram towards his friends.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::10. PW-1 further deposed that, on 3rd August, 2007 he received phone call on his mobile phone from Police Station, Ambejogai.He went to Police Station, Ambejogai.He was taken to Ambalwadi Shivar near `Visava' Dhaba in Police vehicle.He was taken to forest in deep valley.At about 6.30 p.m. Shivaji Mahadeo Garje gave him some message.He told him that, dead body of one male person is lying near Nala in the field of forest, which is towards Ambalwadi road to its north side.On the next day at about 6.30 in the morning he along with other 10 to 15 persons went to the spot.Shri Shivaji Mahadeo Garje, Chandrakant Shankar Garje and some other person were also with him.Shivaji Garje showed them spot where the dead body was lying.The place was located in forest towards southern side of Parali-Ambajogai road.The dead body was in highly decomposed condition.Body was lying in Nala.He informed said fact to Police Station Parali (Rural), at about 7.30 a.m. Subsequently, Police came there and prepared panchanama of spot and dead body.There was white colour shirt with checks design and ash colour pant on the body of dead person.The prosecution examined Hanumant Dagdu Bachate (PW-6).In his evidence, he stated that, his native place is Dhamoni, Tq.Sonpeth, dist.For last 4-5 years, he is residing at Ambajogai.He is doing work there.On 25 th July, 2007, he was working with deceased Ram.There must be something more needs to establish to connect the accused with the commission of crime, as held by the Supreme court in the case of Kanhaiya Lal V/s.In her evidence, she stated that, her family had landed property in the vicinity of village Ambalwadi.They had some cattle and she used to graze them sometimes.On 25th July, 2007, she was at her house.On that day, at about ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 29 10,00 to 10.30 a.m., she was grazing the cattle by the side of the road Ambajogai- Parli.Day long she grazed the cattle and at about 4.00 p.m. started to come back.While she was passing from the land of forest towards the village, at that time she saw one rickshaw having black colour, bearing registration No.MH-23-7346 came and stopped in front of bridge.Five persons got down from that rickshaw.Out of those five person, four persons were pushing and pulling the fifth one who was in the age group of 22-25 years.The person to whom remaining four persons were pushing and pulling was fatty and he was wearing white shirt on his person.As she was alone, she left that place and went towards her village.She has stated that, 10 days after that incident she came to know through her husband that, in the hilly area, below the bridge one dead body of male has been found.Her husband also disclosed her that, there were several injuries on the dead body of said person and therefore, she remember the incident dated 25 th July, ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 30 2007 when she saw one fatty person being pulled by four persons and thought, that same person was murdered by those other four persons.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::It is stated by her that, after tracing out the dead body, the Police Personnel of Parli (Rural) Police Station visited her house after 8 days for recording her statement.After 2 ½ months thereafter one policeman from Police Station Parli [Rural] had been to her house.He asked her to attend the office of Tahsildar on next day.Thereafter, on next day, she visited office of Tahsildar located at old Tahsil office Ambejogai at about 3.00 p.m. Firstly, she went in the office of Naib Tahsildar, which was situated on East-North corner of that office.She met Naib Tahsildar, who was alone.She disclosed him that, Police informed her about attending the Tahsil office.Naib Tahsildar asked her to sit.Thereafter, she was called by the Naib Tahsidlar in the meeting hall and accordingly, she went to the meeting hall.In the meeting hall, 8 persons were standing in a row who were of same age group.Accordingly, she identified the persons from that row.It appears that, the witness identified the person standing at serial No.5, who was sitting in the Court hall at serial No.3 from the side of witness box.He reached Ambalwadi ghat Dari at 7.30 a.m. in the morning along with staff.He has further stated details about the dead body.Then he called doctor.Doctor performed the postmortem.He has also stated that, diaries were removed from the pocket of the deceased, wherein his name was found .So far pocket diaries are concerned, he has identified the same before the Court.PW-11 arrested another accused persons Shaikh Nashir Sk.Faium and Sk.Vajid Sk.He seized auto rickshaw from Sk.He prepared the seizure memo of said auto in presence of two panchas.He has also mentioned auto rickshaw number.He has also stated that, accused Syed Javed gave memorandum that, he will take out weapons used in commission of offence.Then, he called two panch witness Anil and Kishor Gavali at police station.He further stated that, in presence of two panch witnesses, the said accused given memorandum that, he is ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 49 ready to show the place where sword and clothes of accused Ramkishan were concealed.The accused further stated that, he is ready to show place and produce his clothes.Thereafter along with two panchas and accused, Investigating Officer proceeded in Jeep and reached to Raviwarpeth, Ambejogai.Syed Javed asked to stop the jeep near Nala, and he tried to find out sword, but could not found sword.It means there is no recovery of sword at the instance of the said accused.Thereafter, they proceeded on a way shown by the accused in a Jeep to a place located near Sakud near Ambur river.The accused told them to stop jeep when they reached place near the bank of river.They got down from jeep.The accused taken them to place 50 ft. away from the bank of river.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:18 :::Criappeal11.14 2 RESERVED ON : August 26, 2014 PRONOUNCED ON : October 07, 2014 ...JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE,J):-This appeal is filed by the appellants, aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Ambajogai on 24th December, 2013, thereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default, to suffer further S.I. for three months and further convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default to suffer S.I. for one months.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under :-On 25.07.2007 at 04.00 p.m. in the evening in ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:18 ::: Criappeal11.14 3 the land namely 'Ramana Forest Hilly' area within the limit of Ambalwadi, Tq.Ambajogai, Dist.Beed, the accused nos. 1 to 4 in furtherance of common intention committed murder of deceased Ram Baburao Masal.It is the prosecution case that, the accused no.1 Ramkishan Hulgunde had suspicion in his mind about illicit relations between deceased Ram Masal and his sister-in-law (wife of his brother).Therefore, accused no.1 had doubt about chastity of his sister-in-law, and it was reason and motive behind murder of deceased Ram Masal, by accused no.1 Ramkisan with the help of accused nos. 2 to 4, his friends.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:18 :::It is further the case of the prosecution that, the accused nos. 1 to 4 have caused disappearance of evidence, therefore, they committed offence under Section 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.As observed in para no.1 hereinabove, the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Ambajogai convicted the ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:18 ::: Criappeal11.14 4 appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, hence this appeal by the original accused persons.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:18 :::The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that, the prosecution did not establish motive for commission of alleged offence by the appellants.It is submitted that, since the case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, it was necessary for the prosecution to firmly establish motive for commission of offence.It is further submitted that, only one witness has stated about the motive, and that too, vaguely.It is submitted that, the entire prosecution case rests upon the evidence of PW-8 -Rukhminbai Garje who deposed that, the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused persons.There is inordinate delay in recording the statement of PW-8, and the evidence of PW-8 is also not trustworthy so as to rest the conviction of the appellants on ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:18 ::: Criappeal11.14 5 the basis of her testimony.In the said Missing Report dated 26th July, 2007, even suspicion is not expressed about the appellants that, they have committed the murder of the brother of the complainant.It is submitted that, Supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded on 11.08.2007, after recovery of the dead body.It is submitted that, no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove the motive.The dead body was totally decomposed, and therefore, same was not identifiable.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:18 :::Though, the Investigating Officer has stated in his evidence that, he saw the broken mobile handset on the spot, same was not seized.No call details have been inquired/investigated as to phone calls made from the mobile of the deceased as well as accused.It is submitted that, on 27 th August, 2007 the photographs of the deceased and also the accused were published in daily news paper i.e. Zunzar Neta.Therefore, the ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:18 ::: Criappeal11.14 6 identification parade conducted after three months from the date of incident, looses its significance.It is submitted that, the husband of the PW-8 acted as panch witness to the inquest panchanama, which was conducted on 3rd August, 2007 and there are no reasons forthcoming for not recording the statement of PW-8 either on the next day of incident or immediately after the dead body was recovered.It is submitted that, there is a variance in the version of PW-8 and Naib Tahsildar, who conducted the identification parade as to identification of suspect in the test identification parade.One day prior to conducting the identification parade, the police constable went to the house of PW-8, and therefore, the possibility of tutoring the PW-8 or showing photographs of accused to her cannot be ruled out.It is submitted that, there is no recovery of weapons.There is no C.A. Report.The alleged recovery of ash also not believable in as much as during the said period, there were rains.It is further submitted that, though the PW-8 in her evidence stated that, the person to whom other four persons were pushing was fatty person but P.M. Report shows that, his body was moderately ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:18 ::: Criappeal11.14 7 nourished.Therefore, the evidence of PW-8 is not trustworthy.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:18 :::::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:18 :::The learned Additional Public prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that, all the circumstances have been firmly established and proved by the prosecution by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence.The death was homicidal.The body was identified by the brother of the deceased and also other two witnesses.There were as many as 20 injuries on the body of the deceased.It is further submitted that, the evidence of PW-8 on the point of last seen together has not been shaken in the cross-examination.She identified all the accused persons in identification parade.Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused, therefore, this Court may not entertain the appeal.Since this is an appeal against conviction, we would like to reappreciate the entire evidence placed on record, so as to reach to the proper conclusion as to whether ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:18 ::: Criappeal11.14 8 the reasons and findings recorded by trial Court are based upon improper appreciation of evidence on record and calls for any interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.We have given careful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.With their assistance we have perused the entire material placed on record.Upon careful perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that, in order to prove guilt against accused-appellant the prosecution has relied on following circumstances.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:18 :::B) The dead body of deceased was found on 03.08.2007 in the Nala of Ramana forest Hilly area of village Abalwadi, Tq.Ambajogai, Dist.C) The dead body of the deceased Ram Masal has been identified.D) The deceased was last seen together with accused nos. 1 to 4, on 25.07.2007 at about 4 p.m. by Rukhminibai Garje.E) The deceased was found to be died a homicidal death.F) The accused were seen pulling and pushing the deceased out of rickshaw bearing No. MH-23-H-7346 near the place where the dead body of Ram Masal was ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:18 ::: Criappeal11.14 9 found.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:18 :::G) The accused have been identified by the PW-8 Rukhminbai Garje.H) The auto rickshaw bearing No. MH-23-H-7346 has been seized.I) Ash of blood stained clothes of the accused No.1 has been seized.J) The food wear (Chappal) of deceased recovered at the instance of accused no.1 and same has been seized.K) The accused No.1 Ramkishan suspected that deceased Ram Masal had immoral relations with his (accused No.1's) brother's wife.The case of the prosecution entirely based on circumstantial evidence.When a case rests on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests;(1) the circumstances from which an inference of ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:18 ::: Criappeal11.14 10 guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:18 :::In the case of Mohd. Mannan @ Abdulo Mannan Vs.State of Bihar, (2011) 5 SCC 317, the Apex Court has reiterated the principles to be borne in mind while dealing with a case based upon circumstantial evidence in evaluation of the evidence adduced in the case.One body was shown to him, which was lying near Nala.He identified the dead body as of his brother Ram on the basis of diary found in the pocket of pant of deceased and after postmortem the dead body was given in his custody.Then funeral was performed.It is further stated by PW-1 that, the accused no.1 Ramkishan @ Bala Haribhau Hulgunde was close friend of Ram.He used to visit the house of accused no.1 Ramkishan.The accused no.1 - Ramkishan had illicit relations with his brother's wife.He specifically deposed that, on 25th July, 2007, the accused nos. 1 to 4 called Ram in the noon after making phone call on his mobile phone.He was taken in rickshaw ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 14 owned by accused no.4 Shaikh Javed, and after giving liquor to him for drinking, they took him to deep forest in the area of Ambalwadi and killed him with the help of some sharp weapons.His dead body was thrown in Nala.He stated that, accused nos. 1 to 4 killed his brother.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::He identified clothes and diary of his brother in the Court.In his cross examination he stated that, accused no.1 Ramkishan is residing in same lane.Accused nos. 2 to 4 frequently used to come to said lane wherein PW-1 is also residing.He knew all four accused since long.He has specifically stated that, on 26.07.2007 when he lodged missing complaint, he did not suspect the accused persons.On 3rd August, 2007, when he saw dead body of his brother, he had suspicion of accused, but he was not confident.Till the dead body was given in custody of relatives, he did not tell Police regarding his suspicion.He firmly denied suggestion that, dead body was not identifiable.He has further denied suggestion given by the defence that, dead body was not ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 15 identifiable since the same was decomposed.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::It has come in his evidence that, on 25th July, 2007 at about 12 noon, some phone call was received on the mobile phone of the deceased.After receiving said phone call, the deceased left the construction site i.e. Mr. Gambhire after informing the labourers working there that, he will come back within 15 minutes.Thereafter he did not return back.Perusal of the deposition of the Investigating Officer, PW-11 whose evidence is at Exhibit - 94 reveals that, he did not cause any investigation/inquiry about calls received by the deceased on his mobile on the date of incident.Infact, the entire prosecution case rests upon the circumstance that, the deceased Ram received some phone call on his mobile on 25th July, 2007 at 12 noon and thereafter he left the place.According to the prosecution case, the said call was made by the accused persons so as to call Ram pursuant to conspiracy ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 16 to kill him.Therefore, the investigation about calls received on mobile of the deceased was very crucial and important.It has also come in the evidence of PW-11 that he saw one broken mobile on the spot of incident, however, he did not seize it.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::PW-11 has admitted in his cross examination that, he has not inquired/investigated about call details in respect of conversation of deceased Ram on mobile on the date of incident and though he saw broken hand set at the spot of incident, he did not seize the same.Therefore, whether the call received by deceased Ram at 12 noon on his mobile on 25.07.2007, was really made by the accused or any other person.So also raises serious doubt as to who has really called deceased Ram.So far as motive is concerned, it has also come in the evidence of PW-11 that, it is transpired during investigation that, there was illicit relations between deceased and wife of the accused no.1 Ramkishan and therefore, the accused no.1 killed the deceased Ram.However, there is no evidence to prove this fact.The fact deposed by PW-1 in this ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 17 regard based upon hearsay evidence.He had no personal knowledge of the said fact.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::In fact, the PW-1 in his deposition before the Court stated that, there was illicit relationship of accused no.1 Ramkishan, with wife of Ramishan's brother.PW-1 has disclosed this fact 1st time when his supplementary statement was recorded.1 had no personal knowledge about this fact.PW-11 i.e. Investigating Officer in his evidence has stated that, it transpired during course of investigation that, the deceased had illicit relations with wife of the accused no.1 Ramkishan.Therefore, it has come on record that, there are two contradictory versions about the motive for commission of offence.So far as other three accused persons are concerned, the prosecution has not attributed any motive for their involvement in the commission of offence.It is stated that, other three accused are friends of accused no.1 and therefore, ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 18 they accompanied with him.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::It is settled law that, while motive does not have a major role to play in cases based on direct evidence but it assumes importance in cases based on circumstantial evidence.The Supreme Court in the case of Rushipal V/s State of Uttarakhand reported in 2013(12) SCC 551, in para 14 held that, it is fairly well-settled that while motive does not have a major role to play in cases based on eye-witness account of the incident, it assumes importance in cases that rest entirely on circumstantial evidence.The prosecution has not firmly established the strong motive for commission of offence by the accused-appellants.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::PW-2 in his evidence stated that, on 2 nd August, 2007, he was present in the village.There were injuries on the dead body.The Medical Officer came and conducted postmortem on the dead body.Thereafter dead body was given in the custody of the ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 20 relatives of the deceased.It is relevant to mention here that, this witness in his evidence has stated that, the distance between spot of incident and village Ambalwadi is about 3 ½ kms.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::He stated in his evidence that, he saw the dead body from close distance.However, nobody could identify it is whose dead body.Upon examining the evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and also other witnesses, it appears that, the body was found to be lying in highly decomposed condition.However, the dead body was identified by the brother of the deceased on the basis of clothes and diary found with the clothes of deceased.The Investigating Officer seized one auto rickshaw (MH-23-H-7346) from the custody of accused Shaikh Vajid Shaikh Babu.PW-4 Husain was called at Police Station (Gramin), Parali-Vaijnath.He was shown auto of Bajaj ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 21 company black in colour.In his deposition before the Court, he mentioned the registration number of said auto as MH-23-::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::He narrated other details about the said Auto rickshaw in his deposition.Upon careful perusal of his evidence, the number of auto rickshaw, which he has stated in his evidence is different, than mentioned by PW-8 in her deposition before the Court.He narrated the details about the manner in which the accused disclosed, about burning of clothes and also about pair of Chappal of deceased which was thrown by him in bushes.He further stated that, accused Javed produced pair of chappal.It has also come in his evidence that, accused Javed ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 22 told that, clothes of the accused were burnt.He has shown the spot where ash of burnt clothes was thrown by the accused Javed.From the place pointed out by said accused Police seized ash and same was sealed and then seizure panchanama was drawn.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::Upon careful consideration of the evidence of PW-5 and Investigating officer, it cannot be said that, prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that, the pair of chappal, which was recovered at the instance of accused Javed was really belongs to deceased Ram.There should have been some investigation on that aspect to ascertain as to whether, the said pair of chappal was as that of deceased-So far recovery of ash of burnt clothes of accused is concerned, it has come in the evidence of prosecution witness that, the incident occurred during rainy season, and such recovery of ash of burnt clothes after 20 days from the date of incident, that too underneath stone, is difficult to believe.Location of the spot from where the ash was recovered located near the river.In absence of sending the said ash to C.A. and ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 23 opinion of expert to show that, really said ash is of burnt clothes as that of deceased, or otherwise, such recovery would be of no use to prove the prosecution case and establish any circumstances against accused.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::He stated that, Ram Masal i.e. deceased was taking contract of Centering.On 25 th July, 2007, Ram Masal had taken work at 2-3 places.On 25 th July, 2007 at about 9 a.m. he was present near Kaman of Hanumannagar.Ram Masal was also present there.Ram Masal told him that, from Chousalkar colony they should bring material of centring for Gambhire's work.Ram Masal called tempo.Along with deceased and few labourers he went to Chousalkar colony.When they were loading material in tempo, driver told the deceased that, on his mobile he has ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 24 received phone call of some lady.At about 11.30 to 11.45 deceased again received phone call.He left the place by saying to wait there and he will return within 10 minutes.He asked him and other labourers to take material to the site of Vijay Gambhire and he will come within 15-20 minutes.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::Thereafter, he left.This witness has stated that, at 3.00 p.m.he made phone call on the mobile of deceased.However, same was not connected.As already observed, there is no investigation by PW-11 about phone calls received on mobile of the deceased on the date of incident.Therefore, prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that, the call which was received at 12.00 noon on mobile of deceased Ram was made by the accused - appellants and they took him in auto-Rikshaw.Prosecution has examined, Dr.In his evidence, he stated that, he was posted as Medical Officer at PHC, Ghatnandur.On that day, he received requisition letter from Parli Rural Police Station ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 25 for conducting post mortem of one decomposed dead body on the spot.Therefore, he went to village Amalwadi in Ramna Shiwar.Dead body lying there was taken out from the stream.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::He conducted post mortem of body which was identified as that of Ram Masal.He started post mortem on the spot on 03.08.2007 from 2.00 p.m, which lasted up to 3.30 p.m. He did notice that teeth were intact, body was moderately nourished and cold, Rigor-mortis was present in hands and legs, signs of decomposition were present.Body was smelling foul smell and maggots were seen coming out through face, nose.There were bullae present over some part of body which tilled with fluid.Skin can be easily peeled off, hairs fallen off and the nose and tongue can not be visualised.Magoots were coming out from nasal, cavity, mouths and ears.There were no injuries to external genitals.Both arms were flexed, fingures incurred.He further stated that, he noticed as many as 20 injuries on the dead body of deceased Ram.He stated that, all the injuries were ante mortem injuries.The injuries No.1 to 14, 16, 19 are possible by sharp edged weapon and injury No.15, 18 and 20 are possible by hard and ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 26 blunt object.The penetrating injury mentioned in the report are possible by stabbing weapons such as sword, sword-stick [Gupti] etc. Brain was soft, pulpy showing sign of decomposition.He has stated that, all the injuries mentioned in column No.17 on the various parts of the body are sufficient to cause the death of person.He has stated that, the death of deceased might have caused 7 to 8 days before the date of conducting postmortem.In his cross examination, he stated that, when he conducted postmortem of the dead body, it was in decomposed condition and there were maggots were coming out through wounds.Eyes, tongue and nose was not visible.Dead body was completely swollen.He has stated that, in case of highly decomposed body for its identification DNA test is required to conducted.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::Upon considering the evidence of PW-7 and evidence of other witnesses, it appears that, death of Ram was ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 27 homicidal.Entire prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence, therefore, the prosecution should have proved that, there was strong motive for commission of offence by the accused appellant.At the cost of repetition, it has to be observed that, investigation / enquiry in respect of phone call received on mobile No.9850571643 of deceased Ram at 9.00 a.m. and thereafter, more particularly about 12.00 noon onwards was very important, since the prosecution claimed that, appellants/accused called Ram on his mobile at about 12.00 noon on 25.07.2007 and after receiving their call, Ram left the Chousalkar Colony and went along with the accused in auto rickshaw, and accused persons took him in rickshaw, forced him to take liquor and then at about 4.00 to 4.30 p.m. Killed him.However, as PW-11 Pradeep Nandedkar, Investigating Officer has clearly admitted in his cross examination that, he did not make inquiry/investigation about phone calls received ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 28 on the mobile of deceased Ram on the date of incident.He has also stated that, though he saw broken mobile handset on the spot of incident, he did not seize the same.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::The prosecution claims that, the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::When Court asked his name, she disclosed his name as Sk.Nasir Sk.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::So far identification of the person who was standing at serial No.5 in first round is concerned, Naib Tahsildar, who conducted the identification parade stated in his evidence before the court that person standing at serial No.5 was accused Sayyed Javed.Therefore, there is material contradictions about which accused was standing at serial No.5 in row in the first round.As already observed, PW-8 in her deposition before the court stated that, Shaikh Nasir Shaikh Faimuddin was standing at serial No.5, however, Naib Tahsildar in his evidence stated that, Rukhminbai Garje [PW-8] has identified two accused persons i.e. at serial No.2 in row ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 32 Ramkishan @ Bala Haribhau Hulgunde and at Serial No.5 in row accused Sayyad Javed Sayyad Salim.Therefore, there is contradiction between the version of two witnesses namely PW-8 and PW-9 about who was standing at serial no.5 in row in first round of identification.It has come in the evidence of PW-9 and also in the panchanama of Identification Parade that, in second round of Identification Parade, the person standing at serial no. 5 was Sk.Nazir Sk.Khaimu and person standing at Sr.7th was Sk.Wajid Sk.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::It is brought on record by the defence that, on 27th August, 2007, in news paper daily 'Zunzar Neta', photographs of deceased and also the accused persons were shown, and therefore, the said photographs were seen by PW-Thereafter considerable time was lapsed.On 10 th August, 2007 statement of PW-8, who claims to be witness of last seen together was recorded by the Police.From the date of occurrence almost after about three months, identification parade was conducted in which prosecution claims that, PW-8 identified the accused persons in the said identification parade.In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is right in placing reliance on the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and anr V/s State of M.P. reported in AIR 2010 S.C. 762 wherein in the facts of that case, identification parade was carried out after three months from the date of incident, Supreme Court in the facts of that case held thus:-::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::There is no explanation why his identification parade was held on 24.01.2001, which is after a gap of over a month from the date of arrest and after about 3 months from the date of the incident.No reliance ought to have been placed by the courts below or High Court on such delayed T.I. parade for which there is no explanation by the prosecution."::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::In the facts of the present case also Identification parade was conducted after about three months from the date of incident.Therefore, it looses its importance in as much as there was long time gap and possibility of accused being shown to witnesses cannot be ruled out.There is no explanation on the part of prrosecution as to delay in conducting identification parade.Upon close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-8, it appears that, there was delay in recording her statement.She has stated in her examination-in-Therefore, it is difficult to understand as to why the statement of PW-8 was not recorded immediately thereafter.It is a matter of record that, PW-3 who is husband of PW-8 is witness to one of the panchanama, and therefore, she was fully aware about the prosecution case.It has also come in the evidence that, PW-3 husband of PW-8 told her on 3rd August, 2007 itself about the recovery of dead body.It has also come on record that, PW-8 went for grazing cattle by the side of Beed-Parli road, which is busy road.It has come in the evidence of PW-8 that, in Bhopala Shivar, some land was taken by PW-8 for grazing cattle.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::However, when she was asked about proof of taking land on lease for grazing cattle, she was unable to produce proof to that effect.In her deposition, she has no where stated that, ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 36 four persons, who were pushing 5 th person were carrying any weapons in their hands.The prosecution case is that, the injuries inflicted were by sword.PW-8 has not stated that, they were carrying weapons.It has also come in the examination-in-chief of PW-8 that, she was alone and therefore, she left that place and went towards her village.It has come in her cross examination that, she can not read contents written in English language but she can read English digits.Therefore, it creates serious doubt as to whether the PW-8 had really witnessed the incident as stated by her.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::30. PW-8 has stated in her evidence that, after 2 ½ months after recording her statement by Police, one police constable came to her house before one day before conducting the Identification Parade.She has admitted in her cross examination that, she had not seen dead body.She has stated that, village Ambalwadi is 1 Kms from her vasti.She has ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 37 further stated that, Ambajogai road is 3 to 3 ½ Kms.She has further stated in her evidence that, 50% people of village Ambalwadi are doing business of selling milk.She has also admitted in her evidence that, some forest guards are appointed to look after the forest land.It has also come in her evidence that, before going to Tahsil office her statement was recorded as per her narration.Therefore, if the evidence of PW-8 - Rukhminbai is considered in its entirety, it raises serious doubt as to whether really she had seen the accused coming out of rickshaw, and four out of five persons pushing and pooling 5th person, who was fatty.She has not stated that, they were carrying any weapons.The delay in recording her statement creates serious doubt about truthfulness of her statement.The identification parade is conducted after three months from the date of incident and about 2 ½ months from recording of her statement, which creates serious doubt about the genuineness of identification of accused made by PW-8 in test identification parade.During the intervening period i.e. from recording her statement by police and the date on which the identification parade was conducted ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 38 possibility of opportunity to see the accused persons or suspects being shown to her cannot be ruled out.Therefore, such belated identification parade that too with contradictory version of PW-8 and PW-9 about identification of accused in first round of identification parade raises serious doubt about the genuineness of such identification parade.PW-9 in his deposition stated that, he can not identify the accused sitting in the Court hall.It is not clear as to whether, the police persons were present in the Tahsil office at the time of conducting identification parade.It further appears from his evidence that, while conducting identification parade, in first round along with two accused other six persons were standing in row.While conducting the second round of identification parade in all 10 persons including accused were shown as standing in row.The PW-9 admitted in his evidence that, he had not read the guidelines issued by the High Court as to how to conduct the identification parade.There are certain guidelines prescribed for conducting identification parade.At this juncture, it would be apt to reproduce hereinbelow the guidelines laid down i.e. Para 16(2)(a) to (p) from Chapter I ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 39 of Criminal Manual issued by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, for the Guidance of the Criminal Courts and Officers Subordinate to it in respect of conduct of test identification parade, which read thus :-::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::(d) The parade should be arranged by an officer who is not a police officer.(e) After the commencement of the identification parade, every thing in respect of it should take place in ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 40 the presence and hearing of the suspect, including any instruction to the witnesses attending it as to the procedure that is to be adopted.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::(f) All unauthorised persons should be strictly excluded from the place of identification parade.(g) The witnesses should be prevented from seeing the suspect before he is paraded with other persons, and witnesses who have previously seen a photograph or description of the suspect should not be led in identifying the suspect by reason of their recollection of the photograph or description, as for instance by being shown the photograph or description, before the parade.(h) The suspect should be placed among persons (if practicable eight or more) who are as far as possible of the same age, height, general appearance (including standard of dress and grooming) and position in life.Two suspects of roughly of similar appearance should be paraded with atleast twelve other persons.Where, however, the two suspects are not similar in appearance or where there are more than two suspects, separate parades should be held using different person on each parade.(i) All members of a group of suspects more than two ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 41 should not be paraded together.There should be more parades than one, each including not more than two.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::Two suspects of obviously dissimilar appearance should not be included in the same parade.Identification numbers should be concealed.(j) The suspect should be allowed to select his own position in the line and should be expressly asked if he has any objection to the persons present with him or the arrangements made.He should be informed that if he so desires, he should have his Advocate (or a friend) present at the identification parade.(k) The witnesses should be introduced one by one and, on leaving, should not be allowed to communicate with witnesses waiting to see the persons paraded; and the suspect should be informed that he is free to change his position after each witness has left.(l) The witness should be asked whether the person he has come to identify is on the parade.He should be told that if he cannot make a positive identification, it is open for him to say so.(m) Generally, a witness should be asked to touch any person whom he purports to identify, but if the witness is nervous at the prospect of having to do that (in case ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 42 where the witness is a woman or a child who has been victim of a sexual or violent assault or other frightening experience) and if prefers not to touch the person, identification by pointing out should be permitted.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::(n) If a witness indicates someone, but is unable to identify him positively, this fact should be carefully noted by the officer conducting the parade and every other circumstances, (such as whether the suspect or any other person is identified or not), connected with it should be noted.(o) If any request is made by a witness, for example to see the suspect with his hat on or his hat off or to see he person walk or to hear the person speak and there being no objection to the person paraded as asked for, the incident should be recorded.It must be ensured that the parade is conducted in the same way as a parade outside prison."::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::Criappeal11.14 43 There is procedure prescribed in para 16 of abvomentioned Manual for conducting the identification parades.Clause (iv) and (v) of the said procedure read thus :-"(iv) The parade should then be arranged in a room or a place which is such that the identifying witnesses, as well as the persons connected with the Police, should not(v) be able to look into it.If there is only one accused person to be identified, there should be atleast half a dozen persons placed in the parade.If two accused persons are to be identified, then there should be about 10 or 12 persons in the parade.Not more than two accused should be placed in any single identification parade.Normally, the Police themselves will have called up the persons to be put in the parade; but the Executive Magistrate/Honorary Magistrate should see that they are persons of more or less the same physical appearance , and approximately of the same age, as the person to be identified.It is desirable that innocent persons to be mixed should be different for each such parade."As already observed hereinbefore, PW-9 in his deposition stated that, he was not aware as to the Guidelines ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 44 issued for holding the identification parades.Upon perusal of the clause (iv), while conducting the parade, the parade should be arranged in a room or a place which is such that the identifying witnesses, as well as the persons connected with the Police, should not be able to look into it.In clause (v), it is stated that, if there is only one accused person to be identified, there should be atleast half a dozen dummy persons should be placed in the parade.If two accused persons are to be identified, then there should be about 10 or 12 persons in the parade.Not more than two accused should be placed in any single identification parade.Normally, the police themselves will have called up the persons to be put in the parade; but the Executive Magistrate/Honourary Magistrate should see that they are persons of more or less same physical appearance, and approximately of the same age, as the person to be identified.It is desirable that dummy persons to be mixed should be different for such parade.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::Upon perusal of the evidence of PW-9 and also panchanama of identification parade, it appears that, two ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 45 accused were placed in row in first round, wherein other six persons were standing in row.It means though two accused persons were placed for identification parade, only six other persons were placed in row.Infact as per the procedure 10 to 12 persons ought to have been placed in row for the parade.It is also not clear from the evidence of PW-9 and panchanama prepared of identification parade that, whether two accused were of similar appearances so as to place them in one parade.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::It is only in case of similar appearance of two suspects, they can be paraded with at least 10 to 12 other persons.The identification parade is taken as corroboration to the evidence of PW-8 by the trial Court.However, in the light of discussion hereinabove, the evidence of PW-8 of last seen together itself is doubtful.Therefore, delayed identification parade of accused that too without adhering to the Guidelines and procedure laid down for conducting such identification parade deserves to be discarded.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::PW-10 Vivekanand Sarvade is panch to the identification parade.He could not remember the name of the accused, who was standing at serial no. 5 in the first row of identification parade.He could not remember and tell the name of the other accused identified in his evidence.He has stated that, the identification parade was over at 4 p.m. PW-8 in her evidence stated that, she went in the office of Tahsildar ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 47 for identification parade at 3 p.m. It also creates doubt as to whether the identification parade was carried out within one hour from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. It has also come in the evidence of PW-10 that, three persons who were standing in row in first round were again included in the second round.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::He was intimated by the Police Shivaji Garje that, the dead body of one person is lying at Ambalwadi Ghat.However, he has not explained in his evidence delay caused in recording the statement of Shri.Namdeo Garje and Rukhminbai Garje.Thereafter for two days, he was on leave and investigation was kept with PSI Sirsat.It appears that, the said PSI Sirsath is not examined by the prosecution.Vajid Sk.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::He has taken out ash of clothes from gap of stones.Then this witness seized the ash of clothes in presence of two panch witnesses and prepared the panchanama.He identified the said panchanama, signature on the said panchanama.He further stated that, accused Syed Javed has given another memorandum on 16th August, 2007 in presence of two panchas Anil Shinde and Kishor Dalvi.The said accused told ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 50 that, the foot wear i.e. chappal of deceased concealed in Ambalwadi Ghat and shown willingness to take out those chappal.Thereafter, they went to Ambalwadi Ghat in jeep as shown by the accused.The accused asked them to stop jeep near Ambalwadi road at a distance of 250 ft. away from main road.The pair of chappal was taken out by the accused from the buses.Same pair of chappal was seized in presence of panch witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::However, the prosecution could not prove that the chappal was recovered at the instance of accused was as that of deceased.36. PW-11 in his evidence, has also further given details about the letter given to the Tahsildar, Special Executive Magistrate for identification parade on 1 st September, 2007 and further details about actual conducting of identification parade by the Special Executive magistrate.In his evidence, he has not stated anything about, whether ash was sent to the experts to find out whether the said ash is of burnt clothes of the accused.There is no evidence brought on ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 51 record to the effect that, pair of chappal, which was seized at the instance of accused Syed Javed, was identified by any family members of the deceased.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::He has admitted that, there is no seal to Article 1, 2 3 i.e. three diaries.He has also admitted that, he has not collected information about handwriting in three diaries.He has also admitted in his cross-examination that, in Exhibit-95 Wireless message, there is overwriting of figure of date.He did not obtain missing report from Ambajogai police station.He has also admitted that, A.D. was registered after inquest panchanama and spot panchanama.However, he has not noted the ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 52 date to that effect.He has specifically admitted in his cross examination that, deceased Ram Masal was having mobile and he was using it.He had not collected call details of phone calls made by deceased Masal from his cell phone as well as phone calls received on the cell phone.He has admitted in cross examination that, he has not shown articles found at the spot of offence of deceased to Ramabai and his brothers Balu and Anant.He has also admitted that, he has not seized mobile phones of accused persons and deceased.Although he has seen one broken mobile handset on spot, he did not seize it.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::He has also admitted in his cross examination that, he has recorded the statement of witness Bhagwat according to his say.He recorded the statement of witness Hanumant Bachate according to his say.He further admitted in his cross examination that, it is true that, Hanumant told in his statement that, Ram is missing from 12 p.m. He further stated that, Hanumant has not stated in his statement that Bhagwat made complaint that his brother was missing from 12 noon.He admitted that, there is big Dhaba by name Visawa on Ambalwadi to Parli road.He made inquiry with people of ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 53 Dhaba.He stated that, it is revealed that, deceased Ram Masal and accused was under influence of liquor, however, he had not made inquiry with them as to where they have consumed liquor.Though he has stated that, there was meeting between the deceased and accused persons but he stated that, he did not know where it took place.He did not make inquiry where the meeting was held.He made inquiry from the accused from where the liquor was brought but they have not given information in that respect.He did not collect information about the lady, to whom the prosecution claimed that, the deceased had illicit relations.He did not record statement of photographer nor collected negative of photographs Exhibit -::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 55::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::It is also to be born in mind that the case in hand is a case of circumstantial evidence and if two views are possible on the evidence of record, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other his innocence, the accused is entitled to have the benefit of ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 56 one which is favourable to him.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::In the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court referred hereinabove, and the facts of the present case, as discussed, in our view, the prosecution has not established the strong motive for commission of offence by the appellants accused.PW-11 i.e. Investigating Officer in his evidence before the Court admitted that, he has not conducted investigation and made inquiry about the phone calls received on mobile of the deceased Ram on the date of incident or his conversation from his mobile to other persons.In the present case, the prosecution claimed that, the accused persons called the deceased on his mobile at about 12 noon and on their call, the accused left the Chousalkar colony.While leaving at about 12 noon from construction site i.e. place of Kulkarni located in Chousalkar colony, he told the labourers and other colleague that, he will come back within 15 minutes and they should take material to the site of one Mr. Gambhire.However, he did not return thereafter.Infact, the investigation about the calls received and sent from the mobile of deceased having ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 57 number 9850571643 was most crucial and turning point of the prosecution case.Whereabouts of deceased Ram from 12 noon till it was claimed by the prosecution through PW-8 that, she saw unknown five persons coming by auto rickshaw near bridge situated on road going from Parli-Beed road to village Ambalwadi, and further out of five persons came out from auto rickshaw, four persons were pushing and pulling fifth person, who was fatty, are not brought on record by the prosecution.Even evidence of PW-8 does not inspire confidence that, the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused.In the first place, she referred them unknown, secondly though she claimed that, she saw them on 25 th July, 2007, however, she did not say in her evidence that, they were carrying weapons in their hands.It creates serious doubt about truthfulness of the statement of the PW-8. PW-8 in her evidence though mentioned the auto rickshaw number, in her cross examination she admitted that, she does not know English language and she can only read figures and not letters.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::The identification parade, in which PW-8 claimed that, she identified four accused persons, deserves to be rejected for more than one reasons.Such delayed conducting of identification parade by PW-9 who in his cross-examination clandestinely admitted that, he does not know about the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court and also instructions laying down procedure for conducting such identification parade cannot be relied to base the conviction.The possibility of showing accused persons in intervening period from the date on which the statement of PW-8 was recorded and till the identification parade was conducted cannot be ruled out.The identification parade conducted by PW-9 was not as per guidelines issued and ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 59 procedure for conducting the identification parade in as much as though two accused were placed in row in the first round, only six other persons were asked to stand in row though as per guidelines/procedure, 10 to 12 other persons are required to be included in row for identification purposes of two suspects.It is also not brought on record by the prosecution that, the appearances of two accused were similar so as to have their identification parade at same time.As already observed, the Investigating officer in no uncertain words has admitted that, he has not carried out investigation/inquiry about phone calls received or send from the mobile of the deceased.He also admitted that, though he saw broken mobile handset on the spot, he did not thought it fit to seize the same.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::Recovery at the instance of the accused Syed Javed of ash and also chappal of pair has not been convincingly proved in as much as there is no evidence on record about identification of the pair of chappal, was that of deceased Ram.The prosecution claimed that, there is recovery ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 60 of ash at the instance of accused Syed Javed from the bank of river, also appears to be doubtful in as much as the said recovery after 20 days from the date of incident, that too during rainy season, and from the spot itself which was near the river, can be believed.Apart from it, the said ash was not sent to Chemical analyzer so as to ascertain whether the same is of burnt clothes.The Supreme Court in the case of Amitsingh Bhikamsing Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2007 SC 676 in para 29, has summed up various requirements of Section 27 of Evidence Act, which are reproduced as follows;::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::The relevancy of the fact discovered must be established according to the prescriptions relating to relevancy of other evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the fact discovered admissible.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::some information received from the accused and not by accused's own act.iv) The persons giving the information must be accused for any offence.v) He must be in the custody of a police Officer.vi) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused in custody must be deposed to.vii) Thereupon only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be proved.The rest is inadmissible.In the light of discussion hereinabove, we find that, the entire evidence and other documents placed on record clearly indicate that, the circumstantial evidence brought on record by the prosecution is too short to sustain the conviction of the appellants.It is also relevant to mention that if two views are possible on the evidence of record, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other their innocence, the accused is entitled to have the benefit of one which is ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 ::: Criappeal11.14 62 favourable to them.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::Since the appellants are in jail, they be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:59:19 :::

['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.

JUDGMENT B.C. Mitra, J.This is an application for a certificate under Article 133(1)(b) of the Constitution for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.condoning the delay in presenting the Memorandum of Appeal and extending the time to file the same.Being aggrieved by this judgment and order, the petitioner now seeks a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.This application was refused, and thereafter an application was made for leave to appeal to the Privy Council.On remand the trial Court again decreed the suit and thereafter an appeal was presented to the High Court.as the order was an interlocutory order.

['Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

P/9, but was subjected to MLC on 15.3.2005 at 2.28 pm vide Ex.(Passed on this 11th day of February, 2019) Per Justice Vivek Agarwal :This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by judgment dated 22.6.2006 passed in Sessions Trial No.67/2005 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganj Basoda, Distt.Vidisha convicting the appellant under Section 376 of IPC with life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, one month's additional R.I., however, acquitting the appellant from the charge under Section 506 Part II of IPC.2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is the real brother of father of the prosecutrix, and therefore, being uncle of the prosecutrix has been falsely implicated on account of some property dispute.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that 2 Criminal Appeal No.608/06 alleged incident had taken place on 4.3.2005 at 21.00 hours as has been mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P/3) which has been recorded on the basis of a written application given by the prosecutrix to Sub- Divisional Officer (Police), Police Station, Ganj Basoda, enclosed as Ex.It is submitted that in the FIR (Ex.P/3) it is mentioned that intimation was received at the police Station at 16.30 hours on 10.3.2005, however, it was actually recorded on 13.3.2005 at 18.15 hours, whereas the distance of police Station, Tyonda, Distt.Vidisha is only 2.5 kms west of village Kaboolpur where such incident had taken place.It is also submitted that as per the spot map (Ex.P/4) house of the accused is adjacent to that of the prosecutrix and as per the statement given by the prosecutrix herself she was not alone at the time of incident, and therefore, probability of such incident of rape taking place in presence of other relatives of the prosecutrix in the house hold, which is admitted to be a one room hutment by her father (PW-2) seems to be improbable.Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that appellant has examined his mother Shakkar Bai (DW-1) in defence and has submitted that in her examination-in-chief she has deposed that she lives in the same house in which her son Pappu lives and no partition has taken place between the family members and since accused and PW-2 were demanding their share, therefore, there was a fight between the two brothers to point out 3 Criminal Appeal No.608/06 that grand-mother of the prosecutrix was present at home, and therefore, there was no occasion for the accused to have entered in the house and committed such act.It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that prosecutrix was subjected to MLC which is available as Ex.P/6 and Dr. Sapna Alia (PW-6) has mentioned that no definite opinion about recent sexual activity can be given.Hymen torn appears to be healed.It is submitted that such MLC was conducted on 9.3.2005 at 8.30 pm and since the hymen was found to be healed, therefore, probability of prosecutrix being subjected to rape on 4.3.2005 stands ruled out.Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that accused was arrested on 14.3.2005 at 00.35 hours vide Ex.It is submitted that though PW-2 has mentioned in his examination-in- chief that when on 4.3.05 he returned between 8-9 pm to his home, he found his daughter crying and she narrated the incident, but on the contrary (PW-3) prosecutrix has mentioned that incident had taken place at about mid-night and her parents had reached home after 30-45 minutes of the incident when she had narrated whole incident to her mother (PW-4).It is also submitted that PW-4, mother of the prosecutrix, has not supported the version of her husband (PW-2) and has narrated that incident took place at about mid- night, whereas PW-2 has stated that when they returned between 8-9 pm, then he was informed by the prosecutrix about the incident.6 Criminal Appeal No.608/06It is further submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that it is an admitted position that PW-2 is step-father of the prosecutrix inasmuch as prosecutrix (PW-3) is not born out of the wedlock between PW-2 (step-father of the prosecutrix) and PW-4(mother of the prosecutrix) but is a child born from previous marriage of PW-4 but nonetheless it does not render the prosecutrix an easy prey for satisfying the lust of the appellant who happens to be the step-uncle of the prosecutrix .

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

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

It was further submitted that the accused Prabhat Chand by keeping the then Patwari in dark got an area of 10000 sq.ft.instead of 5000 sq.ft.(18/04/2016)This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of petitioner/accused Prabhat Chand is directed against the order dated 10.10.2014 passed by the Court of JMFC, Sagar, in Criminal Case No.402/2013 (Smt. Rajendra Kaur and Another Vs.Prabhat Chand and Others), whereby learned Magistrate had directed to issue processes against the accused no.1/petitioner no.1 Prabhat Chand for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the IPC.The facts giving rise to this criminal revision may briefly be stated thus: It is not in dispute that the complainant had sold a plot of land admeasuring 50 x 100 (5000 sq.ft.) to petitioner Prabhat Chand comprised in survey No.196/2 by registered sale deed dated 03.05.1974 and had delivered the possession thereof.However, the petitioner Prabhat Chand by intentionally tampering with the original documents and forging some documents, sold a part of aforesaid land admeasuring 21.6 x 114/118 (2370 sq.ft.) to co- accused Vijay Kumar and another part of the land admeasuring 23 x 108/118 (2370 sq.ft.) by two separate registered sale deeds on 24.07.1990.. Thus, though the total area of the land sold to aforesaid two co-accused persons i.e 4740 sq.ft. was less than the area of the plot (5000 sq.ft.) purchased by the accused Prabhat Chand from the complainant, the depth of the land sold by him exceeded 100; as such, he sold the land which did not belong to him., mutated in his name.Learned trial Court called for a report from the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. After considering the report of the Senior District Registrar of District-Sagar dated 19.02.2014 and order of Tehsildar dated 10.04.2013 held that the petitioner/accused Prabhat Chand was prima facie guilty of selling the land that did not belong to him and was also guilty of getting his name mutated upon 10000 sq.ft.land, instead of 5000 sq.ft.land sold by the complainant to him and thus, there was sufficient ground for proceedings against him under aforesaid provisions of IPC, directing issuance of processes against Prabhat Chand.The co-accused persons; however, were not proceeded against.The order issuing processes has been challenged before this Court mainly on the following grounds:It has been stated in the police report dated 28-10-2014 that earlier also, the complainant had made a report to the police in this regard, which was duly enquired into.The information was called for from the Office of Sub-Registrar, Sagar and the Revenue Department; however, no sufficient evidence was discovered with regard to any forgery or conspiracy.on the road from Sagar to Makroniya, could be sold.

['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

[a] P.W.1-Vijayalakshmi is the wife of Sivakumar  appellant/accused.P.W.2-Indhupriya is the younger daughter of P.W.1 and the appellant/accused.The spouses were running a fruit stall in the Big Bazaar, Erode.The appellant/accused used to suspect P.W.1 frequently and as a result, there arose some misunderstanding between the couple and hence, P.W.1 left the appellant/accused and went to her parental home along with her elder daughter Mohanapriya.However, P.W.2-younger daughter of the couple, remained with the appellant/accused.Thereafter, the couple with their daughters, were residing separately in a house at Teachers' Colony, Erode.P.W.1 and the appellant/accused had purchased a house in their names jointly at Majith Street, Erode.For the above reasons, the appellant/accused used to cause unnecessary trouble to P.W.1 [b] When the matter stood thus, on 13.03.2015 at about 8.45 a.m., the appellant/accused suspected P.W.1 and took knife [M.O.4] and saying that she should die, cut her on her neck besides beating her.When P.W.1 warded off the attack, she sustained grievous injuries on her right and left thumb, wrist etc. P.W.2 who was present in the house at that time, witnessed the occurrence.She pushed her father, the appellant/accused herein down.P.W.1 came out of the house shouting to save her from the appellant/accused.P.W.9 and P.W.10, neighbours of P.W.1, came to her rescue and P.W.9 took P.W.1 to the Government Hospital, Erode.While P.W.1 was in the hospital, police came there and obtained her statement under Ex.P.1 [Complaint].[c] P.W.5-Dr.Siddarthan, Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital at the relevant time, on 13.03.2015 at 9.10 a.m., when he was in Casualty, P.W.1 was brought by P.W.9 and P.W.1 has stated to P.W5 that she was attacked by her husband in her house with a knife [M.O.4].He noted the following injuries:-1.10cm Cut injury present over lower neck right side.2.5cm superficial cut injury present over left side of neck.3.5cm cut injury present over left thumb.He issued Ex.P.5-Accident Register and Ex.P.7-Wound Certificate.He also gave intimation to the police under Ex.P.W.1 got discharged and went to a private hospital for taking further treatment.[d] P.W.12-Mrs.Valarmathi, Sub Inspector of Police attached to the respondent police, on receipt of intimation from the hospital, went to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1 and on returning to police station, registered the crime in Cr.No.194/2015 for the offence u/s.307 IPC.Ex.P.12 is the First Information Report.8.Lacerated wound back of neck.9.Lacerated wound left side of neck.P.8-Wound Certificate has been issued by him in this regard.[f] P.W.14-Eswaran, Inspector of Police attached to the respondent police, on receipt of FIR, took up the case of investigation, went to the place of occurrence at 1.00 p.m., and prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P.2] and Rough Sketch [Ex.P.15] in the presence of P.W.3 and one Sadhasivam.He seized blood-stained knife [M.O.4] under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P.3].He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.He recovered the blood-stained cloth from P.W.1 under Mahazar [Ex.P.4].Thereafter, on 15.03.2015, he effected the arrest of the appellant/accused at 2.30 p.m., in the presence of P.W.13-Satheeshkumar [VAO] and his Menial Ravi.[Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.,] Appellant, sole accused in the case in SC.No.158/2016 on the file of the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Fast Track Court, Erode.The appellant/accused stood charged and tried for the offence u/s.307 [Part II] IPC.Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal came to be filed by the appellant/accused.2 The brief facts of the prosecution case, are as follows:-He despatched the originals of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.12 to the jurisdictional Court and copies to the higher officials.[e] P.W.6-Dr.Periyasamy, Medical Officer attached to Erode Trust Hospital admitted P.W.1 as an In-Patient on 13.03.2015, after she was given First Aid in the Government Hospital, Erode.He noted down the following injuries:-1.Sutured wound seen on left side of neck.2.Lacerated wound left thumb.3.Lacerated wound right thumb.4.Lacerated wound left wrist.5.Abrasion left ring finger.6.Sutured wound left cheek.7.Linear abrasion chinThe appellant/accused came forward to give a voluntary confession statement, admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P.13, pursuant to which, the Investigating Officer seized the blood-stained shirt from the bushes at the instance of the appellant/accused under Mahazar [Ex.P.14].He sent the appellant/accused for judicial remand and also the material objects to Court under Form 91, along with requisition to send the same to the Forensic Lab for Chemical Analysis.[g] P.W.7-Vijayakumar, Scientific Officer attached to Regional Forensic Laboratory, Coimbatore, examined the material objects and issued Ex.P.10-Forensic Report, stating that human A Group blood was detected in the material objects.P.W.15-Nalina, Scientific Officer in the Forensic Lab, examined the clothes seized from P.W.1 and issued Ex.P16-Serology Report.P.W.9-Appadurai is a tenant in one of the portions of houses in which P.W.1's house is also located and where the occurrence took place.[h] P.W14, the Investigating Officer, in continuation of the investigation, examined the Medical Officers and recorded their statements and obtained the Medical Reports and on completion of investigation, filed the Final Report against the accused u/s.307 and 201 IPC and u/s.4 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Harassment on Women Act, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Erode, who took it on file in PRC.No.12/2015 and issued summons to the accused and on his appearance, furnished him copies of the documents u/s.207 Cr.P.C. and having found that the case is exclusively tried by the Sessions Court, committed the same to the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode, u/s.209 Cr.P.C., who in turn, had made over the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Fast Track Court, Erode, who took it on file in SC.No.158/2016 and on appearance of the accused, had framed the charges u/s.307 [Part II] IPC and questioned him.The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against hi.[i] The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and marked Exs.[j] The appellant/accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances against him in the evidence rendered by the prosecution and he denied it as false.No evidence was let in on the side of the defence nor any documents were marked.[k] The Trial Court, on consideration and appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and other materials, had convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as above stated and hence, this appeal.3 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the injuries sustained by P.W.1-wife of the appellant/accused are only simple in nature and there was no intention on the part of the appellant/accused to cause the death of P.W.1 and the entire occurrence took place in an ordinary quarrel and therefore, submitted that some leniency may be shown to the appellant/accused.4 Heard Mr.R.Prathap kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.5 We have perused the entire materials and evidence on record.6 In the light of the above submissions, now it has to be analysed whether the prosecution has brought home, the guilt of the appellant / accused beyond all reasonable doubt?7 The fact that P.W.1 is the wife of the appellant/accused is not in dispute.Similarly, though there were misunderstanding in the marital life of the spouses previously, at the time of occurrence, both of them were residing in Teachers' Colony, Erode, where the occurrence had taken place, along with their daughters This fact is also not in dispute.When the evidence of P.W.1 is carefully scanned, on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 13.03.2015, at about 8.45 a.m, the appellant/accused, as usual, picked up a quarrel with P.W.1 and took the knife [M.O.4] and caused cut injuries on her neck.When the same was warded off, she sustained injuries on her neck besides sustaining injuries on her left and right thumb, left wrist etc. P.W.2, minor daughter of the appellant/accused and P.W.1, in her evidence, has also categorically and clearly stated the role played by her father, the appellant/accused herein.P.W.9-neighbour of the spouses, on hearing the alarm raised by P.W.1, saw P.W.1 coming out of her house with injuries and took her to hospital.P.W.10, one Gnanasundari, has also seen P.W.1 coming out her house with injuries and had also seen P.W.9 taking P.W.1 to hospital.It is also her evidence that P.W.1 informed her that her husband had caused such injuries on her.Thus, the evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.10 amply corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and as such the evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.10 certainly fall within the ambit of section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act.8 Further, P.W.2  younger daughter of P.W.1 and the appellant/accused, was all along with her father till P.W.1 and the appellant/accused had set up a separate house Therefore, there was no motive for P.W.2 to falsely implicate her father.Further, it is not the case of the appellant/accused that there was no occurrence whatsoever took place in the house at the relevant time.The only contention of the appellant/accused is that the injuries on P.W.1's neck was self-inflicted ones.P.W.5-Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Erode, admitted P.W.1 at 9.10 a.m. on 13.03.2015 and he noted a cut throat injury measuring 10cm on the right side of the neck.Similarly, he has also noted 5cm cut injury on the left side of the neck.Immediately, P.W.5 had given First Aid .As P.W.1 had left the hospital for taking further treatment in a private hospital, he could not give a definite opinion in the Wound Certificate.The evidence of P.W.6-Medical officer attached to Trust Hospital, Erode, shows that P.W.1, after taking First Aid from the Government Hospital, came to the Trust Hospital for taking further treatment.In fact, he has noted a sutured wound on the left side of the neck ; multiple laceration on the right and left thumb and injuries on the ring finger and a sutured injury on the left chin.Therefore, the evidence of the Medical officers coupled with Exs.10cm size of cut throat injury and another injury of 5cm and a lacerated injury on the neck, clearly substantiate and corroborate the version of P.W.1 that it was this appellant/accused who had caused such grievous injuries with knife [M.O.4].The material objects, viz., the cloth, seized from the appellant/accused, also contained human blood.All these facts clearly establish the complicity of the appellant/accused with the crime.9 Now, coming to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused as regards leniency to be shown on the appellant/accused, it is seen that the occurrence took place in a quarrel that ensued between the husband and wife and that the spouses are having two minor daughters.Hence, we are of the view that in order to give a chance for the reformation of the appellant/accused and to take care of his family, awarding eight years rigorous imprisonment for the aforesaid offence, would meet the ends of justice.10 In the result, the criminal appeal is DISMISSED.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

kalhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 CRL.O.P.No.1274 of 2019This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking for further investigation.2.It is seen from the records that the FIR was registered inhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 Crime No.99 of 2015 for offence under Sections 448, 324 of IPC r/ w.34 of IPC.After the investigation, a final report has been filed only as against the accused person along with one unknown person for an offence under Sections 448, 323 IPC r/w.34 IPC.The charges have also been framed and the case is now at the stage of trial.3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the other accused have not been added in the final report and the other offences have also not been mentioned/entered in the final report and the entire investigation was not conducted in a proper manner.Therefore, change of investigation has been sought for.4.This Court is not in a position to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner since the case is already at the stage of trial.In view of the above direction, this Criminal Original 3 Petition is disposed of.2.The Additional Director General of Police, CBCID, Pudhucherry.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.

['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

M.P.No.4211 of 2018 13.07.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.1 of 2018 registered by the respondent police for offences under Sections 468, 471 and 474 of IPC, as against the petitioner.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2017, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.1 of 2018 and file a final report within a period of Eight weeks from the date ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 CRL.O.P.No.8185 of 2018 and Crl.MP.No.4211 of 2018 receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.13.07.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order ssn ToThe Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 CRL.O.P.No.8185 of 2018 and Crl.MP.No.4211 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.ssn CRL.O.P.No.8185 of 2018 and Crl.

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

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

In all 16 accused came to be tried and accused Nos.1 to 9 and 13 to 16 were charged under Sections 396 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. decoity with murder and accused No.11 was charged under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "I.P.C.") i.e. dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a decoity by accused No.1 and accused No.12 was charged under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code for voluntarily assisting the accused in disposing off the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 3 Appeals595.02+3 stolen property in decoity.Accused No.10 Balaram Shinde was also alleged to be a member of the decoity gang but though arrested, he subsequently absconded.Hence, the trial continued against the remaining 15 accused.Accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13 to 16 remained as under-trial prisoners, whereas the other accused were released on bail.Convicted accused No.3 has not filed any appeal.Accused Nos.11 and 12 have been released on bail by this Court but other convicted accused i.e. accused Nos.1 to 3 are presently in jail.Accused Nos.1 and 2 are in jail right from 5.11.1997 uninterruptedly, whereas accused No.3 is in jail after his surrender consequent to the impugned ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 4 Appeals595.02+3 order of conviction and sentence.Thus accused Nos.1 and 2 have by now completed an actual sentence of more than 13 years, whereas accused No.3 has completed an actual sentence of about 9 years.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::As per the prosecution case, PW-3 Dattatray Maruti Thopte who was the Station House Officer at the Malad Police Station in the suburb of Mumbai City had received an anonymous telephone call around 2.20 a.m. on 4.11.1997 (fateful night between 3rd and 4th of November, 1997) stating that three persons were lying with bleeding injuries in the compound of Pawanbaug Housing Society, Chincholi Phatak and near its gate.After recording the said message in the station diary he informed it to PW-19 Shri Katakdaund, Police Inspector and proceeded to the spot immediately for further enquiry.On reaching the spot he found the news to be correct and three persons were lying near the main entrance gate of Pawanbaug Housing Society in a pool of blood and a motorcycle was also lying at the site.PW-3 identified two police constables Ravindra Savant and Anant Arjun Kalal, who were on patrol duty on the same night as the injured and the third one was the watchman of the Pawanbaug Housing Society by name Ravindra Dubey.Within a short span of time, a mobile van of Malad Police Station reached the spot and all the three injured were ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 5 Appeals595.02+3 shifted to Bhagwati Hospital.By then a crowd had gathered at the spot and PW-1 Vishvanathan Pille, an occupant of the ground floor flat assisted PW-3, who, in the local enquiry found that Flat No.303/304 on the third floor of building No.9 of the said Society was burgled.PW-3 suspected that the commission of house breaking and looting of valuables from the said flat must be by a gang of decoits.PW-19 Katakdaund, Police Inspector also reached the spot.In the meantime, a wireless message was received from Bhagwati Hospital that all the three victims taken in the police mobile van were declared dead before admission.The dead bodies of all the three victims were sent for postmortem after preparing the inquest panchnama at Exh.Dog squad and finger print experts were also called and PW-19 Katakdaund undertook the investigation.At the same time, PW-20 Arun Vitthalrao Wable, who was the night duty police inspector at Santacruz Police Station flashed the incident and red alert was given to all the police stations.He received a wireless message by about 4.00 a.m. that the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 6 Appeals595.02+3 decoits were suspected to be from the "Phasepardhi"::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::The statement of PW-6 Chandrabahadur Chudabahadurrao, who was the watchman of the neighbouring industrial unit i.e. Shripal Industries was recorded by PW-19 immediately after the incident.Postmortem was performed on the dead bodies by PW-15 Dr.Vithal Hasha Vihurkar on 4.11.1997 and it was revealed that all the three persons died on account of head injuries at one and the same time.PW-1 Vishwanathan Narayan Pille led the police team to Flat No.303/304 on the third floor of building No.9 and it was noted that the occupants Jain family were out of station and an urgent message was given to them.The tube-lights in the flat were found switched on, two steel cupboards were found broken, clothes and jewellery boxes were were ransacked and panchnama at Exh.20 was drawn of the conditions of the flat.PW-11 Dattatray Yeshwant Dal was the Police Sub-Inspector attached to the Santacruz Police Station and he ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 7 Appeals595.02+3 had received secret information from the modus operandi that some of the accused involved in the incident had taken shelter in Kalachowki, Cottongreen area, and he caught hold of accused No.3 Subbarao at about 4.00 a.m. on 5.11.1997 from a lorry parked along the road side.Within half an hour and on the basis of the information obtained from accused No.3, PW-11 caught hold of accused No.1 Sahebrao Gulab Kale who was found sleeping on the footpath in the nearby area and accused No.4 Suresh Pawar, on the tip off.PW-11 Dattatray Dal took in custody accused No.2 Namdeo Shinde at about 7.30 a.m. from Jogeshwari and his auto-riksha which was allegedly used in the commission of the crime was also seized.Accused No.5 Rajendra Bappa Pawar was arrested on 10.11.1997, whereas accused Nos.6 and 7 were arrested by PW-19 Katakdaund from the area of Vakdipidi, Tal.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::Accused Nos.11 and 12 were arrested on 7.12.1997, accused No.10 was arrested on 13.1.1998, accused No.13 was arrested on 17.4.1998 and accused Nos.No.9 and whose room was on the ground floor and close to the gate, has stated that Pawanbaug Society has 11 buildings and it is bounded by a common compound wall with only one gate of entrance and exit.At the relevant time, there was only one night watchman on duty (deceased Dubey), but subsequently seven watchmen came to be employed by the Society.As per him, the incident had taken place between 1.00 and 2.00 a.m. on 4.11.1997 when deceased Dubey was the night watchman.He stated before the Trial Court that in one room he and his wife and in other room of his house his children were sleeping and he heard some disturbances and a voice alarm ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 11 Appeals595.02+3 "bachav, bachav".He was woken up and he saw 15 to 16 miscreants in the Society premises at the entrance gate which is 8 to 10 feet away from his room.Two police men were also thrashed by the gang with bamboo sticks and all the three received bleeding injuries.As per this witness, all the three injured were lying at the distance of about six feet from the window of his house.He was shocked to see the incident and was very much scared as the victims were assaulted with bamboo sticks.He also stated that assailants had used bricks for smashing on the head and faces of the victims.Their faces were badly smashed and the incident lasted for about 10 minutes and thereafter the assailants fled and disappeared.He watched the entire incident from his window and he could see the same in the light posted at the window.It was Diwali time and, therefore, the building premises were illuminated.His house balcony light was off.Within a short time the police reached the spot.One of the police officers used his telephone to contact the Malad Police Station at about 2.30 a.m. and the mobile police van arrived at the spot.The police visited Flat No.303/304 of the Jain family who had gone out of station.X 1 and half cm., bone deep was sufficient to cause death.There was skull fracture as mentioned in column No.19 of the postmortem note and it resulted in brain hemorrhage.The cause of death was due to head injury.Injury No.6 was abrasion to right shoulder and all the injuries were ante-He further stated that there were three injuries found on head and they were fatal.Corresponding internal injuries in column No.19 were skull fracture and brain haemorrhage due to sharp edged weapon.Injury No.3 was sufficient to cause death of the person.The Doctor further stated that a weapon like iron bar might have been used for the head injury damaging skull bone and resulting into skull ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 16 Appeals595.02+3 fracture.He had signed the postmortem report at Exhibit 46 and as per him the cause of death was hemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries.One silver Anklet having length 25 cm.One silver Anklet having length 28 cms.7.700 gms.One silver Anklet having length 21 cms.One solid silver bracelet with coloured design on it wt.5.900 gms.One solid silver bracelet with flower design at the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 23 Appeals595.02+3 center wt.5.500 gms.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::One silver bangle with wt. 3.400 gm.One silver ring of the leg with red stones at the center wt.3.200 gms.One silver ring of the leg having three small rings with chain wt.12.300 gm.One silver ring of the leg with two red stones and one white wt.1.200 gms.One silver ring of the leg with red & green stone wt.1.400 gms.The accused No.1 and accused No.12 took the police party to one Jewellery shop by name Amol Jewellers near Santacruz railway station and stated that it was the same shop where accused No.1 sold the jewellery.He also stated that Mangilal was known to him.Accused No.1 produced various silver articles purchased by him and there were some silver glasses with design and marking and a name on it.Some ornaments like silver anklets, zukas, ear tops, etc., were also there.One end has a round hook, while the other has a "S" shaped hook.This anklet weigh about 14 ½ grms., and is labelled article (G)."It is claimed by the prosecution that these articles or some of them were identified by P.W.4-Kirti Lalitkumar Jain as the articles stolen from her flat No.303/304 during the incident and when the family was away from Mumbai.In her evidence she stated that around 4.30 a.m., on 4th November, 1997 while she was at Burhanpur her neighbour Shri Modi from Pawanbaug Housing Society called her and informed about the burglary in her house.The family, therefore, immediately returned to Mumbai by a train (Laskar Express) and reached Mumbai in the night.On arriving at the flat she saw that miscreants had broken open steel Almiras and the articles in the house were seen scattered.She search the missing articles.The police enquired with her about the missing articles.She further stated that only silver ornaments and utensils which were kept at home were found lost and she had given the list of such articles namely ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 28 Appeals595.02+3 glasses, painjan, foot rings, bracelets, children toys, some coins with idol impressions, some wrist watches.As per her the total value of the stolen articles was about Rs.30,000/-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::and in addition some clothes were also missing.She further stated that on 5th November, 1997 in the morning she went to the Santacruz police station, identified some recovered silver utensils namely 7/8 silver glasses bearing names of the persons gifted to her daughter.She also stated that during her subsequent visit to Santacruza police station she did not find any of her articles.It is pertinent to note that in the recovery panchnama at Exhibit 29B that there were silver glasses bearing names of the persons gifted to her daughter.Thus the recovery made by recovery panchnama Exhibit 29-B does not co-relate with the articles identified by P.W.4 on 5th November, 1997 at the Santacruz police station in the morning.Not only this even there is no co-relation between the evidence of P.W.4, P.W.11 and P.W.17 on this issue.P.W.17 stated before the trial Court that P.W.4 visited the Santacruz police station in the evening of 5th November, 1997 and she had arrived at Mumbai in the afternoon on that day.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::Kirti Lalitkumar Jain further stated that after a week from 5th November, 1997 i.e. around 12th November, 1997 she was called to the Malad Police station in connection with the identification of certain recovered articles from the suspects and more particularly the articles like payal, foot rings and coins, etc. She visited the Malad police station on 2-3 occasions and identified some articles.However, she could not tell the details of the articles she identified and further stated that the identified articles were not more than 40% of the articles she had lost.She further stated that three glasses shown to her before the Court were the same recovered from the Malad police station and four glasses shown to her before the Court were recovered from the Santacruz police station.Thus a total of seven glasses.PW 4 further stated that she was in the Santacruz Police Station till the noon hours and from many more articles placed before her for identification, she identified only four glasses as the articles stolen from her house.Now let us see whether the articles identified by P.W.4 at the Malad police station were the same which were recovered.He stated before the trial Court that on 12th November, 1997 he was called by the Malad police to act as a panch at about 12.00 noon and one more panch was present there.He made voluntary disclosure to show the place where he had kept one silver glass.ig The accused pointed out his residence and it was a small hut with no permanent gate and there was one curtain at the entrance.The police team entered the hut along with the accused and he produced one silver glass in a plastic bag which was seized by the police.Seizure panchnama at Exhibit 26B was drawn.The panch showed recovery of one silver glass weighed 59 gms.PW 4 in her depositions before the trial court stated that she visited the Malad Police Station after one week from 5/11/1997, so as to identify some of the articles stolen from her house.She further stated that she repeatedly visited the Malad Police Station on 2-3 occasions and she had identified some items like payal, foot rings and coins etc. as the items stolen from her house, in addition to three silver glasses.The prosecution failed to bring on record through the evidence of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 31 Appeals595.02+3 this witness, whether she identified any of the articles listed in the recovery panchanama at Exh. 31-B and she merely stated that she had identified three glasses at Malad Police Station as her stolen property.If we examine the list of the articles in Exh.31-B, there were two silver glasses with floral designs on one side and star like design all over.PW 4 has not stated that she identified these glasses with such specifications.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::As per the disclosure statement of accused no.1, the police vehicle had stopped in Indranagar, Juhu at the Milk Centre, where accused nos.12 was present and police had apprehended him.The police officer on duty told the panchas that the suspect in the custody of the police named - Ramesh Jain (Accused No.11) had volunteered to give some silver items which were stolen property in the dacoity and received by him.His disclosure statement was recorded at Exh.35-A. They signed the said statement after reading it and along with accused no.11, panchas and police officers went to Anmol Jewellers near Santacruz Railway Stating in police jeep.The shop was opened.Accused No.11 took the party in the shop and from the loft, took out a plastic bag on which the name of Anmol Jewellers has printed.The bag contained silver ornaments like anklets in large numbers and some silver coins with idol impression and some sliver tooth pik.These appeals filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code arise from the common judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai, in Sessions Case Nos.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::By the impugned order, accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 have been convicted and sentenced for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-PW-19 Katakdaund therefore recorded the statement of PW-3 Dattatray Thopte and C.R.No.539 of 1997 for the offences punishable under Sections 396 and 357 of I.P.C. came to be registered against unknown persons on the basis of the said complaint.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::14 and 15 were arrested on 17.9.1998 from Vakdipidi, Tal.Kalamb of Usmanabad District.Initially, the charge-sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 9 and subsequently a supplimentary charge-sheet was filed against accused Nos.10 to 16 as they were arrested belatedly.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::The prosecution examined in all 20 witnesses and claimed PW-1 Vishwanathan Pille as the eye-witness.PW-2 Hasmukh Kataria, PW-5 Vijay Sakhare, PW-7 Fulchand Kesharwani, PW-8 Prabhakar Patil, PW-9 Chandrakant Savant, PW-10 Nagesh Rao, PW-12 Prabhakar Shivgan, PW-13 Shashikant Kadu, PW-14 Ramesh Gaonkar and PW-16 Pramod Patil, were the panch witnesses.PW-15 Dr.Vithal Vihurkar had conducted the postmortem of the dead body of all the three victims on 4.11.1997 between 3.00 to 6.30 p.m. and had signed postmortem notes at Exh.44 (deceased Anant Kalal), Exh.55 (Ravindra Savant) and at Exh.46 (Rajendraprasad Dubey).PW-3 Dattatray Thopte, PW-11 Dattatray Dal and PW-19 Bapu Katakdaund, P.W.20 Arun Wable were the police officers.PW-18 Vilas Chitale was the Special Executive Officer who had held the T.I. parade on 2.5.1998 in the premises of Arthur Road Jail and at the instance of the Malad Police Station, and PW-17 Navinchandra Vyas was also the Special Executive Officer who had conducted two different T.I.Parades in the Arthur Road Jail premises at the instance of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 9 Appeals595.02+3 Malad Police Station.In the T.I. parade held on 18.12.1997, 9 suspects were put in the parade in three different groups (Exhs.52 and 53 respectively).As per PW-18 Vilas Chitale in the T.I.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::parade held on 2.5.1998, accused No.13 Suresh Shinde was identified by PW-1 Vishwanathan Pille (memorandum Exh.55).As noted earlier, the prosecution had mainly relied upon the evidence of PW-1 Vishwanathan Pille and PW-6 Chandrabahadur Chudabahadurrao.The Trial Court has not accepted PW-6 as the eye-witness but his evidence to the extent that he saw the gang of 15 to 16 persons duly armed running away from the site of the Pawanbaug Housing Society at about 2.00 a.m. on 4.11.1997, has been accepted.His claim that he identified some of the accused in the T.I.parade does not inspire confidence and merely by saying that he had seen 15 to 16 persons running away, he was not aware of the incident that had taken place earlier in the compound of Pawanbaug Housing Society.The Trial Court has accepted PW-1 as the eye-witness.However, when this group of appeals was heard on 23.11.2010, the Division Bench in its order noted, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 10 Appeals595.02+3 "The appellants before us are accused Nos.1, 2 and 11 only.Going by the evidence of the said witnesses, prima facie, it is difficult to sustain the finding of guilt against appellants/accused Nos.1, 2 and 11 before us.None of these witnesses have spoken about the involvement of the appellants before us specifically."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::He had also seen two persons coming on motor bike and stopped at the gate.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::Watchman Dubey had fallen on the ground due to an assault by the miscreants.On the next day he had left for his native place in Kerala as per his scheduled visit and returned on 23.11.1997 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 12 Appeals595.02+3 i.e. after 19 days.He went to the Malad Police Station only after his return from Kerala and his statement was recorded.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::He also stated that he regained courage after taking the Darshan of Lord Ayyappa.He was frightened on the fateful night when he could not gather courage to approach the Malad Police Station before he left for Kerala.It was only after he sought the blessings of Lord Ayyappa that he gained courage and went to the Malad Police Station where his statement was recorded.He claimed that in the T.I. parade held on 18.12.1997 he had identified in all six accused (2 from each group, one accused in the T.I. parade held on 2.5.1998 and two accused in the T.I. parade held on 19.10.1998).It is seen that he identified nine accused.He admitted in his cross-examination that he left Mumbai around 11.30 a.m. on 4.11.1998 and immediately after the incident when the police arrived at the scene, he had seen the police preparing panchnama and making enquiries.He left the Society premises to go to his nephew's house at about 2.00 p.m. But he did not go to the police station or tell any one else that he had observed the incident through the window.The explanation provided for the same ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 13 Appeals595.02+3 was that he was scared and shocked and lacked courage.In his cross-examination, he stated that, "I could not see the entire incident and the scene when I peeped through my window because I saw by peeping through not the entire window but slit of curtain.I did not come out till the miscreants left the compound.I could see entrance area which is in straight line of my window.There is a grill balcony in front of my window.I did not disclose my identity when I contacted Malad Police Station on phone, after I failed to contact control Room 100 when the incident was going on.The balcony is 3 feet wide.I cannot see without glasses which I am wearing from the age of 16 years.When I got up I could not see without glasses, my spectacle was on a tea-poy, I wore it and saw the incident.........".::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::He also admitted in his cross-examination that the police were in the compound of the Society and were conducting enquiry till he left his house and he did not tell any one including the police officers that he had seen the incident.In our opinion, having regard to the depositions of this witness, he cannot be relied upon as an eye-witness because his testimony does not inspire confidence.Though the trial Court has stated that the demonair of this witness made it to accept him as an eye-witness, in our view, it would not be safe to accept that PW-1 had actually noticed or seen the participants in the incident.Even if it is presumed that he had seen the incident either before the police arrived at the scene or he had called the police station after the incident had taken place, nevertheless the testimony of this witness ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 14 Appeals595.02+3 does not inspire confidence to accept that he had seen the offenders/assailants.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::He was appointed as a Medical Officer in the year 1977 and thus had about 20 years of experience.He stated before the trial Court that on 4th November, 1997 he performed 3 postmortem examinations at the instance of the Malad Police Station and one after another.All these injuries were CLW and as per him the same must have been caused by hard and blunt weapons.He noticed fracture of skull giving rise to haematoma and hemorrhage in all compartments.He stated that the said injuries proved to be serious and fatal.As per him the said injuries might have been caused by a single blow on the head and it was sufficient to cause death of the person injured in the ordinary course of nature.He opined that Anand Arjun Kalal died a homicidal death.He had collected blood for forwarding the same to C.A. for grouping Weapon similar to iron rod would cause such type of fracture ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 15 Appeals595.02+3 not only to the head but any part of the body, as per him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::He had noticed six ante-mortem injuries on his head, face and shoulder as recorded in column 17 of postmortem notes.He opined that injury No.2 which was CLW on left side forehead, 4 cm.As per the doctor all the three deaths had occurred in a common history of assault and happened at the same time.This evidence of the Medical Officer remained intact and proved that all the three victims i.e. Anant Arjun Kalal, Police Constable, Ravindra Manohar Savant and Rajendraprasad Dubay died a homicidal death on account of the injuries they suffered during the same attack and in the night of 3rd November, 1997 (leading to 4th November, 1997).::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::The defence has not seriously disputed that all the three victims died a homicidal death in the wee hours of 4th November, 1997 and while they were on their assigned duty.It was a brutal attack, obviously, by multiple number of hard and blunt weapons.The attack was so powerful that they died at the spot and in the premises of the Pawanbaug Co-operative Housing Society.Once we have discarded P.W.1 as the eye witness and disagreed with the opinion of the trial Court in that regard, we are required to examine whether the prosecution has proved its case as against accused Nos.1 to 3 in causing the homicidal death of all the three victims and the robbery/dacoity in Flat No.303/304 of Building No.9 and against accused Nos. 11 and 12 for the offences ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 17 Appeals595.02+3 punishable under Section 412 and 414 of I.P.C., solely on the basis of the circumstantial evidence.In support of its case against the appellants and accused No.3 the prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances:-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::(a) The arrest of accused Nos. 1 to 4 by P.W.11 Shri Dattatray Yeshwant Dal, Police Inspector (Law & Order).(b) Recovery of silver ornaments and utensils like glasses at the instance of accused No.2 - Namdeo Shinde pursuant to the disclosure statement at Exhibit 29-A and seizure panchnama at Exhibit 29-B drawn on 5th November, 1997 between 14.35 to 15.45 hours.(c) Seizure of silver articles sold by accused No.1 to accused No.12 Shri Mangilal Dave and with the help of accused No.11 Ramesh Jain, as per memorandum of statement at Exhibit 31-A and seizure panchnama at Exhibit 31-B.(d) Identification of some of the seized articles like silver glasses bearing names of the persons gifted to her daughter on 5th November, 1997 in the morning ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 18 Appeals595.02+3 at the Santacruz Police Station, by PW 4 - Smt. Kirti Jain.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::(f) Discovery and seizure of one silver glass at the instance of accused No.3 on 12th November, 1997 and as per the discovery statement at Exhibit 26-A and the seizure panchnama at Exhibit 26-B.(g) Discovery and seizure of one iron rod and a cloth bundle with a stone on it as well as one key ring with 3 keys and four empty plastic boxes as per the memorandum of disclosure at Exhibit 33-A and seizure panchnama at Exhibit 33-B.(h) Discovery and seizure of silver ornaments like anklets in large number, silver coins (sikka) with idol impression, silver tooth pick (in all 22 items) from the shop of Amol Jewellers near Santacruz Railway Station on 10th December, 1997 at about 3.00 p.m. as per disclosure memorandum at Exhibit 35-A and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 19 Appeals595.02+3 seizure panchnama at Exhibit 35-B.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::Mr. Gole, the learned counsel appearing for accused nos.1 and 2 submitted that there was no arrest panchanama placed on record to show that accused nos.1 to 3 came to be arrested by PW 11 in the wee hours of 5/11/1997 and there is nothing on record to show beyond the words of PW 11 that the said accused were arrested by him.While recording the statement of accused nos.1 and 2 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., this circumstance of their arrest by PW 11 on 5/11/1997 was not put to them, though in question no.23 the depositions of PW 19 - Katakdaund regarding their arrest by Santacruz Police Station on 5/11/1997 was put to them.As per Mr. Gole failure to put this circumstance of their arrest by PW 11 has vitiated the trial and in support of this submission, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Asraf Ali vs. State of Assam [2008 (10) Scale 278].If the arrest of these accused by PW 11 on 5/11/1997 is not proved, the alleged recoveries at their instance and more particularly accused nos.1 to 3 based on the disclosure made by them, while in the custody of the police, have to be discarded.We have examined the record ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 20 Appeals595.02+3 and we found that the submissions of Mr. Gole have force.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::But if the court fails to put the needed question under clause (b) of the sub-section it would result in a handicap to the accused and he can legitimately claim that no evidence, without affording him the opportunity to explain, can be used against him.It is now well settled that a circumstance about ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 21 Appeals595.02+3 which the accused was not asked to explain cannot be used against him."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::Hence the circumstance of the arrest by P.W.11 of accused Nos.1 to 3 can not be used against them.P.W.7-Fulchand Asrafilal Kesharwani was the panch witness for the disclosure statement at Exhibit 29A and the seizure panchnama at Exhibit 29B. He stated before the trial Court that on 5th November, 1997 he had attended at the Santacruz Police Station around 1.45 p.m. To act as a panch witness and there was one more panch present with him at the police station.He was shown Namdeo, accused No.2 in the custody of police and the accused wanted to make disclosure regarding certain stolen property.His disclosure statement was recorded (Exhibit 29A) and thereafter in the police vehicle the panch as well as accused No.2 went to Jogeshwari.The accused took the team to one hut and one lady was present in the said hut.The accused went inside the hut, took out a key and he removed a small tin box from beneath the roof.The box was locked.The accused No.2 opened it.The cover of the box was also removed and some silver ornaments and utensils like glasses were seen.The police seized all these articles under the seizure panchnama at Exhibit 29-B. The said hut ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 22 Appeals595.02+3 was along a foot path amidst 10-15 huts.He had signed both the panchnamas after reading the contents therein.As per the panchnama at Exhibit 29-B the following articles were recovered from the house of accused No.2 in the presence of this witness and the panchnama was concluded at 15.45 hours on 5th November, 1997:-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::One pair of silver Anklets each having the length about 26 cms.P.W.8-Prabhakar Vitthal Patil was another panch witness who was called at the Santacruz Police Station in the afternoon hours to act as a panch witness.He stated before the trial Court that he found one suspect person in the police station.He was in veil and the police officer informed the witness that the accused wanted to make a disclosure.He voluntarily stated that he would point out the person to whom he had sold the silver articles in Santacruz area.The statement was recorded and marked at Exhibit 31A. The police party along with the panch witnesses and the accused No.1 went in the jeep in the direction as suggested by the accused and the jeep was stopped in Indira Nagar, Juhu.The ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 24 Appeals595.02+3 accused No.1 pointed out one person at the Milk centre and his name is Mangilal Dave, (accused No.12).The police apprehended him and along with the accused No.1 and accused No.12 the policy party proceeded further towards Santacruz railway station.The police seized all these articles and kept in 7 packets and these packets were sealed by drawing panchnama at Exhibit 31B. In his cross examination he stated that he went to the Santacruz police station at 12.45 p.m. and the name of his co-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::panch was Raikar.The articles recovered and listed in the seizure panchanama at Exhibit 31B were as follows:-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::Appeals595.02+3 (A) One old silver glass with floral design on one of its side, with star like designs all over.The glass is 10 cms.in height and weighs about 63 gms. - labelled article (A).(B) One old silver glass with floral design on one side and star like designs all over, about 9.5 cms., tall, with words T-100 at the base and weighing appox.(C) One pair of baby jingle bells, with whistle at the other end, each with two bells at the base of the dome.(1) One of the unit is about 8.1 cms., long with number 97 engraved on the whistle.The dome has design on the upper side.(2) The other unit is about 7.1 cms., long with number T-97, engraved on the whistle.Unlike the design on the first unit, the design on this dome is on the lateral side.Both the jingle bells collectively weigh about 27 gms., and are labelled article (C) Collectively.(D) One pair of silver anklets, old, thick and without any beds.The length of each anklet is about 25.5 cms., from one end of the hook to the other.Both the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 26 Appeals595.02+3 anklets have words SK A - 1 engraved near one of the hooks.One anklet has words SK A-1 engraved near the other hook.The second anklet has words ßlsekÞ near the other hook.Both the anklets weighed approx.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::58 grms., and were labelled article (D) Collectively.(E) One pair of old silver anklets, each anklet is about 24 cms., long.Each anklet has two chains.One of the two chains has floral designs on the lower side.Both these chains are connected to each other by 4 heart shaped plates along the length.Both anklets collectively weigh approx.21 gms., and are labelled article (E) collectively.(F) One pair of old, used, silver anklets.One of the anklet has 26 beads along its length, while the other has 25 beads.The anklet with 26 beads has small round plates near both the hooks with words NJ/1 written on them.The other anklet has both such plates near one hook with same words inscribed on them.Both the anklets together weight approx.46 grms., and are labelled article (F) Collectively.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::His statement was recorded at Exhibt 26A. The said accused led the police team along with other witness to his residence at Kalachowki hutment area.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::Along with accused no.12, the witness, accused no.1 and the police party went to Santacruz Police Station and accused no.1 and accused no.12 took them to Anmol Jewellers near Santracruz Railway Station.They were silver glasses with some design and marking and with specific names.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::PW 10 - Nagesh Rao stated before the trial court that on 10/12/1997 he attended the Malad Police Station along with one panch who was already present there.The police prepared the inventory of 22 items and recorded the panchanama of seizure at Exh.35-B. These 22 articles were listed as under:-1- 144&00 #- pkanhph ygku dMh 6 ,dq.k otu 36 xzWe fd-va-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::Appeals595.02+3 2- 332&00 #- pkanhps 7 iSt.k R;kaps ,dq.k otu 83 xzWe fd-lq-244&00 #- nksu pkanhps gkriku otu 61 xzWe fd-v- 832&00 #- pkanhps 15 ik;y otu 208 xzWe fd-v- 12- 420&00 #- nsokaP;k ygku eksB;k pkanhP;k eqR;kZ ,dq.k otu 105 xzWe fd-v-13- 328&00 #- pkanhph 1 vkjrh] 1 ygku okVh] 1 ?kksMk] 1 dqadq Mch o 1 Qqynkuh ,dq.k otu 82 xzWe fd-v-ygku eksB;k vkdkjkps ,dq.k otu 115 xzWe fd-v- 21- 180&00 #- pkanhps fcLdhV 3 ,dq.k otu 45 xzWe fd-v- 22- 36&00 #- pkanhpk ykacV iRrk otu 9 xzWe fd-v-It is pertinent to note that these articles at Exh. 35-B were ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 34 Appeals595.02+3 not identified by PW 4 as any of her stolen articles.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::On 5/11/1997, he was on duty along with PW 11 - Dal.He stated that accused no.1 had made a voluntary disclosure before he was produced for remand that he would point out some part of stolen booty, which he had sold to one Mangilal Dave (Accused No.12) at Santacruz immediately after commission of crime.The disclosure statement of accused no.1 was recorded at Exh.31-A. For seizure of the property disclosed by accused no.1, the police party along with the panchas went to Laxmi Dairy where Mangilal Davi (Accused No.12) was present.He identified the seizure panchanama at Exh.31-A. We have already dealt with the same while considering the evidence of panch witness PW 8 - Prabhakar Patil.The chain of circumstances was never complete so as to prove that the articles stolen from the house of PW 4 were recovered at the instance of accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::ig Similarly, the involvement of accused nos.11 and 12 for having received the stolen property or having assisted the robbers to sell the stolen articles has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and for all these reasons the impugned order of conviction and sentence is unsustainable.The trial court appears to have been overwhelmed by the evidence of PW 1 - Vishwanathan Pille.Surprisingly, he did not disclose to the police at any time before his statement was recorded on 24/11/1997 that he had seen the incident and accused nos.1 to 3 were the assailants in the said incident.He was a got up witness.At the same time, PW 6 -Chandrabahadur Rauf had no occasion to be an eye witness to the incident and he had not seen accused nos.1 to 3 as the assailants in the said incident.The recovery of iron bar as per the seizure panchnama at Exh.33B at the behest of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 ::: 36 Appeals595.02+3 accused No.3, read with the C.A. Report at Exh.58/2 has not supported the case of the prosecution.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::In the premises these appeals succeed.The impugned order of conviction and sentence passed against accused Nos. 1 to 3 is hereby quashed and set aside and accused Nos.1 to 3 stand acquitted from all the charges.Criminal Appeal Nos.908 and 998 of 2002 are allowed accordingly.Accused No.11 is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 412 of I.P.C. and accused No.12 is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 414 of I.P.C. The impugned order of conviction and sentence passed against them is quashed and set aside.Criminal Appeal Nos.595 of 2002 and 647 of 2002 are allowed accordingly.The bail bonds of accused Nos. 11 and 12 stand cancelled.Accused Nos.1 to 3 who are presently undergoing sentence, be released forthwith, unless required to be detained in some other criminal case.Fine amounts be refunded.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:11:27 :::

['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.It is alleged against the co-accused that he assaulted the victim Lakhan by a dagger, whereas it was alleged against the applicant that he held the victim Lakan at the time of assault caused by the co-accused.Looking to the haphazard caused by the co- accused, it was not possible for the applicant to hold the victim at the time of assault.The applicant is falsely implicated in the matter.No common intention of the applicant can be presumed with the co-accused.Consequently, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj

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

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

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J) The appellants, five in number, have challenged the judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions Division, Krishnagiri, made in S.C.No.164 of 2002, whereby, the appellants/accused stood charged as follows:-A-1 and A-3 were charged under Section 148 IPC., while A-2, A-4 and A-5 were charged under Section 147 IPC. A-1 and A-3 were also charged under Section 302 IPC.while A-2, A-4 and A-5 were charged under Section 302 read with 149 IPC.A-1 was also charged under Section 324 IPC., while A-2 to A-5 were charged under Section 324 read with 149 IPC.On trial, A-1 and A-3 were found guilty under Section 148 IPC.and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and A-2, A-4 and A-5 were found guilty under Section 147 IPC.and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. A-1 and A-3 were also found guilty under Section 302 IPC.and awarded life imprisonment, while A-2, A-4 and A-5 were found guilty under Section 302 read with 149 IPC. and awarded life imprisonment, and they were also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.i.P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased.P.Ws.3 and 4 are the daughters.Another accused, by name, Rajavelu, who was shown as A-6, died pending investigation.On the date of occurrence, viz., on 8.11.1997, the deceased, his son and his daughter, P.W.3, went to graze the cattle.At about 8.30 a.m., on hearing the cry of P.W.3, P.Ws.2 and 4, rushed to the place, where, they found the entire incident, in which, A-1 attacked the deceased with a crowbar on his head, A-3 attacked him with a stick, while A-2, A-4 and A-5 fisted him with hands.The deceased fell down.In order to save him, P.W.4, the daughter of the deceased, intervened in the quarrel and she was attacked by A-1 with a crowbar.P.W.4 was also attacked by A-3 in the same transaction.All these accused, after the occurrence was over, fled away from the place of occurrence.Thereafter, P.W.2 along with her son took her husband and P.W.4 to the hospital at Belrampatti.But, on the way, the deceased breathed his last at about 10.00 a.m. P.W.2 left the dead body in a house at Belrampatti and took P.W.4 to the Government Hospital at Palacode.P.W.2, thereafter, went to the Office of the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.1, at about 10.30 a.m., where she gave a report, which is marked as Ex.P-1, to P.W.1, who also prepared his own report, Ex.P-2, and both the reports were sent to Marandahalli Police Station.P.W.12, Inspector of Police, Marandahalli Police Station, on receipt of Exs.P-1 and P-2, registered a case in Crime No.1055 of 1997 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 302 of the Penal Code.The express first information report, Ex.P-12, was sent to Court and to the higher officials.Following the same, P.W.12 took up investigation in the case, proceeded to the place of occurrence, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P-13 and also a rough sketch, Ex.Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the dead body and prepared Ex.P-15, the inquest report, in the presence of witnesses and Panchayatdars.Thereafter, the dead body was sent to Government Hospital, Palacode, where P.W.9, the doctor, who was on duty at that time, conducted autopsy on the dead body and gave his opinion in Ex.P-6, the post-mortem certificate, opining that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage.P.W.4, who was injured at the time of occurrence, was sent for medical examination and she was examined by the doctor, P.W.10, attached to Government Hospital, Palacode.The doctor issued Ex.P-10, copy of the accident register, opining that the injuries sustained by P.W.4 are simple in nature.The learned Sessions Judge shall take steps to commit the accused/appellants to prison to serve the remaining period of sentence.bs/To1.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Palacode.2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.3.The I Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.4.-do- through the Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.5.Inspector of Police, Marandahalli Police Station, Dharmapuri Dist.6.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.A-1 was also found guilty under Section 324 IPC.and awarded three years rigorous imprisonment and A-2 to A-5 were found guilty under Section 324 read with 149 IPC.and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:-After the transfer of P.W.12, P.W.13, Inspector of Police, took up further investigation.During investigation, he came to know that all the accused were surrendered before the Court.A requisition was forwarded with the material objects to the Court to subject them for chemical analysis and accordingly, the reports of the Chemical Analyst and the Serologist were also received by the investigating officer.On completion of the investigation, he filed the final report.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.Necessary charges were framed and in order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and relied on 16 exhibits and marked 5 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.They denied them as false.On the side of the defence, neither a witness was examined nor a document was marked.After hearing the arguments advanced by both sides and on scrutiny of the materials available, the trial Court found the accused guilty as per the charges and awarded imprisonment as referred to above, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.The learned Senior Counsel, advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellants, made the following submissions:-a)In the instant case, the prosecution has not even brought forth the genesis of the occurrence.P.Ws.2 and 4 have spoken to the fact that on hearing the cry of P.W.3, they went to the place, where they saw A-1 quarrelling with the deceased and hence, it will be quite clear that all these witnesses had gone to the field, which is under cultivation of A-1 and thus, the deceased and the witnesses, P.Ws.2 to 4, were the aggressors.b) In the instant case, A-1 also sustained injuries in the course of the same transaction and the injuries sustained by him were not explained by the prosecution in any way.On the other hand, in the instant case, the defence came forward with a plea that the cattle of the deceased was actually went for grazing in the field, which was under the cultivation of A-1 and when the same was questioned by A-1, it was the deceased, who took a stick and attacked A-1 and in the exercise of the right of private defence and also to prevent the damage caused to the properties, A-1, in retaliation, attacked the deceased with the stick, which was used by him.When P.W.4 interfered, the said attack fell on her.c)At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel, added further, that the attack was made in the field, which was under the cultivation of A-1, and on seeing the said attack, P.Ws.2 to 4, who were the aggressors, went over there and in the course of the transaction, A-1 also sustained injuries, which were not explained by the prosecution, and all the above facts would go to show that the genesis of the case was not placed by the prosecution before the Court.d)Added further, the learned Senior Counsel, that in the instant case, P.W.2 gave a report, Ex.P-1, to P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer, who also prepared his own report, Ex.P-2 and both the reports were sent to the police station.He would further add that for an occurrence, which took place at 8.30 a.m., the complaint was given to the respondent police only at 6.30 p.m. and thus, there was the long delay, which remains unexplained.e)Apart from that, the learned Senior Counsel further added that it is highly doubtful, whether the first information report, as put forth by the prosecution, has come into existence.As per the evidence of P.W.3, the police came to the spot along with the Village Administrative Officer and they enquired P.W.2 and got a report, which fact would go to show that the first information report is not come into existence as put forth by the prosecution and coupled with the delay, it is quite clear that with all embellishments and developments, the first information report has come into existence and the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the case and the injuries sustained by A-1 remained unexplained and under such circumstances, the accused are entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the above contentions.The Court paid its anxious consideration to the submissions made and thoroughly scrutinised the available materials.In the instant case, the deceased, who is the husband of P.W.2, died in the incident that took place on 8.11.1997 at about 8.30 a.m. P.Ws.2 to 4 have been examined as eye witnesses.P.W.4 was an injured witness.Though P.W.3 claimed to be an injured in the course of the same transaction, no medical evidence was placed before the Court nor a charge was framed to that effect.In this case, P.Ws.2 and 4 categorically narrated the incident that on hearing the cry of P.W.3, they went to the place, where they saw A-1 and the deceased quarrelling with each other, and in that quarrel, A-1 attacked the deceased with a crowbar on the head, A-3 with a stick and A-2, A-4 and A-5 attacked the deceased with hands and thereafter, the deceased fell down.In the course of the transaction, in order to save her father, when P.W.4 intervened, A-1 attacked her with a crowbar and she also sustained injuries.for which, the punishment of seven years rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.In the course of the same transaction, A-1 also attacked P.W.4 with a crowbar and caused simple injuries on her and hence, he is also convicted under Section 324 IPC.and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment.As far as A-3 is concerned, he caused only simple injuries on the deceased and hence, he is convicted under Section 324 IPC., for which, he is sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment.Insofar as A-2, A-4 and A-5 are concerned, they only fisted the deceased with their hands and hence, they are convicted under Section 323 IPC.and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment.It is reported that already they have undergone imprisonment for a period of 3 = months.Hence, to meet the ends of justice, it would be suffice that the sentence already undergone by them shall be given set off.7.The District Collector, Dharmapuri District.8.The Director General of Police, Madras.9.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.[VSANT 8198]

['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(2) Cr.Brief history of the case is that on 19.12.2007 at about 8.45 P.M., Police Station Industrial Area, Dewas received an information about an injured person lying near the Chuna Khadan.This person was identified as Sunil Joshi @ Guruji.When injured was taken to M.G.Hospital, Dewas, he was declared dead.4. Ram Charan Patel S/o Kodar Singh Patel-Dewas,Pragya Singh Kushwaha @ Pragya Bharti @ Pappi Didi @ Swami Purna Chetnanand Giri-Bhind.As per initial F.I.R. 661/2007, registered by Police Station Industrial Area, Dewas Sunil was shot dead by some unknown accused persons, (3) Cr.Police registered a merg 0/07 against unknown persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as the death of deceased was found to have taken place on account of gun shot injury.After investigation, police submitted final report in the case for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 & 27 of the Indian Arms Act in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dewas on 27.2.2011 against following persons:Raj Singh @ Raj @ Munna @ Harshad @ Dadi @ Prem S/o late Shri Ravji Bhai Solanki-Gujrat,Basudev Parmar S/o Rameshchand Parmar-Dewas,Anand Raj Katariya S/o Sanjay Kataria-Indore,1025/2012 however, in the Course of investigation, it was found that he was murdered in a criminal conspiracy by some of his associates and master mind, who had committed the series of terrorist bomb blasts including Samjhauta Express Train blast on 18.2.2007, Hyderabad Mecca Masjid blast on 18.5.2007 and Ajmer Sharif on 11.10.2007 and as they feared that if Sunil Joshi was ever arrested he would disclose the identities of his co- conspirators, therefore, vide order dated 1.4.2011 Ministry of Home Affairs Govt. of India directed the National Investigation Agency to take over the investigation of the case.In compliance of the said order, NIA took over the case of Crime No. 661/2007 by registering fresh F.I.R. No. RC-08/2011/ NIA-DLI on 25th June, 2011 under Sections 302, 201, 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 16 and 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act.Under the provisions of the Act and the notification in Gazette of India dated 1.9.2010, the N.I.A. Special Court was empowered under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act to try the Scheduled offences along with other offences investigated by NIA, for whole of the State of M.P.On 5.11.2011, the High Court of M.P. on administrative side transferred the trial of the aforesaid case to the NIA Special Court at Bhopal from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas.On 22.11.2011, Special Court, Bhopal received the record from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas.(4) Cr.On 14.3.2012, the case before the Special Court was fixed for hearing on the question of framing charges.On the same day, NIA filed an application seeking permission to further investigate the matter.On 12.4.2012, Inspector of Police NIA/New Delhi filed an application before the Special Court seeking permission to interrogate accused Pragya Singh and Harshat Solanki since investigation being carried out in the matter had reached to a crucial stage and it had become incumbent and just for the investigation agency to interrogate the aforesaid accused.It was stated that NIA had not been able to interrogate them after registration of the case afresh on 25.6.2011 for want of permission of the Court empowering the agency to interrogate the accused lodged in judicial custody.From the impugned order, it seems that no written reply of the aforesaid application was filed by the counsel of accused Pragya Singh.However, her counsel insisted for grant of permission to him to remain present in the jail, at the time of interrogation by the NIA Inspector.Learned Special Judge refused the permission for interrogation in presence of Advocate of accused and granted permission to Inspector NIA and his team to interrogate accused Pragya Singh in Bhopal jail on 19.4.2012 and (5) Cr.1025/2012 20.4.2012, where she was confined.Challenging the said order, accused Pragya Singh has filed this appeal under Section 21 of the Act.Shri R.L.Gupta, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, for the respondent contended that against the impugned order, no appeal under Section 21 of the Act was maintainable since the impugned order was purely an interlocutory order.On the other hand, Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior counsel for the accused/appellant contended that the appeal was maintainable as the grant of permission to interrogate the accused when once the charge sheet had been filed amounted to fresh investigation which could not be permitted and further that refusal to keep Advocate present at the time of interrogation from the accused was against the fundamental right of liberty of an accused.The High Court while entertaining the writ petition filed by the candidates alleging scam in recruitment formed a prima facie opinion as regards the systematic commission of fraud.While dismissing the writ petition filed by the selected candidates, it initiated a suo motu public interest litigation.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Report dated 07-08-2018 is attached and perused.Petitioner Amit Jatav is present in person.The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment of Crime No.329/2017 registered at Police Station Vishwavidyalay District Gwalior for the offence under Sections 354- D, 323, 294, 506 of IPC and Sections 11(iv), 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and also the charge- sheet on the basis of compromise.Compromise has been reached between the parties voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion.Both the parties have separately filed an application stating that the dispute between the parties have been resolved and they are not inclined to pursue the matter any more.Affidavit of father of respondent No.2 as well as affidavit of respondent No.2 herself that too when she attained majority, have been filed and they are also interested in settlement of the matter because parties live in the vicinity and want peaceful atmosphere.Affidavit of father of the complainant has been filed, affidavit of respondent No.2 herself has been filed and that affidavit has been filed when she attained majority, therefore, she knew well about the steps which she is taking.Looking to the fact that case is only in respect of offence under Section 354-D of IPC and POCSO Act was clamped because at the relevant point of time, complainant was minor, therefore, cumulatively considering those facts and the fact that settlement would bring inter se peace and harmony between the parties, the application (I.A.No.2320/2018) is allowed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and it cannot be treated as precedent for all cases with similar nature of offences.3 M.Cr.

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

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

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to transfer the investigation in Crime No.6/2018 pending on the file of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 First Respondent to any other investigation agency and direct such investigation be completed in a time bound manner.2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner hails from a poor family and started to work at a very tender age of 16 years in the 2nd respondent's office.The 2nd respondent took advantage of the petitioner and her family started to assault her sexually for the past 16 years.The 3rd respondent is the son of the 2 nd respondent, on knowing the said relationship abused the petitioner in filthy language and mercilessly beat her up and threatened to do away with the petitioner if she ever comes back to the office.Therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 04.04.2018 with the 1st respondent.FIR has been registered after an inordinate delay of almost two months on 26.05.2018 in Crime No.6 of 2018 under irrelevant and insignificant Sections of IPC in a clear attempt to shield the 2 nd & 3rd respondent from the process of law.Hence, this petition.3.Heard the learned counsel on either side.4.It is seen that the petitioner is having relationship with the 1st accused for more than 16 years.Therefore, the offence under Section 376 of IPC does not attract as against the 1st Accused.Hence, the 1sthttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 respondent police has rightly registered the case as against the 1 st accused, for the offences under Section 417, 352 and 506(ii) IPC.5.Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.O.P.No.20851 of 2018 dated 08.04.2019, the FIR is quashed as against the second accused.Under these circumstances, considering the nature of the allegations, the 1st respondent police is hereby directed to complete the investigation and file a final report in Crime No.6 of 2018 as against the 1 st accused alone within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.08.04.2019 kas Index: Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order To.1.Inspector of Police W-21, All Women Police Station, Guindy, Chennai2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madrashttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J, kas Crl.O.P.No.22818 of 2018 08.04.2019http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Shri Kumar Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for complainant.Case diary perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts.The law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest.The law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for necessary compliance.C.C. As per rules.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 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 prosecution case in brief is that on the morning of 16th March 1985 at about 6.00 a.m. in village Churali, Bhaniabai, the wife of deceased Nandu, was returning to her home after answering the call of nature; on the way accused Hinda caught her hand; on this she threatened him to beat with Chappal.Hinda hid himself near a tree.By this time deceased Nandu came and asked Hinda why did he catch the hand of Dhaniabai (P.W. 1).Daulatia (P.W. 12), the brother of deceased Nandu, gave a 'lathi' blow on Hinda.Meanwhile, the brother of accused Raddha, armed with a 'Farsa' came there and tried to inflict 'farsa' blow.On it Nandu and Daulatia saved themselves and ran away towards Tala field; there Hinda and Raddha chased them.JUDGMENT S.K. Dubey, J.The two appellants, Hinda and Raddha, aggrieved of the judgment passed in S.T. No. 8 of 1986, decided on 29-2-1988, by Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar, District Guna, whereby each of them was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, and Section 324 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, and respectively sentenced to imprisonment for life and two years' rigorous imprisonment-bott sentences to run concurrently-have preferred this appeal from jail.On it Hinda inflicted a blow with a 'pharsa" on the neck of Nandu.On the field, another accused Kunja reached on his bicycle, took his Lohangi from the bicycle and gave a 'Lohangi blow on Nandu.Hinda, Raddha, Kunja and Hariram, a juvenile, who was having a 'lathi', gave a beat to Nandu by their weapons.Daulatia, who tried to save Nandu, was also beaten.After doing this 'marpit' the accused persons ran away.Nandu and Daulatia were taken in a bullock-cart to the police station, but on the way Nandu died.First information report (Ext. P-18) was lodged by Daulatia (P.W. 12) at police Station Chanderi, which is about 10 Km.away from village Churali.On the lodging of the first information report the four accused persons were booked for offences under Sections 302 and 307 and Section 341, I.P.C. Autopsy on the dead body of Nandu was performed by Dr. H.S. Mudgal (P.W. 11), who found the following injuries:--(i) Incised wound, 1 1/2" x 3/4" x bone deep, over occipital region, oblique in direction, ante-mortem in nature, caused by sharp cutting object.(ii) Lacerated wound, 2 1/2" x 3/4" x bone deep, over left Parietal region, underneath muscles were lacerated and left side parietal bone was fractured and depressed, laceration of membrane, effusion of blood upon dura matter present due to middle menegeal artery torn, effusion of blood also present upon surface of brain.(iii) Contusion 2" x 1", over left upper arm middle and anterio-lateral region, injury is ante-mortem and caused by hard and blunt object.The Doctor opined that the cause of death was coma due to compression of brain by effusion of blood upon dura matter from middle menengeal artery torn by piece of fractured parietal bone caused by injury over parietal region.The injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.The report is Ex. P. 17-A. After investigation only the present accused-appellants were charge-sheeted, as accused Kunja was absconding and against accused Hariram who was a juvenile, Challan was filed in the Juvenile Court.The accused were charged under Sections 202 and 307, IPC, and no specific charge either under Section 302-34 or Section 307-34, IPC, was framed.The trial Court after trial convicted and sentenced the two accused/appellants as aforesaid.Shri B. R. Sharma and Shri K.K. Gupta, counsel for the appellants, and Shri V.G. Khot, Deputy Government Advocate, were heard.After hearing counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondent and considering the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, we are of the opinion that the conviction of the appellants under Section 302-34 and Section 324/34, IPC cannot be sustained, as the evidence is lacking for concluding that the appellants shared the common intention in causing the death of the deceased, and the accused would be responsible for their individual acts.Further, the circumstances also indicate that the accused who caused the injuries, have not intended to cause the death of the deceased so as to attract any of the clauses of Section 300, IPC as the accused did not have the knowledge that such injuries were likely to cause death.The prosecution case, as put forth, and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, viz., Dhaniabai (P.W. 1), Thlaram (PW. 2), Jalam (PW. 3) and Daulatia (PW. 12), clearly indicate that the quarrel arose between accused Hinda and deceased Nandu on catching hold of the hand of Dhaniabai (PW. 1) by accused Hinda.At that occasion no other persons were there.The intention of Hinda was only to do marpit, which is clearly borne out from the statement of Dhaniabai (PW. 1).In the marpit accused Hinda also received injuries, which are proved by Dr. H.S. Mudgal (PW. 11) vide Ext. D. 5.A. True, Nandu and Daulatia (PW. 12) on seeing Hinda and Raddha coming to attack them, to save themselves, ran towards Tals fields, and the two accused to teach them a lessor, chased them.Accused Kunja came there on a bicycle and, seeing the quarrel, took out his 'Lohangi' and gave a blow on the head of Nandu, as would be evident from the statement of Daulatia (PW. 12), who also stated that thereafter Hinda gave a 'farsa' blow and so also accused Raddha, and thereafter the accused persons ran away from the spot.Without going into the question of absence of charge and its effect for holding the accused guilty under Section 302/34, IPC the prosecution must bring out from the evidence the precise sharing of the common intention to kill the deceased.If that is missing and is not proved by the prosecution, the accused who did not cause any fatal injury to the victim who is killed in the incident, cannot be held guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC.The seriatim of occurrence and the participation of the accused persons clearly indicate that neither there was any pre-concert to kill deceased Nandu nor there was any sharing of the common intention.This injury was caused with a Lohangi by accused Kunja, who is absconding.Injury No. (1) was an incised wound, and injury No. (iii) was a contusion over left upper arm middle and anterio-lateral region. 'Farsa' injuries were caused by appellants Hinda and kaddha.As we have found that there was no common intention, the appellants, on the story as put forth by the prosecution, cannot be convicted under Section 302, IPC, also, for the injuries caused by them.We need not deal with the conviction of the appellants under Section 324/34, IPC as the appellants have already suffered the sentence imposed thereunder.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows :(a) The Complainant-Respondent no.2 herein left his house for work.His wife was alone at home.When he returned home for lunch, he was informed by his wife that at about 9.30 a.m; the Applicant no.1 had visited the house and ::: Uploaded on - 17/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:43:56 ::: 3 of 25 APL.289.2016 was inquiring about the whereabouts of the complainant.The Applicant no.1 had further stated that he wants to recover `Hafta' (extortion) from the second Respondent-complainant.It is also apparent that the Applicants are indulging into criminal activities in connivance with each other.::: Uploaded on - 17/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:43:56 :::1. Rule.Rule is made returnable forthwith.Learned APP for the State and learned Advocate for the Respondent no.2 waive service.The said proceedings are arising out of CR No.32 of 2014 registered with Velha Police Station, Pune Rural.The Second Respondent is the first informant who had lodged the first information report (`FIR') for the offences punishable under Sections 386, 387, 447, 506, 109 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (`IPC').On the basis of the registration of FIR, investigation was completed by the Police and charge sheet has been filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune.::: Uploaded on - 17/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:43:56 :::The Applicant no.1-accused had also warned that in the event the complainant is not found at home, he will be traced and killed.The Applicant no.1 was accompanied by Applicant no.5 and two to three other unknown persons.(b) On 4th April 2014, the Applicant no.1 and other accused had again visited the house of the second Respondent at about 9.00 p.m. The second Respondent was at home at that point of time.The accused stated that as the complainant has been allotted a contract of repairs by Gram Panchayat, the complainant has not yet paid the money to the Sarpanch of Wangani namely Bapu @ Rohidas Choraghe (Applicant no.1).The Applicant no.1 then gave a call from his mobile and handed over the mobile phone to the second Respondent (complainant).While having conversation, the Applicant no.2 intimidated and abused the second Respondent.He was also threatened that he will have to face dire consequences and it will be difficult for him to live his life.The Applicant no.4 also threatened that the accused who had visited his house, would kill him if he did not part with the amount to them.The accused also warned the second ::: Uploaded on - 17/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:43:56 ::: 4 of 25 APL.289.2016 Respondent that his house is situated in a lonely place wherein his wife and children are residing and in other way threatened the entire family of dire consequences.In view of the threats, the second Respondent handed over a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the accused persons, who had visited his house.On apprehending the danger at the instance of the said accused persons, the second Respondent lodged an FIR with Velha Police Station on 5th April 2014 and on the basis of his statement, the FIR was registered for the aforesaid offences.::: Uploaded on - 17/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:43:56 :::He also stated that no useful purpose would be served in the event prosecution as against the Applicants is continued further and, therefore, he has no objection for quashing the proceedings against the Applicants.::: Uploaded on - 17/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:43:56 :::The advocate for the second Respondent submitted that the second Respondent-complainant is not interested in pursuing the complaint and the proceedings against the Applicants on the account of settlement arrived at between them.He further stated that the first informant has no objection for quashing the proceedings and thereby allowing the application preferred by the Applicants.It is pertinent to note that the offences registered against the Applicants in the impugned proceedings are of serious nature.Sections 386 and 387 of IPC read as follows :::: Uploaded on - 17/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:43:56 :::Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."From the facts as stated in the FIR, it is clear that the accused had visited the house of the complainant and had intimidated the wife of the complainant as well as the complainant.It is apparent that the accused were demanding money from the complainant as he had secured a contract of repairs from the concerned Gram Panchayat.It is apparent that the accused had warned the complainant that he should part with the amount or else he would be required to face dire consequences.They had also threatened him that he would be killed.The intimidation was also meted out to the entire family ::: Uploaded on - 17/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:43:56 ::: 7 of 25 APL.289.2016 by stating that the house is situated at a lonely place where his family is residing.In view of the seriousness of the charges, we are not inclined to exercise power under Section 482 of the Code.::: Uploaded on - 17/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:43:56 :::(emphasis supplied) ::: Uploaded on - 17/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:43:56 ::: 11 of 25 APL.289.2016The first informant was threatened that he will have to face dire consequences and that he will be killed in the event he does not pay the amount demanded by them.It is also necessary to note that the accused persons visited the house of the complainant when his wife was alone at home and she was threatened that in the event the complainant does not remain at home, he will be traced out and killed by them.The prosecution case is further ::: Uploaded on - 17/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:43:56 ::: 16 of 25 APL.289.2016 supported by the statement of the wife of second::: Uploaded on - 17/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:43:56 :::In the charge sheet submitted against the Applicants, certain documents have been annexed including other complaints/FIR registered against the accused.On perusal of said complaints/FIR, it is revealed that FIR bearing CR No.31/2013 has been registered at Velhe Police Station, Pune Rural on 16th June 2013 for offences punishable under Sections 447, 452, 143, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 of IPC.Similarly, FIR bearing CR No.6 of 2015 has been registered with the same Police Station on 5th February 2015 for offences under Sections 395, 427 of IPC.The said FIR relates to the offences of decoity.The ::: Uploaded on - 17/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:43:56 ::: 17 of 25 APL.289.2016 allegations made in the complaint are of very serious nature and the complainant cannot be allowed to withdraw the said allegations by submitting an affidavit stating that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties.::: Uploaded on - 17/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:43:56 :::25 of 25 APL.289.2016In view of the above, we pass following order :

['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

15.P.W.3 in his evidence had deposed that he knew P.W.1 and that he is doing carpentry work and that on 23.07.2011, he was sleeping in his house his wife informed him that Senthil Kumar was stabbed by some persons and that Senthil Kumar was lying in position with his intestine outstretched at Chinnamudaliyar Chavadi, Aurovil at Kottakuppam where cement road was dividing/separating and he had seen his body.Further, he had stated that as to how Senthil Kumar had suffered the injury and was lying, he had not known about it and he was not examined by the police.Also, P.W.3 was treated as an 'Hostile Witness'.16.P.W.4 in his evidence had stated that he is doing carpentry work and he knew the accused and P.W.1 and on 23.07.2011 at about 10.00 p.m., in the night, he and Senthil kumar were sitting at Karuvelam thorny forest (kaadu) and at that time, the Appellant/A1 was consuming alcohol brandy and he asked him to consume the brandy in a side place because of the reasons that there were insects and for that the Appellant/A1 informed him 'as to who was he say to him' and because of that there was a wordy quarrel between Senthil kumar and the Appellant/A1 and that the Appellant/A1 stabbed Senthil Kumar on his stomach and further, the Appellant/A1 also stabbed him with knife and because of the stabbing, at one place, there was a blood injury and because of the act of stabbing committed by the appellant/A1, his intestine came out and that Senthil Kumar had died at the place of stabbing.17.P.W.4 in his evidence had also stated that he became unconscious and was taken to PIMS Hospital, Pondy and at the time of occurrence, accused Raja (A2) was not there and incident took place at Chinnamudaliyar Chavadi, Aurovil at Kottakuppam proceeding to cement road and more particularly, the incident took place at the vacant land compound gate nearby.18.P.W.5 in his evidence had stated that he is serving as VAO of Thylapuram and during the year 2011, he worked as VAO of Kottakuppam and he was taken to the Police Station by the police at 24.07.2011 and the police on 24.07.2011 took him to the place of occurrence in the early morning at 1.00 a.m., and that police had inspected the place of occurrence and at the place of occurrence, there was a blood stained sand and a Mahazar was prepared for visiting the place and in which, he along with one Sundar had affixed their signature and in Ex.P2 Observation Mahazar, the first signature was that of his.19.Moreover, P.W.5 had added in his evidence that at the place of occurrence, the police collected the blood stained sand, sand without blood stains for which a Mahazar was prepared, in which, he along with Sundar had affixed their signatures and that Ex.P3 was the Seizure Mahazar and blood stained sand was Ex.M.O.1 and that sand without blood was Ex.M.O.2 and that further the two Accused (A1 and A2) were arrested near Pachaivazhi Amman Temple, Chinnakottakuppam and identified both of them and that out of two accused, he does not know at first who had given the confession statement and in the last part of the confession statement, the Accused had stated that he had hidden the knife at the thorny plant at Irular residential area and also stated that if he was taken, then, he would produce the said knife and Ex.P4 was the admitted portion of the confession in which, he had signed along with VAO Assistant Sundar.Further, the Accused based on his confession was taken to the said place as informed by him and he produced the knife from the hidden place where he kept the same and for assuming the knife Ex.P5 Mahazar was prepared and in which, he had affixed his signature and also Sundar had affixed his signature.The weapon Knife was marked as Ex.20.P.W.6 (Forensic Laboratory Junior Grade Scientific Officer) in his evidence (before the trial Court) had stated that on 07.09.2011 while he eas in duty, the deceased Senthil Kumar body male aged about 34 years was brought by the Police Constable 1305 Sivakumar through Professor PIMS Hospital, Pondy that the inner parts, for the purpose of chemical examination viz., small intestine, spleen, kidney, blood and safety liquid and he examined all the five articles and found out that there was no alcoholic or any other poisonous substance and his certificate/examination report was Ex.P6 and that he was examined by the police.No.220 of 2011 with the letter of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate along with seal and the same was received through one P.C.1305 Sivakumar and that the case property 1 cm length along with a handgrip 33.5 cam length was mentioned as C.P.118 of 2011 and torned full hand shirt with white green design stained black brown colour shirt, one white munda banniyan with stains of black brown colour other properties were received and that in 1 to 5 case properties, blood was found out and in case property No.6, there was no blood and the Forensic examination report was given by him was marked as Ex.Furthermore, in case properties 1 to 4, it was found that there was a human blood and in case property No.2, 3 & 4, the blood was of 'O' group and in case property No.1, the blood that was found could not be definitely stated whether it was of human blood and in case property No.5, it was found out that the blood was in damaged condition.22.P.W.6 in his evidence had also stated that Ex.Further, the small intestine was protruding outside due to the injury.2)The blood was seen frozen at 3x3 cm level from large intestine and small intestine path3)There was an injury with skin being torn out at small intestine measuring 6 cm and in the said torn out place, the oozing out of blood was seen and near the third injury, the entire muscles at a measurement of 4 cm to 5 cm dead tissues were found and at 1.5x1.5 cm measurement, in the first injury at a distance of 30 cm a hole was seen and he was admitted as an in-patient and provided with treatment and the injuries were of serious in nature for his life and Ex.P11 Certificate was given by him and in fact, the above said injuries mentioned by him can occur with Ex.M.O.3 Knife.24.It is the evidence of P.W.9 that presently he is working as an Assistant Professor of Forensic Science Medical Section of JIPMER Hospital, Pondy and prior to that, on 24.07.2011, he was working as an Assistant Professor at PIMS Hospital and on that day at 10.30 hrs Constable 1305 (Sivakumar) brought the body of Senthil kumar related to the case in Cr.No.220 of 2011 of Kottakuppam and he commenced his post mortem at 10.30 hrs and the dead body was identified by Sivakumar and the dead body was male body approximately aged about 34 years with ordinary physical capacity of 177 cm height and the body was 66 gm in black colour and all tover the body, 'Rigor Mortis' was seen and there was blood stain in the face, hand and legs etc.25.P.W.9 in his evidence had also stated that in his Report Ex.P12 he had stated that because of the first injury out of the other injury, deceased would have died and the death of the deceased would have been caused by means of Ex.M.O.3 Knife and that at about 12 noon, he completed his post mortem and that he was examined by the police.26.It is the evidence of P.W.10 (constable) that he is presently serving as a constable at Kottakuppam police station and on 24.07.2011 when he was on duty, in the same police station, at about 10.00 a.m., the body of one Senthil kumar was brought for post mortem with a requisition and he identified the body with Dr.Sanjay Kumar of PIMS Hospital, Pondy and after completion of post mortem, he received the body of Senthil Kumar and handed over the same to his relatives.The Appellant/Accused No.1 has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court, as against the judgment dated 30.10.2012 in S.C.No.168 of 2012 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindavanam.2.The Learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindavanam while passing the impugned judgment in S.C.No.168 of 2012 dated 30.10.2012 at para 18 had observed that as far as injury caused to PW4 Ananth @ Mahesh is concerned he has clearly given evidence with regard to the injuries caused to him by A1 about which it has been arleady discussed in detail.His evidence is also corroborated by medical evidence.Doctor has also stated that the injury caused to him was dangerous to life.Hence the opinion given by the Doctor that injuries caused on the abdomen of PW4 was dangerous and so on offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against A1 for causing injury to PW4 and at para 23 among other things inter-alia observed that ... the First Accused (Appellant) has stabbed with a knife on the chest and abdomen which has resulted in death so the offence under Section 304(II) is made out.Hence, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the First Accused under Section 304(II) of IPC regarding the death of Senthil Kumar and found the Appellant/A1 guilty under Section 304(II) of IPC and Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years each.Further, the trial Court had directed the period already undergone by the Appellant/A1 to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.3.Before the trial Court, in the main case, on behalf of the Respondent/Prosecution, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.14 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 were marked and also M.O.1 to M.O.6 were marked.However, on the side of the Accused, no one was examined as a defence witness and also, no document was marked.4.Assailing the validity, correctness and legality of the judgment dated 30.10.2012 in S.C.No.168 of 2012 passed by the Learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindavanam, the Learned counsel for the Appellant/A1 contends that the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant/A1 was an erroneous, improper and an illegal one.5.The Learned counsel for the Appellant/A1 urges before this Court that the prosecution case had rested on the 'Hearsay Evidence' of P.W.1 to P.W.3 coupled with the evidence of P.W.4 Ananth @ Mahesh (injured during the occurrence).6.The Learned counsel for the Appellant/A1 proceeds to take a plea that the trial Court came to a conclusion from the evidence that P.W.13 (Sakthivel) the Inspector of Police received the FIR (Ex.P13) through P.W.11 Kumaran and aided the investigation at 12.30 midnight and went to the place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2), Rough Sketch (Ex.P14) and Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P3) and also seen the deceased body at the occurrence place.However, it is represented on behalf of the Appellant/A1 that P.W.13 (the Investigating Officer) had not conducted any enquiry about the inquest at the occurrence place and as per evidence, the inquest was prepared on 24.07.2011 at PIMS Hospital.Therefore, the trial Court should not have accepted the case of the prosecution.7.Yet another argument of the Appellant/A1 is that on behalf of the Respondent/State, P.W.5/Natarajan (VAO) was examined in regard to 'Confession and Recovery'.But his evidence is an unbelievable and contradictory one to that of other witnesses and therefore, the trial Court should not have accepted the prosecution version.9.At the outset, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.4 (Ananth @ Mahesh) and the deceased Senthilkumar are friends and residents of Chinnamudaliyar Chavadi, Aurovil at Kottakuppam.In fact, P.W.4 and the deceased on 23.07.2011 at about 10.00 p.m., were consuming alcohol at Karuvelam thorny forest, Chinnamudaliyar Chavadi, Aurovil.At that time, the Appellant/A1 (Arokiyaraj) was also consuming alcohol by sitting in a dark place.During the quarrel, the Appellant/A1 stabbed the deceased Senthil Kumar with knife on his abdomen and he also stabbed P.W.4 on his abdomen.At the same place, Senthil kumar died and indeed, P.W.4 (Ananth @ Mahesh) became unconscious.11.P.W.1(Complainant) in her evidence had deposed that he knew the accused and he had seen them on the date of occurrence and she is doing gardening work and that on 23.07.2011 at about 10 p.m., in the night, the people from her village came running in order to her house and that two persons came to her and asked her as to what was the colour shirt and lungi worn by her husband for which she had replied that her husband was wearing white colour shirt and coffee colour lungi and immediately, she was taken by them.12.It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that she was taken to the in between place of her house and the Bye-pass road and after Bye-pass road and at a place where cement road was dividing/separating, there was a vacant space and in that, there was a gate fixed and near that pit her husband was lying with injury, with stretched legs, his intestine parts also came out and on the floor there were two cell phones which was taken by her and one hour later, the police came and they took two cell phones of her husband from her and that her husband was taken to the JIPMER Hospital.13.P.W.1 adds in her evidence that in this regard, she gave a complaint before the police (which was written by them) and in the said complaint she had fixed her thumb impression and Ex.P1 was the complaint and her husband used to go to mason work on the date of occurrence, on the day before the occurrence, at about 7.30 p.m. in the evening her husband went out because of the phone call he received and the people among the crowd informed that one Arokiyasamy (the Appellant/A1) had stabbed and at that time, one Raja was there and both of them were running after stabbing her husband and that, in this connection, she was examined by the police.14.It is the evidence of P.W.2 that he is doing the mason work and he knew the accused but there was no acquaintance with him that he knew P.W.1 who was the nearby resident and one year before, at about 5.30 a.m. in the morning, he heard that somebody had stabbed Senthilkumar and his signature was asked for the purpose of taking Senthil Kumar body to the Kottakuppam Police Station and he does not know anything about the occurrence and he was examined by the police.As a matter of fact, P.W.2 was treated as an 'Hostile Witness'.P8 was the examination report and the sample blood collected at the time of post mortem of Senthil kumar aged about 34 years was received through the constable and that the said blood was sent to Forensic Science Department to found out the classification and to which item it belong and the said report was Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 was the report given by the Forensic Science Department and that he was examined by the police.23.It is the evidence of P.W.8 (Doctor) that presently he was working at PIMS Hospital as Assistant Doctor and on 23.07.2011 about 10.25 p.m., it was informed that one Mahesh of Chinnamudaliyar Chavadi at Vanoor Taluk came to the hospital with cut injuries on his left side lower stomach and that he was examined and it was mentioned that on the same day, at about 10.00 p.m., night time, an injury occurred to him and at the time of examination he was in conscious state and he found the following injuries:1)A cut injury measuring 12x3 cm on the left side outer portion of stomach.Further, Ex.M.O.4 to M.O.6 were the blood stained pale green colour shirt, white colour banian and blood stained lungi respectively which he handed over to the Doctor, was handed over to the Court and through Court sent them to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Villupuram and and also, he handed over the blood stained sand and the sand without blood stains and inner parts of the deceased Senthil kumar body to the Forensic Science Department, Villupuram and that he was examined by the police.27.It is the evidence of P.W.11 (Gr-I Constable) that when he was on duty at Kottakuppam Police Sttion on 24.07.2011, he received an information report in Cr.No.220 of 2011 from the Assistant Inspector through urgent tapal and handed over the same to the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Vanoor and later, he submitted a report in regard to the same, to the police station and that he was examined by the Inspector of Police.28.P.W.12 (Sub-Inspector of Police) that on 23.07.2011 at about 11.30 in the night, he received the complaint statement of Kumari wife of Senthil kumar of Kottakuppam, Perumal koil Street and registered a case under Section 302 and 307 IPC in Cr.No.220 of 2011 and the printed copy of the FIR was Ex.P13 and later, he sent the printed FIR through urgent tapal to the Concerned Court through one Kumaran and also sent the copy of the FIR of the concerned authority for the purpose of further investigation and that case filed and he was examined by the police.29.P.W.13 (the then Inspector of police, Kottakuppam) in his evidence had deposed that he is presently serving as Inspector of Land Grabbing Special Cell and on 24.07.2011, he was serving as Inspector of police, Kottakuppam at about 12.30 in the early morning, he received the FIR through the constable and he contacted through phone the VAO Natarajan, his Assistant Sundar and required to come to the place of occurrence at about 1 a.m., in the morning.He went to the place of occurrence and prepared observation Mahazar Ex.P14 in the presence of Natarajan, Assistant Sundar with the help of emergency lamp.When he inspected the place of occurrence, at that place, there was a dead body and since it was night time, he sent the dead body for post mortem to the PIMS Hospital through constable 1305 and seized the 'blood stained sand, sample sand' in front of witnesses through Ananth @ Mahesh at about 1.30 a.m., it is the further evidence of P.W.13 that he conducted an inquest enquiry from morning 7.00 a.m., to 9.00 a.m. in front of PIMS Hospital and later, through same constable sent the deceased body with a requisition to the doctor and their recorded statements of Kumari, Rajalakshmi, Saravanan and Kumaran and recorded their statements and post mortem was Ex.P15 and also examined the Mahesh (P.W.4) who was under treatment and also examined the Sub Inspector of Police, Venkatesan and also seized the blood stained clothes from the body of the deceased under Form 95, which was brought by constable 1305 (after conduct of post mortem) and also recorded the additional statement of Mahesh on 25.07.2011 who was under treatment under PIMS Hospital and based on the secret information he received, he arrested at morning 7.00 am.the Appellant/A1 and Raja (A2) at 7.00 a.m. in front of Chinnamudaliyar chavadi Patchaiamman koil and that time, VAO, his assistant Sundar were there at 7.15 a.m., the Appellant/A1 came forward voluntarily and gave a confession which was recorded by him and in the said confession the Appellant/A1 stated that if he was taken then, he would identify the hidden knife and the place where it was kept at irular residents area at thorny bush place and the Appellant/A1 on the same day at about 10.30 hrs, took out the knife from the nearby thorny bush at Chinnakottam in the presence of witnesses and he seized the knife in the presence of witnesses through Mahesh and later with the articles seized, he along with the Appellant/A1 produced him before the Court and also on the same day, examined VAO and his Assistant and sent the seized articles to the Court on the same day.30.Moreover, he gave a requisition letter for sending the seized Knife, lungi worned by the deceased, banian, shirt, stained sand, sand without blood and in the course of his investigation, he came to know that the deceased Senthil kumar and Ananth @ Mahesh (P.W.4) were stabbed with the same knife.In fact, there was no previous enmity or any motive between the Appellant/A1 and the deceased Senthilkumar.Only at the spur of the moment or spontaneously occurrence took place and the Appellant/A1 was possessing knife (M.O.3) and with the help of knife he had stabbed the deceased Senthil kumar.As a matter of fact, the injuries sustained by the deceased Senthil kumar had perforated on his 'Heart and Lungs'.Viewed in that perspective, the Criminal Appeal succeeds in part.37.In fine, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part in above terms.08.11.2016Index :YesInternet:YesDP1.The II Additional District and Sessions Court, Tindavanam.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.M.VENUGOPAL.J,DPCrl.A.No.592 of 201408.11.2016http://www.judis.nic.in

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

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

The contention raised by the revisionists in this case was that a property dispute was attempted to be colourised by initiating a criminal proceeding with an aim to harass the revisionists/petitioners capitalising such property dispute.According to revisionists, pending proceeding was purposive, oppressive frivolous and mala fide one.Learned advocate for the private opposite party No.2 (de facto complainant) submitted that when chargesheet had been submitted in this case collecting sufficient materials against the revisionists, the instant proceedings should not be allowed to be quashed without holding a trial.Learned advocate, Mr. Panda representing State of West Bengal producing the copy of the materials already collected in the CD submitted that sufficient materials had been there to reveal a prima facie case against the accused persons, and thus contended that there could not be any quashment of the instant proceeding, as sought for by revisionists, ignoring the prima facie materials being collected against them.Admittedly Chandana Das (de facto complainant) being wife of Pradip Das submitted a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, which was forwarded to police for investigation by an order of the Court.Police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the revisionist/accused persons under Section 498A/323/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.In the FIR materials were there to reveal that de facto complainant had been put to suffer cruelty, harassment and oppression in her in law's house for the non-satisfaction of the items presented at the time of marriage of the de facto complainant by her in laws members.There was further demand of money which could not be satisfied for the poverty in the parental house of the de facto complainant.After demise of parents-in-law of petitioners and the de facto complainant as well, trouble in the family cropped up over their property matters.Learned advocate for the revisionists submitted with much emphasis that when petitioner No.2 was given marriage with petitioner No.1 on 03.03.01 i.e. 4 years after the marriage of de facto complainant, the petitioner No.2 had no occasion to receive stridhan articles and to perpetrate cruelty upon the de facto complainant over demand of money and further to express dissatisfaction with respect to the items presented at the time of marriage of de facto complainant.Further argument was raised by the revisionists that the allegation made in the complaint, even if they were taken at their face value, and accepted their entirety, would not constitute a prima facie offence against the petitioners, and further that the complaint suffered from absurdity, being inherently improbable, on the basis of which, there could not be any reasonable presumption that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners.The power under Section 482 is excisable under the following three (3) circumstances.While exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the Court is under an obligation to hold an enquiry with respect to the materials produced to the extent, it is necessary to find it out whether a prima facie case is made out or not.The materials already collected in the CD were highly reflective of a property dispute pending between the parties.Parties to this case were also at variance with over the pension drawn by their deceased mother-in-law.There is existence of two other cases, one under Section 107 Cr. P.C and another under Section 144 Cr.P.C pending between the parties transpiring animosity between the parties.Existence of animosity alone neither would establish mala fide, nor frivolous as regards pending proceeding when contrary version surfaced during in investigation collecting prima facie materials.Property dispute giving rise to animosity between the parties may give rise to some sort of defence, which might be put up as defence during trial, but the same can not be taken to be ground for quashing.There were materials collected during the course of investigation to reveal that the de facto complainant received insult, physical assault etc. in the hands of revisionists/petitioners.It came to be surfaced further that such perpetration of cruelty were made to deprive the de facto complainant from her ancestral property.Upon consideration of the materials together with the rival submissions, raised by the parties to this case, the Court is of the view that sufficient materials were there for proceeding against the petitioners.Liberty is however, given to revisionists to raise the points, now raised at the time of trial.The learned Trial Jude shall address all the issues, if any raised by the revisionists, in accordance with law, giving sufficient opportunity to either of the parties to this case.Urgent photostat certified copy of this, if applied for, be given to the appearing parties as expeditiously as possible upon compliance with all necessary formalities.(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.)

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

All these applications are decided by this common orderbecause they arise out of the same offence registered with the 2 / 28 3 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-groupEconomic Offences Wing [EOW] and pertain to the sameinvestigation.Initially, FIR was lodged vide C.R. No.191/2019registered with Govandi Police Station, Mumbai on 7.9.2019 underSections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B & 34of the Indian Penal Code.Subsequently, the investigation wastaken over by EOW.The first informant mentioned inhis FIR that their family had joint properties and joint businesses.They are controlled by the family.Their businesses are spreadthroughout India.The informant, his brothers and familymembers have lawful shares in these enterprises.On 10.2.2001, all the members executed aMemorandum of Understanding [MOU] stating that all thebrothers would work jointly and honestly.In the year 2008, somedispute arose.The informant was kept in dark and some decisionsamounting to criminal offences were taken and executed by someof the members of the family.They suffered losses due tothe criminal activities of some of the brothers.The FIR mentionsfour particular instances of fraudulent transactions.They are asfollows:-i. The informant was one of the Partners of M/s. Perkins Automobile (India).He had 40% shares in the firm.Other partners were Janak Kaur Vijan (wife of informant's brother Joginder Singh Vijan) having 15% shares, Amarik Singh Vijan (another brother) having 10% shares, and Satvinder Singh Kaur (wife of informant's brother Surender Singh) having 35% shares.The firm had a show-room at Deonar.They were having Gala Nos.4/A, 5/A and 6/A at Borla village, Kurla, admeasuring 450 square feet.At the time of registration, for transfer of Gala No.4/A Harvinder Singh impersonated the informant and signed in 5 / 28 6 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group his place.That document bears the photograph of Harvinder Singh in front of the informant's name.By that document the show-room No.4/A was transferred to the Applicant Jagjit Singh and his daughter Jaspreet Kaur.Joginder Singh has no connection with M/s. Perkins Automobile, and yet he transferred Gala Nos.5/A, 6/A and 7/A to Jagjit Singh and his daughter Jaspreet Kaur.The FIR further mentions that the documents pertaining to Gala Nos.5/A, 6/A and 7/A were also forged.Gala No.7/A was not even existing.Based on these forged documents, the accused even took loans from different banks on Gala No.7/A. Joginder Singh transferred Gala Nos.5/A, 6/A and 7/A to his family members and Harvinder Singh transferred Gala No.4A to Jagjit Singh and Jaspreet Kaur.The Applicant-Harvinder Singh impersonated Amrik Singh and signed in front of Amrik Singh's name.The document bears the photograph of Harvinder Singh in place of Amrik Singh.The deed showed that Avinder Singh and Narender Singh had retired from the Partnership.That was not true.The accused Surender Singh and the Applicant-Baldev Singh had signed in place of Avinder Singh and Narender Singh and have created this forged document.By using that forged document, the land belonging to Silver Chem Industries was transferred to M/s. Silver Chem Industries (B) Private Limited of which Surender Singh and Baldev Singh were the Directors.This company, in turn, transferred that property to M/s. Scottish Chemicals.[i] Andheri Police Station being C.R. No.302/2019 under Sections 408, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC.[ii] MIDC Police Station, Mumbai being C.R.The Applicant-Manpreet Singh has following offencesagainst him:The informantwas put to losses by the misdeeds of all the Applicants.All the Applicants are seeking anticipatory bail inconnection with this offence.For the sake of convenience, all theApplicants are hereinafter referred to, by their names.Allegations in the FIRThe FIR is lodged by one Jasbir Singh IshwarsinghVijan.He has given details of his brothers and their familymembers.He had eight brothers including himself, they are, (1)Harnam Singh (deceased), (2) Joginder Singh (expired afterlodging of the FIR), (3) Amrik Singh (deceased), (4) SurenderSingh, (5) Jagjit Singh, (6) Baldev Singh and (7) Avinder Singh.Out of these brothers, Jagit Singh and Baldev Singh arethe Applicants in these Applications.Applicant-Harvinder Singh is 3 / 28 4 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-groupson of Joginder Singh (deceased).Applicant-Manpreet Singh isson of AmriK Singh (deceased).In the year 2007, the informant became suspiciousabout a possible transaction for sale of the land belonging to thejoint property of the Applicants and others owned in the name ofSilver Chem Industries to M/s. Scottish Chemicals.Atthat time, the informant came to know that said property was 4 / 28 5 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-grouppurchased by M/s. Scottish Chemicals.The informant, then, madefurther enquiries and he came to know that he himself and hisbrother Avinder Singh were cheated.The informant, Harnam Singh (deceased), Joginder Singh and Surender Singh were joint owners of plot No.2, Survey No.53, Hissa No.6, City Survey No.435 admeasuring 1698 sq. ft. at Chembur.On 24.8.2004, Sunrender Singh and Jagjit Singh prepared a forged Power of Attorney in favour of Amrik 6 / 28 7 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group Singh.Harnam Singh had expired in the year 1997 and, yet, he was shown to be present at the time of registration of that document and Surender Singh signed in his place.The Applicant-Jagjit Singh signed in place of the first informant.This was a clear forgery.The informant had a common property in the name of Silver Chem Industries, which was a Partnership firm.It had a property at Taloja MIDC being Plots No.On further enquiries and after obtaining documents, the informant came to know that the purported Deed of 7 / 28 8 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group Retirement in respect of Silver Chem Industries was used in the transaction.The document was tampered with.The Deed of Retirement and other documents, purportedly executed in the years 1991 and 1993, were forged documents.The informant's joint property situated at village Borla bearing Plot No.2, Survey No.53, Hissa No.3, 5, 6 (Part), City Survey No.435 (Part), Chembur, admeasuring 1618 sq. mtrs.was mortgaged with Indian Overseas Bank and loan was obtained.At the time of registration of those documents, the 8 / 28 9 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group Applicant-Manpreet Singh impersonated Surender Singh.The informant was impersonated by the Applicant-Baldev Singh.The mortgage deed was signed by the Applicant- Jagjit Singh as a witness.Harnam Singh was impersonated by one Mohan Singh Bhagat.Based on that document, a loan was obtained in the name of M/s. Numar In Motor (India) Private Limited.Thus by use of these forged documents, the informantwas put to losses of around Rs.11.83 Crores.Based on theseallegations, the FIR is lodged.Heard Mr.Sanjog Parab, learned Senior Counsel for theApplicant-Jagjit Singh, Mr. Rizwan Merchant, learned Counsel forthe Applicant-Harvinder Singh, Mr. Subhash Jha, learned Counselfor the Applicant-Manpreet Singh and Mr. A.P. Mundargi, learnedSenior Counsel for the Applicant-Baldev Singh.Mr. DeepakThakre, learned Public Prosecutor appeared for the Respondent-State and Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, learned Counsel appeared for thefirst informant.9 / 28 10 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-groupWhile arguing for the Applicant-Jagjit Singh, Mr. Parabmade following submissions:-He, therefore, submitted that if there was any dispute, it was a subject matter of arbitration and FIR could not have been lodged by the first informant.Mr. Parab invited my attention to various orders passed in the Suit (Lodging) No.441/2014 filed by the informant on the Original Side of this Court.There was no reference to the transactions mentioned in the FIR.Subsequent orders dated 27.4.2017, 8.6.2017, 21.11.2019, 28.11.2019 and 16.12.2019 indicate that there were serious efforts for settlement between the parties.The order dated 16.12.2019 records that the informant was not willing for any mediation.10 / 28 11 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group It was recorded by consent of the parties that the parties were no more interested in mediation.He submitted that the Applicant - Jagjit Singh was on interim bail from 26.9.2019 till 16.10.2020 when his application for anticipatory bail was pending before the Sessions Court.He submitted that the Applicant had always offered to cooperate with the investigation, but, he was not called to the investigating agency's offiec even once during this one year.Mr. Parab submitted that the Applicant's conduct is above board.He is 75 years of age.The FIR is filed only as a tool to extract money.Mr. Merchant, appearing for the Applicant-HarvinderSingh made following submissions:i. He submitted that the FIR relates to the allegations of impersonation and forgery.Separate provision for prosecution under that Act is provided and, therefore, the prosecution can only be under 11 / 28 12 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group that Act and not under the Indian Penal Code.Therefore, registration of FIR and consequent investigation for the offences under IPC was not permissible.Mr. Merchant submitted that the FIR is lodged by the informant when the settlement talks were not going on in accordance with the wish of the first informant.Mr. Merchant also submitted that it was a civil dispute between the close family members and, therefore, there was no necessity of arrest of the Applicants.He, therefore, cannot have a separate yardsticks for his other family members objecting to their transfer of other properties.He submitted that even this Applicant was protected by interim relief in the Sessions Court; and, yet, for about a year he was not called for interrogation.Therefore, custodial interrogation of the Applicant was not warranted.Mr. Jha representing the Applicant-Manpreet Singhmade following submissions:State of Maharashtra and others1, if there was apparent collusion between the Police and the first informant, then, the accused must be granted relief and action must be taken against the informant and the police.He submitted that in the notice dated 7.5.2008 itself forgery was alleged.There was a suit which was filed for declaration that said MOU executed in the year 2001 was valid; and yet, inspite of that, this FIR is lodged.The loan is repaid long ago and hence no offence was made out.In the fourth 16 / 28 17 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group transaction, the loan taken was already repaid.The learned Counsel for the Applicants relied onvarious judgments, which shall be discussed in the followingparagraphs.He relied on the statements of witnesses like SachinDadarkar, Purander Karkera and Rajesh Khalate.They had puttheir signatures as witnesses on some forged documents, which are 17 / 28 18 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-groupsubject matters of this FIR.All these witnesses had supported thefirst informant's case and have stated that the persons who wereimpersonated were not present when the documents wereregistered.Mr. Thakre pointed out the case of the investigatingagency that the Applicant-Baldev Singh and Jagjit Singh hadprevious case against him being C.R. No.31/2009 under Section420 read with 34 of IPC registered at EOW.The charge-sheet inthat case was filed.The Applicant-Harvinder Singh has following previouscases against him:No.575/2016 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B of IPC.[iii] Govandi Police Station, Mumbai being C.R.There was nodelay as the informant was kept in dark by the accused for a longperiod.Fraud was played at the very timeof registration of documents.Therefore, those documents werenot even validly registered documents.Forgery wascommitted for the purpose of cheating and causing loss to theinformant.

['Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT P. Ramakrishnan, J.This quarrel, led her to abandon her husband's roof.She returned, to the house of her parents Pichaikaran Moopan and Palayee, P.W. 17 and P.W. 18 respectively, in Valandur village.While Rasammal was in Valandur village, she contracted criminal intimacy with P.W. 5 Ramu, the son of the first accused.P.W. 5 was already married.He was living in Kulitalai.He is a Vellala by caste.When the parents of Rasammal insisted on her returning to her husband's house, she decided to elope with P.W. 5 Ramu for the purpose of living in some other place of their choosing.P.W. 12 is the sister of accused.P.W. 12 Sirumbayee and her paramour Ramaswami Nadar P.W. 7 were living in a cocoanut tope near Karur.When the caste of Rasammal was discovered as Harijan, P.W. 12 did not like Rasammaps continuing to stay with her.Thereupon, P.W. 5, and Rasammal went to Karur town to live.After having settled down in this manner, P.W. 5 appears to have left for Kulitalai the next day, leaving Rasammal in Karur itself.During the visit of P.W. 5 and the deceased to the house of Sirumbayee and Ramaswami Nadar and also during their arrangements to obtain a house in Karur, accused 2 Malaikolundu was present with them.Apparently, he did not object to the anangements which the couple were making for their residence at Karur.But after leaving them, accused 2 appears to have informed accused 1 about what was going on between P.W. 5 and Rasammal.Accused 1 appears to have resented her son eloping with a Haiijan woman.She is alleged to have met her daughter P.W. 12 four days after the latter had seen P.W. 5 and the deceased and taken her to task for harbouring the deceased.She is also alleged to have asked P.W. 12 as to why she did not do away with her (Rasammal) and bury her since she was-spoiling her son.But P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 did not identify the woman who was in accused 1 's company in the garden.They identified her only with reference to the saree, blouse and the jewels.On 16th March, 1968, the village Head-man, P.W. 1, of Pichampatti, on information, noticed flies swarming at a place near the railway line.The earth was dug out and the body of a woman was found buried there.P.W. 1 sent reports to the police and the Magistrate.The Circle Inspector of Police, P.W. 22, on receiving the report, came to the scene and removed the dead body.Autopsy was conducted on the body by P.W. 20 Dr. John, Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Karur.The doctor noticed that the body was in an extremely advanced stage of decomposition.The orbits were empty and the bones were exposed.There was no fracture of any bone.Uterus was decomposed.The skull was empty.The internal organs had become a semi-solid mass.This is what accused 3 stated in this statement.On Friday, my aunt, Periakkal brought a woman with her to the garden.She brought vessels in a bag.An hour later, Malaikolunthan came.You may also come.' I agreed.After dusk myself and Malaikolundhan went southwards with spade and crowbar.We kept them near the railway line and went to take food.After supper, we carried food for aunt and the woman.Periakkal called us.We both called aunt and the woman to come with us to go to Raman and took them towards south.Immediately on climbing the (rail) bund Malaikolundhan caught hold of the neck of the woman and she fell down.Aunt also held her neck.I had the nose screw also with me.I kept the vessels in the farm house, the thodu and the nose screw inside the pot.We buried the dead body in the pit and went away.He kept the spade and the crowbar near the hayrick.We three slept in the garden.Malaikolundhan went in the morning.Periakkal, accused 1, was charged and convicted of the offence of abduction in order to commit murder under Section 364, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years.Accused 3 Samiappan, brother's son of the first accused, was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to be hanged by neck till he is dead.He was also convicted under Section 201, Indian Penal Code, for concealing evidence regarding murder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years.Accused 2 was acquitted of all the charges.Accused 1 and 3 have appealed against their conviction and sentence.The sentence of death imposed on accused 3 in also before use for confirmation.The deceased Rasammal was a Harijan woman.She marreid Raman P.W. 16 about 10 years prior to the occurrence.Rasammal and her husband fell out, because he refused to get divided from his brother, as desired by her.This conversation was overheared by P.W. 8 Mookan alias Kuppuswami, who warned accused 1 that, if anything untoward happened to' Rasammal, he would be the first to disclose it.When questioned, Rasammal told P.W. 11 that accused 1 was her mother-in-law and that she was going to her husaband's place after vacating the house.The next day, P.W. 5 went to the house and when he questioned P.W. 11 about Rasammal, she told him that his mother had taken her away.The next evidence we have in this case is that of P.W. 2 and P.W. 6, who belong to Pichaigoundanur village in Karur taluk.Accused 3 who is the son of another brother of accused 1, as well as his another brother Rajalingam own a garden.On a certain day, P.W. 2 met accused 1, accused 2 and a woman aged about 25 years in the above-said garden.The woman was wearing at that time a saree and blouse, M.Os. 1 and 2, and ear-rings studded with white stones and also a gold nose-screw, which he identified as M.Os.The doctor could not give any opinion regarding the cause of death, because of the high decomposition of the body.In cross-examination, he said that death could be due to natural causes like heart failure, and consumption of poison, and that the possibility of strangulation also could not be excluded.From the circumstance that the uterus had decomposed, the doctor gave his opinion that death must have taken place more than three weeks earlier to the date of the post-mortem examination.He observed that uterus starts decomposing only after three weeks after death, but it would take three months for the uterus to get completely decomposed.The doctor stated that hyoid bone was absent.Accused 3 was arrested by the police during investigation.In pursuance of a Statement, the admissible portion of which is Exhibit P-5, Accused 3 took the police and the mediators to his house in Vasukumaranpatti and produced M.Os.4 to 7 series from a mud-pot inside his house.The three were talking.Afterwards Malaikolundhan went away.Three days thereafter my aunt told that the woman should be killed, otherwise she will take Raman, her (aunt's) son with her and go away.I refused.They ate.Then we went south to dig pit.After digging the pit we returned to the garden.We laid ourselves near the hay rick and were awake.She died after half an hour.I removed a thodu and had it with me.My aunt also left for her place.That was all happened.Then police arrested me.The learned Sessions Judge found that there was no satisfactory evidence to connect accused 2 with any offence.There was an.extrajudicial confession referred to on the evidence of P.W. 9 and P.W. 12 but it was retracted.In his opinion, so far as accused 3 is concerned, the judicial confession of accused 3, though retracted, could be considered as adequately corroborated by the recovery of M.Os.4 to 8 series from his house.Accused 3 had pleaded that M.Os. 4 to 7 belonged to his brother's wife.But the learned Sessions Judge repelled this explanation as unlikely.He also accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the identification of M.Os.4 to 7 as the jewels which could have belonged to Rasammal.On these evidence, he convicted accused 3 of murder under Section 302 Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 201, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him as mentioned above.In regard to accused the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence about her participation in murder.But he took into account the fact that she was seen by P.W. 11 taking the deceased with her from Karur.He also took into account her subsequent statement when questioned about the whereabouts of the deceased.P.W. 5 stated that, when he asked his mother as to where she had taken Rasammal, she had replied that Rasammal had accompanied her up to the bus-stand in Karur and that she thereafter refused to come with her to Kulitalai on the ground that she wanted to go elsewhere.There was also the evidence given by P.W. 7 who had questioned accused I about the whereabouts of Rasammal.At first, accused I had replied that Rasammal came with her only as far as the bus-stand, and when the witness told her that the relations of Rasammal had come and they were searching for her and that they wanted to give a complaint to the police, accused I said that she would pay hush-money if P.W. 7 could silence Rasammal's relations.But accused did not pay the hush-money but told P.W. 7 that she was going to Karur the following Wednesday.Sometime later P.W. 8 had questioned accused 1 about the whereabouts of Rasammal and accused 1 asked him why he was taking such undue interest in the matter.Thereafter, P.W. 17 got a petition, Exhibit P-9 prepared by P.W. 19 and presented it to P.W. 23 the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Kilitalai, who endorsed the petition to the Assistant Sub-Inspector for enquiry and report.The learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the evasive replies of accused 1 as to the whereabouts of the deceased and also her conduct in trying to offer hush-money to P.W. 7 for coming to the conclusion that she abducted the deceased woman with a view to murder her.As regards the cause of her death, the autopsy provides no help whatever.On the other hand, the doctor's opinion leaves the question open as to whether she died through a variety of causes including poisoning, natural causes or strangulation.The fact of death should be proved by such circumstances as render the commission of the crime certain and leave no ground for reasonable doubt; the circumstantial evidence should be so cogent and compelling that upon no rational hypothesis other than murder can the facts be accounted for.The learned author has referred, in this connection to Ram Chandra v. U.P. State .The evidence is that the deceased, accused 1 and accused 2 were seen together in accused 5's garden.From the point of circumstantial evidence the complete absence of motive and absence of evidence to prove the movements of accused 3 with the deceased at a time immediately proximate to the occurrence will normally rule out accused 3's participation in the murder.In the retracted confession, he allots to himself a minor part namely holding of the deceased woman by her legs.The jewels themselves have been identified as the jewels worn by the deceased woman.Accused 3's explanation was that the jewels belonged to his brother's wife.Apart from this circumstance, this is one of those cases where mere possession of the jewels even if they have been found to be those worn by the deceased woman cannot by itself fasten upon the possessor complicity in the murder.It is proper to expect other independent corroboration to prove the connection of the person who possessed the jewels.But such independent corroboration is lacking in this case with the main offence.For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that it is not safe to uphold the conviction of accused 3 either under Section 302, Indian Penal Code or under Section 201, Indian Penal Code.We give him the benefit of the doubt.The convictions and the sentences on accused 3 are set aside.We acquit him and direct him to be set at liberty.Regarding the part of accused in abducting the deceased woman, in the absence of satisfactory proof of murder, it will not be safe to convict accused of the offence of abduction of the deceased woman with a view to murder her, under Section 364, Indian Penal Code.What remains against her is only suspicious evidence regarding her evasive replies to people who questioned her about her movements with the deceased.There is also the evidence of P.W. 7 about her offer to pay hush-money for silencing the relations of the deceased woman.But even on this part of the case, her evidence in the committal Court is different.What she then said was : I will give you money.Don't tell anybody else.The woman is not to be found.' P.W. 7 admits that accused I never paid him any money.In the above circumstances, it is not safe to convict accused I under Section 364, Indian Penal Code.We give her the benefit of the doubt, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquit her and direct her to be set at liberty.The Criminal appeals are allowed.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 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 R.K. Batta, J.Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for non-applicant.The applicant was convicted for offence under Sections 145 and 146 of the Railways Act, 1989 and was sentenced to 20 days simple imprisonment on each count as also fine of Rs. 400/- on the first count and fine of Rs. 500/- on the second count.His substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently.The applicant challenged the conviction in the Court of Session and the Court of Session dismissed the appeal.The applicant challenges the concurrent findings of two Courts.3. Learned Advocate for the applicant has urged before me that even admitting the prosecution case in toto, no case of conviction under Sections 145 and 146 of the Railways Act, 1989 is made out.Since firstly the incident in question did not take place either in the railway carriage or upon any part of the railway, as required under Section 145 of the said Act and secondly at the time when the incident took place, it cannot be said that the Assistant Engineer was obstructed or prevented while in the discharge of his duties since at that time the Assistant Engineer was going to sit in the jeep in order to go to home.Therefore, accordingly to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the conviction and sentence on both counts is illegal in law and is required to be set aside.Learned A.P.P. on the other hand, argued that the Assistant Engineer had gone for duty to Biswa Railway Bridge and from there he was to sit in the jeep in order to go to home.This set of fact according to him would establish that the Assistant Engineer was obstructed or prevented by the applicant in the discharge of his duties.He also urged before me that even if Sections 145 and 146 of the Railways Act is not applicable, the applicant is guilty for the offence under Section 341, IPC and also under Section 506, IPC since the applicant had threatened the Assistant Engineer, Complainant (PW.1) that he should come to Akola Bazar and he would see him there.The prosecution case is that on 15-1-1996, at about 6-15 p.m., Assistant Engineer, Complainant (PW-1) was going to sit in the front seat and at that time the applicant was trying to enter the jeep which was objected by the Assistant Engineer, Complainant (PW-1).The applicant got down from the jeep and started shouting and threatened the complainant that let him come to Akola Bazar and he would see him.According to the complainant (PW.1), he had gone to Biswa Railway Station for work and after completion of work, he came near the jeep for returning back home.

['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.

The motive for the case has been narrated here under :-The accused 1 to 3 are the appellants.On 22.10.1994 PW.8, Kesavalu, gave complaint against his brother Janarthanam, A2/appellant-2 herein.In that complaint, he alleged that while he was standing behind the school, his brother Janarthanam along with A1 and A3 prevented the complainant with wooden logs and they threatened him to be killed, in the event of refusing to divide the properties.For this overt act, he gave a complaint and the case has been registered under sections 341 and 506 (ii) IPC.In that complaint, PW.8 complained against said Janarthanam, Rajasekaran and Ravishankar.The case of the prosecution in the present case is that after receiving that complaint, three constables, viz., PW.1-Janarthanam, Head Constable, PW.2-Rajasekaran, Constable and PW.3- Ravishankar, went to arrest A1 and A2 at his residence.While they were proceeding to their house, they saw A1 to A3 standing near the temple in 'Sannadhi Vasal'.When they attempted to arrest them at about 11.30 a.m., the accused abusing against the police by "nghyP!;fhu';f bjhy;iy jh';f Koatpy;iy.btl;of; bfhy;Y';flh".They took them to the police station.Thereafter A1 and A2 were sent to the hospital for treatment.In the same course of clash, the accused A1 to A3 also sustained injuries.For the injuries of PW.1, PW.3, and deceased PC Thiagarajan have been sent to the Government Hospital for their treatment.Subsequently, A1 and A2 also were sent to the same government Hospital.Doctor PW.6, gave treatment to all the above said five persons.He gave wound certificates Ex.The appeal arises out of the verdict of conviction in S.C.No.160 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai, dated 20.11.2002, convicting the appellants/accused 1 to 3 under section 332 (2 counts) IPC and 506 (ii) (2 counts) IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under section 332 (2 counts) IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under section 506 (ii) (2 counts) IPC.The sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently.P2 to Ex.On the complaint, PW.9 registered First Information Report Ex.P10 and on completion of investigation filed charge sheet under sections 147, 148, 323, 332, 307 and 506 (2) IPC against the accused.To substantiate charges against the accused, in the trial Court, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.On behalf of the accused, one witness was examined and one document was marked as exhibit.PW.1 and PW.2 are injured witnesses.PW.3 is an eye witness.PW.4, an auto driver who is also an eye witness.PW.3 and 4 speak about attack on PW.1 and 2 by the accused.PW.5 is Observation Mahazar Witness.PW.7 is Observation Mahazar Witness.PW.8 has been examined to speak about the previous case.PW.9 the then Investigating Officer, who investigate the case and filed charge sheet under sections 147, 148, 323, 332, 307 and 506 (2) IPC against the accused.After due trial in the police case, the trial court acquitted A4 and A5 and convicted and sentenced A1 to A3 as stated above.Against which the present appeal has been filed.From the evidence, it is clear that on the complaint given by the complainant, who is the brother of A2, three constables, viz., PW.1-Janarthanam, Head Constable, PW.2-Rajasekaran, Constable and PW.3- Ravishankar, went to arrest A1 and A2 at their residence.While they were proceeding to arrest, A1 to A3 were standing near the temple in 'Sannadhi Vasal'.When they attempted to arrest them at about 11.30 a.m., the accused raising some slogan against the police that "nghyP!;fhu';f bjhy;iy jh';f Koatpy;iy.btl;of; bfhy;Y';flh" .Then they came over there and arrested A1 to A3 and taken them to the police station and A1 and A2 were sent to the hospital for treatment.On reading the complaint, Ex.P1, it is seen that only Section 344 IPC alone is the ingredient found place in the earlier complaint.For this purpose, the three police officials would not have rushed to the place of the accused to arrest them.In short, the complaint does not require immediate arrest of the accused.In this appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the accused contended that the prosecution has not come forward with true version of the accused in as much as the prosecution failed to prove the injuries.The learned counsel for the accused submits that P.Ws.1,2 and the deceased are interested witnesses.Their evidence requires close scrutiny.Further submits the injuries sustained by P.Ws1, 2 and the deceased are minor injuries while comparing to the multiple injuries sustained by the accused.Thus the accused totally contradict of the appeal not distinctively and liable to be set aside.Per contra, the counsel would submit that non-explanation of the injuries on the accused has not affected the ocular evidence of P.Ws. 1,2 and the deceased.He would further add P.W.1,2 and the deceased are injured witness.The entire facts and circumstances culled out from the evidence let in on either side .Hence, the prosecution has suppressed one version of the case and has chosen to come forward with coloured version against the accused.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard on I.A.No.22376/2016, which is second application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.The appellants have been tried and convicted for an offence under Section 333/34 of I.P.C and sentenced to suffer R.I for 5 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulations.According to the case of the prosecution, the appellants herein are alleged to have assaulted the S.H.O of Thana Umraoganj and are stated to have engaged him in fisticuffs and a physical assault without weapons in the process of which the complainant/S.H.O suffered an injury on his neck which resulted in a fracture of the sixth cervical vertebra.The external manifestation of the said injury is stated to be a bruise.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting upon the merits of the appeal, I am inclined to allow I.A No.22376/2016 and suspend the remaining part of the jail sentence of the appellants and direct that they be enlarged on bail upon their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The appellants are directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 27/07/2017 and on such other dates as may be directed in this regard.Certified copy as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE julie

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard arguments.Perused case diary and material on record.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with crime No.06/2014 registered at Police Station Baihar, District Balaghat, against him for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (i) of the IPC and Section 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short the 'Act').As per the prosecution, on 29.01.2012, complainant Mohd. Ismile Khan lodged a report that his daughter/prosecutrix is missing.After the completion of inquiry in the aforesaid case, on.05.01.2014, the police registered an FIR under Section 363 of the IPC against unknown offender(s).Upon the recovery of prosecutrix, the police recorded her statement and had her medico- legal examination.Upon her statement, the police added the aforesaid charges and the applicant is made an accused of the case by the police.It is submitted by him that the prosecutrix has stated in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. that she had voluntarily gone with the applicant in the year 2012 as she was in love with him.When she had completed 18 years of age, she voluntarily married the applicant.It is also submitted by him that the applicant and the prosecutrix have got their marriage registered before the Marriage Officer, Balaghat under the Special Marriage Act. Upon these submissions, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN)

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

in short giving rise to this petition are that applicants are facing the trial before JMFC under sections 467 and 471 of IPC.Trial Magistrate closed the prosecution evidence on 21/12/2011 thereafter, recorded the evidence on behalf of defence and listed the case for final hearing.On the date of final hearing, prosecution moved an application u/s 311 of Cr.P.C to call two witnesses one is A.K. Poranik (Handwriting Expert) and another is S.K. Shukla (Investigating Officer) and the same was allowed by the JMFC.The aforesaid order has been assailed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Cr.R. No. 52/12 and the same was dismissed by him, hence this petition.

['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(08.05.2019) Applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for invoking the inherent power for quashing the charges framed by the order dated 13.02.2017 passed in Criminal Case No.17745/2015 by the Court of JMFC, Jabalpur.2. Facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that the complainant is a girl, (hereinafter referred to as 'the prosecutrix'), lodged a report in the Police Station-Gwarighat that the applicant flirting her and threatened her to kill and uttered filthy words.Police Station-Gwarighat on the basis of report, lodged an FIR and registered Crime No.175/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 509 and 354 of the IPC against the applicant and after 2 MCRC-48530-2018 completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the Court of JMFC, Jabalpur, where Criminal Case No.10840/2015 was registered.The learned Court of JMFC framed charges vide order dated 13.02.2017 against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 and 509 of the IPC.Being aggrieved by that order, the applicant filed a criminal revision before the Court of Sessions.The VII Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur after hearing both parties vide order dated 06.09.2018 dismissed the revision and affirmed the order of framing charge passed by the Court of JMFC, Jabalpur against the applicant.The applicant aggrieved by both order passed by the Court below has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for invoking the inherent powers for quashing of the charges on the ground that there was a civil dispute between the parents of the prosecutrix as well as the parents of the applicant.Civil suit was filed, in that civil dispute the decree was passed against the parents of the prosecutrix.Police never arrested the applicant during investigation.On the arrest memo, signature of the applicant was not mentioned but the learned trial Court is not paying attention towards this fact and wrongly registered a case against the applicant and framed the charges against the applicant.Therefore, the applicant prays for quashing of the 3 MCRC-48530-2018 whole criminal proceedings arising out of the Crime No.175/2015 registered in Police Station-Gwarighat, Jabalpur against applicant.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State submits that there is sufficient material available against the applicant.Applicant is the same person against whom the prosecutrix lodged a report.On the wrong facts, the applicant is trying to quash the criminal proceedings registered against him, therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.6. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties.Perused the document filed along with petition and the copy of the arrest-memo.In the trial Court, charges have already been framed.No order as to costs.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Government Advocate.The appellant made a demand of shirt of the husband of the deceased.The deceased refused to give the shirt.The appellant wanted the shirt to wear the same.The appellant abused the deceased and told that the shirt was not of his father.The deceased told him that the shirt is neither of your father nor of my father.On the aforesaid incident there were hot-talks between them.In that event, the appellant poured kerosene on the deceased and ablaze her.She cried.After hearing cry of the deceased, her neighbors PW-1 Avadh Lal and PW-2 Gorelal came there.They doused the fire.The father and mother of the deceased were informed.The father and the mother of the deceased had taken the deceased to Police Chowki, where deceased lodged the report.Deceased was treated at Primary Health Center, Simariya.Thereafter, she was referred to District Hospital, Panna.She died on 27.05.2006 during treatment.He deposed that I prepared the map Ex.P9 and signed the same.PW-8 Turtlal Rajak is witness of memorandum.He turned hostile.However, he admitted that he had put his signature on some papers.PW-3 Roshan is the father of the deceased.Superficial burn on the stomach, it was 2%.V. Superficial burn on left side of the face, it was 1%.It was opined that injury No.1 was dangerous to life.He further deposed that when the deceased came before me, sheHe further deposed that I took thumb impression of the deceased on the dying declaration.PW-12 Dr. N.K. Jain conducted autopsy of the deceased.He deposed that on 27.05.2006, I was posted at District Hospital, Panna and I performed postmortem of the deceased.I noticed that no smell of kerosene was coming from the body of the deceased.There were infected burn injuries on the body of the deceased.The percentage of burn was 55%.Burn injuries were of 3rd and 4th degree.The deceased died due to toxic shock and the infection caused by the burn injuries.PW-11 Vijay Kumar Ahirwar is the Investigating Officer.On the aforesaid date, as per the information given by the complainant Ram Kumari, I recorded first information report, which is Ex.P16 and signed the same.P24 dated 12.06.2006, particles of kerosene were found on Ex.A (tin ki dibbi), Ex.D (piece of saree of deceased), Ex.E (petticoat of deceased) and Ex.F (plastic cane).Law laid down Significant paragraph numbers (J U D G M E N T) Pronounced on : 01.02.2018The trial Court held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence of life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.200/.Prosecution case in brief is that on the date of incident, the deceased was combing her hairs.Her husband had taken belt of-:- 2 -:-After death of the deceased, police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet against the appellant.The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence.The trial Court, after trial, held the appellant guilty for commission of offence and awarded sentence as mentioned above in the judgment.Learned Amicus Curiae/counsel for the appellant has submitted that the conviction of the appellant is based on dying-:- 3 -:-It is further contended by the learned Amicus Curiae that the deceased was died near about 45 days after the incident, hence, dying declaration has last its efficacy because there is a gap of 45 days in death of the deceased and recording of dying declaration.Learned counsel further submits that as per the medical report, nowhere it is mentioned that smell of kerosene was coming from the body of the appellant.Apart from this, the prosecution witnesses deposed that the deceased catch fire when she was preparing tea.Hence, the trial Court has committed an error of law in holding the appellant guilty for commission of offence of murder beyond reasonable doubt.In alternate, the learned counsel has submitted that the deceased died after a period of more than 45 days from the incident, hence, the offence committed by the appellant would fall under Section 304 part I of the IPC.Learned counsel for the State has submitted that there is a dying declaration of the deceased, which was recorded by the doctor.Father of the deceased corroborated the fact that the deceased told him that the appellant had poured kerosene on her and ablaze her.The deceased herself lodged the FIR at the Police Chowki.Hence, there is sufficient evidence on record to convict the appellant for commission of offence of murder.-:- 4 -:-Cr.A. No.2567 of 20075. PW-1 Avadh Lal is a villager.He deposed that I was sitting at dehlan of my house, I heard cry of the deceased.She was crying 'catch fire-catch fire.' After hearing cry, I reached on the spot and noticed that whole body of the deceased received injuries.She was saying that she catch fire when she was preparing tea.The appellant was not there.Other villagers came there.He was declared hostile.PW-2 Gorelal is also a villager.He deposed that I reached at the house of the deceased after hearing that the deceased catch fire.She was laying on a quilt.He was declared hostile.PW-4 Pushpendra Singh deposed that I got information that the deceased catch fire when she was preparing tea.I had taken the deceased alongwith other family members to police station in my tractor.PW-5 Santibai deposed that when I reached on the spot, deceased told me that she catch fire when she was preparing tea.She was declared hostile.PW-6 Santosh Singh was also declared hostile.He denied the fact that any seizure was made before him.He deposed that two days before the incident, I came back from Delhi after doing work of labour.I received information that my daughter-:- 5 -:-Cr.A. No.2567 of 2007 received burn injuries.Thereafter, I, my wife and my younger daughter went to Simariya.I noticed that the deceased was laying on the earth.I asked from the deceased that how she received burn injuries.She told me that she would tell the fact later.We had taken the deceased to Police Chowki Hardua, where she had given her statement.Thereafter, we had taken the deceased to Simariya Hospital.She was referred to District Hospital, Panna, where she was admitted for one and a half months.When the deceased was giving her statement at the Police Chowki, I heard that the deceased was saying that there was quarrel between her and the appellant and the appellant ablaze her on account of that quarrel.PW-13 Dr. Om Hari Sharma deposed that I was posted, on 08.04.2006, at Primary Health Center, Simariya, District Panna.Deceased was taken by the Constable.I had examined the deceased.On examination, I noticed following injuries on her body:I. Superficial burn on both legs.-:- 6 -:-Cr.A. No.2567 of 2007 was in a speaking condition.I received a letter from the Chowki Incharge, Hardua, Police Station Simariya to record dying declaration of the deceased.On 08.04.2006, I recorded dying declaration of the deceased.On the aforesaid date, she was in a fit mental condition to give dying declaration.I asked questions from her and she answered the questions.Dying declaration recorded by me is Ex.P18-A. I signed the dying declaration.Thereafter, I signed mulahija form for medical-:- 7 -:-Cr.A. No.2567 of 2007 examination of the deceased.I recorded statements of Ram Kumari, her father and her mother.I made a request to the Medical Officer, Simariya, to record dying declaration of the deceased, which is Ex.P18 and singed the same.I recorded statements of the witnesses on 08.04.2006 and prepared spot map Ex.P19 and signed the same.I seized plain earth, oil stained earth, matchstick, one petticoat and piece of saree vide seizure memo Ex.P7 and signed the same.On the memorandum of the appellant Ex.P5, a plastic cane and a matchbox was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P6 and I signed the same.Seized articles were sent to FSL Unit, Panna.I arrested the appellant vide arrest memo Ex.P8 and signed the same.P16 is the FIR.It was recorded by PW-11 (Investigating Officer).The FIR was lodged by the deceased herself on the date of incident i.e. on 07.04.2006 at around 11 O'clock in the night.It is mentioned in the FIR that I, my husband and the appellant, who is my brother-in-law (devar), were to go to 'Kuatal Mela' and I was combing my hairs, my husband had gone in the village, my husband had taken the belt of the appellant.The appellant asked me to give a shirt of my husband to wear the same.I refused to give the same.Thereafter, he abused me.He told me that shirt was not of my father.I replied that shirt is neither of my father-:- 8 -:-Cr.A. No.2567 of 2007 nor of your father.On this account, he abused me and poured kerosene on me and ablaze me by lighting matchstick.I cried.After hearing cry, neighbors came there to rescue me.They doused the fire.My father and my mother came there and they had taken me to the police station.There is also FIR lodged by the deceased herself.In both the documents, deceased deposed that there was a quarrel between her and the present appellant, who is her brother-in-law and in that event, appellant had poured kerosene on her and ablaze her.The appellant is the brother-in-law of the deceased.There is no reason to disbelieve the dying declaration of the deceased and the FIR because the deceased has not leveled any allegation against her husband.-:- 9 -:-(vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity such as the deceased was unconscious and could never make any statement cannot form the basis of conviction.(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain all the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected.-:- 10 -:-There is FIR, which was lodged by the deceased herself at the Police Chowki.-:- 12 -:-Hence, on the cloths of the deceased, which she was wearing at the time of incident and were seized from the spot, particles of kerosene were found.Now the question is, what offence the appellant has committed? The incident had taken place on 07.04.2006 at around 3 O'clock in the evening and the deceased died on 27.05.2006 i.e. after a period of more than 45 days from the incident.The doctor PW-12, who performed postmortem of the deceased, deposed that the deceased died due to infection and-:- 13 -:-Cr.A. No.2567 of 2007 complexity of burn injuries.The deceased received 55% burn injuries.There is evidence that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant.The appellant was demanding a shirt from the deceased to wear the same.The deceased refused to give the shirt.There were hot-talks between the appellant and the deceased and in that event, the incident had happened.She received 55% burn injuries.She died due to infection and complexity of the burn injuries after a period of more than 45 days from the incident.Consequently, Appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed.-:- 15 -:-Cr.A. No.2567 of 2007

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

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

The goods including the furniture of the shop was taken to the police station where the petitioner was compelled to give an undertaking that he would vacate the shop and accordingly, the goods belonging to the petitioner were returned by the respondents.Thereafter, on 14-8- 2020, the respondent no. 3 and 5 took the petitioner in custody, and got his uncovered face photograph published in the newspapers as well as on social media, by projecting him as a hard 4 core criminal.On a complaint made to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, an enquiry was conducted and it was found that the petitioner is an innocent person having no criminal antecedents and accordingly, he was released.It is the stand of the respondents no. 1 and 2 that one person with similar name was wanted in a criminal case which was registered in the year 2011 and a reward of Rs. 5,000/- was declared by the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior by order dated 13-8-2020 and under mistaken identity, the petitioner was wrongly taken into custody.The respondent no.3 was placed under suspension and the news with regard to his suspension was duly published in the news papers.According to the respondent no. 5, he was on duty at another point, and he doesnot know anything about the unlawful apprehension of the petitioner.Whether the act of respondents no. 3 to 5 amounts to criminal act or not and whether they are liable to be prosecuted under different provisions of Indian Penal Code, as well as 52 Prevention of Corruption Act?It is submitted by the Superintendent of Police, that forcible eviction of a person from the tenanted premises is not the duty of the police and as per the preliminary enquiry report, it was found that the respondents no. 4 and 5 are prima facie guilty of forcibly evicting the petitioner from his shop.Further the respondent no.3 has also admitted in his return that vacating property is a civil dispute, and police has no jurisdiction.Further, Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Add.Shri Suresh Agrawal, Counsel for the Petitioner Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Additional Advocate General Shri Tapan Trivedi, Counsel for respondent no.3 Shri D.P. Singh, Counsel for respondents no. 4 and 5 ..............................................................................................................Further, compensation be granted to the petitioner from the respondents authorities.Award the cost of this writ petition in favor of the petitioner throughout.The matter was taken up on 2-11-2020, and arguments on the question that whether reputation/privacy/personal liberty of a citizen of India are integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India or not, and whether monetary compensation can be awarded for violation of fundamental rights or not, were heard.When the facts of this case were being considered in the light of the law of the land, then the Advocate General sought time to reconsider the action taken by the police authorities against the respondents no. 3 to 5, as according to him, the matter was handled by the police authorities in a most casual manner.Accordingly after holding that right of Privacy/reputation/dignity are integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and monetary compensation can be awarded to the victim for violation of his Fundamental Rights, this Court adjourned the matter at the request of the Advocate General for further hearing on merits of the case.The respondents no. 3 and 4 were posted as Sub-Inspector, whereas the respondent no.5 was posted as Constable in Police Station Bahodapur, Distt.The respondents no. 1 and 2 have filed their additional return.The matter is heard on merits.Although the facts of this case were already mentioned in detail in the order dated 2-11-2020, but at the cost of repetition, they are being reproduced once again from order dated 2-11-2020:The necessary facts in short are that the petitioner is a tenant in a shop.It is submitted by the Counsel for the State, that in the compliance report dated 9-11-2020, it was mentioned that the respondents no. 3 to 5 have been line-attached, but looking to the seriousness of the misconduct committed by them, today, they have been placed under suspension.As already pointed out, the incident took place in two phases, i.e, on 25-7-2020, the petitioner was forcibly dispossessed from his shop by the respondents no. 3 to 5 at the behest of the landlady and thereafter, on 14-8-2020, the petitioner was taken in custody (No arrest memo was prepared) on the pretext that a reward of Rs. 5,000 has been declared by S.P., Gwalior against him and his uncovered face photograph with news "An accused with reward of Rs. 5000 has been arrested" was also published in the news papers as well as was uploaded on social media by the police.Shri Amit Sanghi, Superintendent of Police, Gwalior during the course of hearing through Video Conferencing, made a submission that in fact he received a telephonic call from the brother of the petitioner, informing him that his brother is an innocent person, but still he has been taken into custody, and he immediately, got an enquiry done and when it was found that the respondents no. 3 and 5 have wrongly taken the petitioner in custody, then not only he ensured that the petitioner is released, but an arrangement was also made to send him to his house.This submission made by Shri Amit 6 Sanghi, Superintendent of Police, Gwalior also finds corroboration from the press notes released by the police, which have been filed by the respondents no. 1 and 2 along with the compliance report dated 20-10-2020, and news published in the Dainik Bhaskar dated 15-8- 2020 is reproduced as under :cgksMkiqj iqfyl dh ,d xaHkhj ykijokgh lkeus vkbZ gSA iqfyl 'qkdzokj dks 5 gtkj ds bukeh cnek'k v:.k iq= vkseizdk'k 'kekZ dks idMus xbZ Fkh] ysfdu idM fy;k ,d funksZ"k ;qod v:.k dksA ftl ij dksbZ vijk/k gh iathc} ugh gSA ;qod dks idMus ds ckn rLnhd rd djuk mfpr ugh le>k vkSj cgksMkiqj ds Fkkuk izHkkjh fnus'k jktiwu us okgokgh ywVus ds fy, ;qod dks vkjksih dh rjg cSBkdj QksVks f[kapok;k fQj izl s uksV Hkh tkjh djk fn;kA ;qod dk HkkbZ Fkkus es [kMk gksdj xqgkj yxkrk jgk ysfdu ,d u lquhA tc ekeyk ,lih vfer lka/kh ds laKku es vk;k rks mUgksus ,,Lkih iadt ikaMs dks Hkstdj tkap djkbZA rc irk pyk fd okLro es iqfyl ftls idM ys og funksZ"k gSA bl xaHkhj ykijokgh ij ,lih us Fkkuk izHkkjh fnus'k jktiwr dks fuyafcr dj fn;k gSA ,lih dk dguk gS fd bl rjg dh ykijokgh cnkZ'r ugh dh tk,xhA lHkh Fkkuk izHkkfj;ksa dks funsZ'k fn, gS fd vkjksih dks idMus ij rLnhd t:j djsaA News uploaded on Social Media reads as under :Xokfy;j czsfdax U;wt Xokfy;j& cgksMkiqj Fkkuk iqfyl dh cMh ykijokgh vkbZ lkeus ,d funksZ"k O;fDr dks 5000 dk bukeh crkdj lks'ky ehfM;k ij iqfyl us tkjh fd;k QksVks lfgr izsl uksV ifjtuks dh gaxkes ds ckn ,lih us fy;k ekeyk es tkap ds ckn ,lih us mi fujh{kd fnus'k jktiwr dks fd;k lLisaM cgksMkiqj Fkkuk iqfyl us funksZ"k O;fDr dks fpVQaV dk Qjkj vkjksih crk;k FkkA This prompt action of Shri Amit Sanghi, Superintendent of Police Gwalior was in consonance with the law of land and Shri 7 Sanghi showed all concerns for protection of life and liberty of an innocent person, but unfortunately, the respondents no. 3 to 5 did not show any respect for the life and liberty of a citizen of India and kept the petitioner in illegal detention for 7 hours.Whether this conduct of the respondents no. 3 and 5, was with an ulterior motive or was a bonafide mistake shall be considered in the following paragraphs.Incident dated 25-7-2020It is the allegation of the petitioner, that he is a tenant in a shop, and at the behest of the landlady, the respondents no. 3 to 5, forcibly evicted him from the shop and his belongings were taken to the police station, where he was forced to give an undertaking that he would vacate the shop and only thereafter, his some of the belongings were returned back and the remaining articles and money have not been returned.It is also alleged that during forcible eviction proceedings, the respondent no. 4 and 5 had also beaten him.The photographs of taking out the articles/belongings out of the shop, loading the same on a mini truck and the presence of respondent no. 5 on the spot have also been filed.It is not out of place to mention here that although the respondents no. 4 and 5 have filed their detailed return, but they have not denied the allegations of beating, forcible eviction by respondents no. 4 and 5, non-return of some of the belongings and money of the petitioner as well as the correctness of the photographs filed by the petitioner.The respondent no. 4, in her return, has pleaded that so far as the incident, which took place on 14-8-2020 is concerned, She was not in the town and had gone to Jhansi in connection with some other investigation.Even the petitioner has not alleged that on 14-8-2020, the respondent no. 4 was present.So far as the incident of forcible dispossession of the petitioner from his shop by the respondents no. 3 to 5 is concerned, it is the stand of the respondent no. 4 that on 25-7-2020, the landlady made an application to the respondent no. 3 seeking dispossession of the petitioner from the shop, which was marked to her.The copy of the application made by the landlady to the respondent no. 3, with his remark is reproduced as under :izfr] Jheku Fkkuk izHkkjh egksn;] Fkkuk & cgksM+kiqj ftyk & Xok0 e0iz0 fo"k; & egksn;] lfou; uez fuosnu gS] fd eSa izkFkhZ;k jkeorh vk;Z w/o Lo0 Jh ukjk;.k izlkn vk;Z mez 90 o"kZ] fu0 ikxy [kkuk frjkgk] 'kCn izrki vkJe] izkFkhZ;k dk fou; gS] fd izkFkhZ;k us viuh nqdku fdjk;s ij v:.k 'kekZ s/o Jh vkseizdk'k 'kekZ] fu0 & 75 y{e.k ryS;k] f'kans dh Nkouh y'dj] Xok0 dks 11 ekg dk ,xhzeVsa djkdj nh Fkh] ftldk ekfld fdjk;k 1400@&# nsuk r; gqvk Fkk] ,oa bldk ,xzhesaV 27-08-14 dks [kRe gks x;k Fkk] blds ckn v:.k 'kekZ ds }kjk dksbZ ,xzhesaV ugha fd;k x;k] vkSj u gh dksbZ fdjk;k fn;k x;k blls dbZ ckj nqdku [kkyh djus ds fy, cksyk x;k] ij ;s xkyh xykSp ij mrk: gks tkrk gSa] ,oa nqdku u [kkyh djus dh /kedh nsrk gS] dgrk gSa fd 9 vHkh rks nqdku ij dCtk fd;k gSa] vkSj iwjs edku ij dCtk dj ywWaxk] lu 2014 ls lu 2020 rd v:.k 'kekZ ds }kjk eq>s dksbZ fdjk;k ugh fn;k x;kA vr% Jheku th ls fuosnu gSa] fd izkFkhZ;k dh nqdku [kkyh djkdj] lu~ 2014 ls 2020 dk iwjk fdjk;k fn;k tk,A fnukad% 25-07-20 izkFkhZ;k jkeorhokbZ w/o Lo0 Jh ukjk;.k izlkn vk;Z Seal Police SI laxhrk feat fu0 ikxy [kkuk] 'kCn Station tkap dj fjiksZV izrki vkJe Xok0 Bahodapur nsosa eks0 u0 9074415152 fofiu 25-7-2020 8076988074 vUuw ;s esjs nksuks iksrs gSaIn the said undertaking also, the petitioner had specifically alleged that today, he has been dispossessed by Vipin Arya, with the help of police.On the contrary, by taking advantage of the presence of the respondent no. 4 at Jhansi on 14-8-2020, She tried to project that in fact the incident which took place on 25-7-2020 is false.It is really unfortunate, that the respondent no. 4 has tried to mislead this Court.Be that as it may be.During the course of arguments, it was admitted by the Counsel for the respondent no. 4 that on 25-7-2020, the respondent no. 4 was on duty in the Police Station Bahodapur, Distt.Gwalior, and was entrusted with the work of conducting enquiry on the application filed by the landlady (which has already been reproduced earlier).Further, the respondent no. 4 has herself filed a copy of letter dated 27-7-2020, written to her by the S.H.O., Police Station Bahodapur, Distt.Gwalior, in which it is mentioned that She had inquired the matter on 25-7-2020, and a report has been called by the Senior Police Officers, therefore, She should submit her reply.Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 submitted his report to the Senior Police Officers, in which it is mentioned that on receiving an information of ruckus, the respondent no. 4 had gone to the shop of the petitioner, and brought the belongings of the petitioner to the police station and obtained an undertaking from the Petitioner (Which has already been reproduced).The copy of letter dated 27-7- 2020 written by respondent no. 3 to the respondent no. 4 and the 11 report of the respondent no.3 to the Senior Police Officers are reproduced as under :dk;kZy; Fkkuk izHkkjh cgksMkiqj Xokfy;j dz- @20 fnukad 27-7-2020 izfr] mfu] lathrk feat Fkkuk cgskMkiqj Xok] fo"k;& Li"Vhdj.k pkgus ds lac/a k esaA @@-------------------------------@@ mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd fnukad 25@07@2020 dks vkids }kjk vkosnd jkeorh ckbZ ifRu Lo- Jh ukjk;.k izlkn vk;Z fu- ikxy [kkuk 'kCn izrki vkJe Xok- }kjk vkosnu i= ij ls vukosnd v:.k 'kekZ iq= Jh vkseizdk'k 'kekZ fuoklh 75 y{e.k ryS;k f'kUns dh Nkouh y'dj Xok- dh nqdku dk lkeku Fkkus yk;k x;k Fkk mDr laca/k esa ofj"B vf/kdkjh }kjk izfrosnu fjiksVZ pkgh xbZ gS vr% mDr tkWap esa vkids }kjk D;k dk;Zokgh dh xbZ gS mDr ds laca/k esa Li"Vhdj.k nsosA Report given by respondent no. 3 to S.P. Gwalior :dk;kZy; Fkkuk izHkkjh Fkkuk cgksMkiqj Xokfy;j dz-@ @20 fnukad& izfr] Jheku iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn;jkeorh ckbZ ifRu Lo- Jh ukjk;.k izlkn vk;Z fu- ikxy [kkuk 'kCn izrki vkJe Xok- }kjk vukosnd v:.k 'kekZ iq= Jh vkseizdk'k 'kekZ fuoklh 75 y{e.k ryS;k f'kUns dh Nkouh y'dj Xok- ds fo:) vkosnu i= fn;k x;k Fkk ftl ij ls fnukad 25@07@2020 dks ikxy [kkus frjkgs ij HkhM gksus ,oa yMkbZ >xMs tSls gkykr mRiUu gksus dh otg ls mfu- laftrk feat e; QkslZ ds ikxy [kkuk frjkgs igqWaph ,oa nksuks ikfVZ;ks ls yMkbZ >xMs dk dkj.k iwNk ftlls ork;k x;k fd fofiu vk;Z }kjk nqdku [kkyh djokdj yksfMax es lkeku Hkjok;k tk jgk Fkk ftlls dkQh fookn gksus dh fLFkfr esa mfu- lathrk feat }kjk nksuks ikfVZ;ks dks le>k;k x;k ugh ekuus dh fLFkrh dks ns[krs gq, nksuks ikfVZ;ks dks Fkkuk gktk ij e; yksfMax ds yk;k 12 x;k nksuks ikfVZ;ks }kjk edku fdjk;k ,oa iSls ds ysu nsu dk fookn gksuk ork;k ckn nksuks ikfVZ;ks dks le>kbZ'k nh xbZ ,oa nksuks ikVhZ ds }kjk vkil es vkilh le>kSrs ls jkthukek fd;k x;k ckn nksuks i{kks dk lkeatL; gksus ls nksuks ikfVZ;k viuk lkeku okil ys x;sA Fkkuk izHkkjh Fkkuk cgksMkiqjThe respondent no. 3 has filed his separate return.In his return, he has stated that it is incorrect to say that no criminal case was ever registered against the petitioner.One crime No. 839/2013 was registered in Police Station Morar, Distt.However, it is not the case of the respondent no.3, that the petitioner was wanted in a criminal case in which reward was declared against another person.It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 has a brilliant service carrier of 7 years.On 25-7- 2020, at about 15:30, the respondent no. 3 went back to his residence and at 16.46 he received a Whatsapp text message from Reserved Inspector, Gwalior Shri Arvind Dangi, which reads as under : HkkbZ lkgc cgksMkiqj Fkkus dh iqfyl esUVy gkfLiVy pkSjkgs ij ,d 13 nqdkunkj dk lkeku Hkj ds ys x;h gS] nqdkunkj dk uke v:.k 'kekZ] edku ekfyd vkSj fdjk,nkj dk fookn gS ysfdu iqfyl nqdku ekfyd ds lax feydj mldk lkeku ys x;h gS FkksMk ns[k fy;s uk ekeykAccordingly, he went to Police Station at 16:00 and by that time, the petitioner along with bag and baggage had already returned back.The respondent no. 4 gave him a copy of application dated 25- 7-2020 made by landlady and behind the back of the respondent no. 3, the respondent no. 4 had already brought the belongings to the Police Station and had already compelled the petitioner to submit an undertaking.It is further submitted that the endorsement made on the application dated 25-7-2020, made by the landlady, doesnot bear his signatures and the entire incident took place, when the respondent no. 3 was in his residence.However, the respondent no.3, has not claimed that the endorsement of entrusting enquiry to respondent no.4 is not in his handwriting.It is further pleaded in the return that the respondent no.3 is aware of the fact "that vacation of property dispute is a civil dispute and he cannot act in violation of law".So far as the incident dated 14-8-2020 is concerned, it is pleaded that on 13-8-2020, the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior had declared rewards against various persons, and reward of Rs. 5000 was declared against one Arun Sharma, son of Omprakash Sharma, resident of Sector No.02, D-97, Vinay Nagar, Police Station Bahodapur.On 14-8-2020, the respondent no. 5 informed him that the petitioner is the same person and relying on his information, the 14 petitioner was brought to the police station and since, the person against whom reward was declared, was wanted in a criminal case registered at Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, Gwalior, therefore, the verification was done by Police of Gole ka Mandir, and when it was found that the petitioner is not the person, against whom reward has been declared by the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, then he was allowed to go.However, admitted that the news with regard to the arrest of the petitioner with his uncovered face got circulated among the News Paper and Social Media.It is further pleaded that since, circular dated 2-1-2014 was in existence, therefore, the news was shared.It is further submitted that a news was also published in the news paper that the respondent no.3 has been placed under suspension on arresting an innocent person.He has also not denied the photographs filed by the petitioner, in which he is visible on the spot, when the shop was being got forcibly vacated.Thus, in absence of any denial on the part of the respondent no. 5, regarding his presence on the spot on 25-7- 2020, it is held that the respondents no. 4 and 5 went to the shop of the petitioner, and got the same vacated in an illegal manner without there being any order of the Court.In the undated report of the respondent no.3 (which has been filed by the respondent no.4 and has been reproduced), the respondent no.3, tried to mislead the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, by saying that an information was received that there was some ruckus at Pagalkhana Tiraha, therefore, S.I. Sangeeta Minj went with force.But, the respondent no. 3, in his letter dated 27-7- 2020, written to respondent no.4, had himself written that the respondent no. 4 has brought the belongings of the petitioner on the complaint made by the landlady and there is nothing in letter dated 27-7-2020, that the respondent no. 4 was sent after receiving an information of ruckus at Pagalkhana Tiraha.Further, it is clear from the application dated 25-7-2020 written by Landlady, the said 16 application was marked by the respondent no.3 to respondent no. 4 for enquiry.The Counsel for the State also could not point out as to how, the respondent no. 3 could have taken cognizance of the complaint made by the landlady.From the plain reading of the application, it is clear that She had prayed for recovery of arrears of rent as well as for eviction of the petitioner.By no stretch of imagination, the complaint filed made by the landlady can be said to have disclosed cognizable offence.Even a non-cognizable offence was not disclosed in the complaint.The entire complaint was beyond the jurisdiction of the police authorities but still cognizance of the same was taken.When a specific question was put to Shri Amit Sanghi, Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, that whether it is the official duty of the police to get the shops vacated without there being any orders of the Court, then it was rightly admitted by Shri Amit Sanghi, Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, that the police has no authority whatsoever under any law, to evict the tenants from the tenanted premises and the eviction can take place only under the decree of eviction issued by the Court of competent jurisdiction.However, it is submitted by Shri Sanghi, that the incident of 25-7-2020 took place prior to his posting in Gwalior.Even the respondent no.3, in his return has categorically stated that the matter of eviction is a civil matter and police has no jurisdiction.Although the Counsel for the respondent no. 4 relied upon 17 Section 23 of Police Act, but as a departmental enquiry is pending against the respondents no. 3 to 5, therefore, only undisputed facts and the stand taken by the respondents as well as the preliminary enquiry reports are being considered for deciding this petition.It is the case of the respondent no. 4 that it was the respondent no. 3, who had directed her to enquire the complaint made by the landlady, whereas it is the case of the respondent no. 3, that the copy of the complaint was given to him by respondent no. 4, only when he returned back to the police station at 16:00 and the endorsement made on the application thereby, directing the respondent no. 4 to enquire, does not bear his signatures.Although it is the contention of the respondent no. 3 that he was given the said application by the respondent no.4, only after he came back to the police station at 16:00, but his return is completely silent as to why he did not ask the respondent no. 4, that under whose 18 authority, the endorsement of entrusting enquiry to the respondent no. 4 was written.In absence of such pleadings, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondent no.3, and it is held that endorsement made on the application dated 25-7-2020 made by the landlady is in the handwriting of the respondent no.3 and it was the respondent no.3 who had entrusted the enquiry to the respondent no.Further, the respondent no. 3, himself has placed the copy of text message received by him on Whatsapp from Reserved Inspector Shri Arvind Dangi that the police of Bahodapur Police Station, in connivance with the landlord, has taken away the belongings of the tenant.Thus, the respondent no.3, himself has proved that the petitioner was forcibly evicted by the respondents no. 4 and 5 and since, the complaint was marked by the respondent no.3, therefore, it can be safely presumed that the entire incident of forcible eviction took place on the instructions of the respondent no.3, inspite of his admission in para 8 of his return that vacation of property is a civil dispute.The stand taken by the respondent no. 3, in para 8 of his return reads as under :"8.............. The respondent no.3 clearly knows that vacation of property dispute is a civil dispute and cannot act in violation of law."Further, a preliminary enquiry into the incident was conducted by C.S.P., Gwalior, and it was found that the respondents no. 4 to 5 are guilty of forcibly evicting the petitioner from the shop.Although the copy of the preliminary enquiry report has not been placed on record, but under the instructions of the Court, the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, has made the same available.The preliminary enquiry report dated 28-7-2020 reads as under :dk;kZy; uxj iqfyl v/kh{kd vuqHkkx Xokfy;j e-iz- dzekad@uiqv@Xok0@CL155 @20 fnukad 28@07@2020 izfr] vfrfjDr iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn;'kgj&e/; {ks= ftyk Xokfy;j fo"k;%& vkosnd v:.k 'kekZ fuoklh y{e.k ryS;k cgksM+kiqj Xokfy;j }kjk izLrqr vkosnu i= ds laca/k esaA2. &&&&00&&&& egksn;] mijksDr fo"k; esa ys[k gS fd vkosnd v:.k 'kekZ }kjk dk;kZy; esa mifLFkr ,d f'kdk;rh vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;k ftlesa mldsa }kjk Fkkuk cgksM+kiqj esa inLFk mfu lftark feat] vkj{kd vpy 'kekZ] edku ekfyd fofiu vk;Z o muds lkFk vk;s vU; yksxksa }kjk mlds lkFk ekjihV dj mldh nqdku ds lkeku dh rksM+QksM dj mfu lftark feat o vkj{kd vpy 'kekZ ds }kjk yksfMax esa nqdku dk lkeku Hkjdj cgksM+kiqj Fkkus ij ys tkus ds laca/k esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA vkosnd dh mDr f'kdk;r ds laca/k esa Fkkuk izHkkjh cgksM+kiqj ls rF;kRed izfrosnu izkIr fd;k x;k ,oa vkosnd dk dFku ys[k fd;k x;k ftlls ik;k fd& ;g fd vkosnd v:.k 'kekZ us vius dFku esa crk;k fd og fiNys djhc 7 lky ls vukosnd fofiu vk;Z fuoklh ikxy[kkuk frjkgs cgksM+kiqj ds ;gka ,d nqdku 1400@& izfrekg ds fdjk;s ij ysdj dksYM fMad o uedhu o fdjkus dk lkeku csapus dk dke djrk gS vukosnd ds ifjtuksa }kjk vkosnd ls iwoZ esa 2 yk[k :i;s m/kkj ysuk ftlds C;kt ds ,ct esa vkosnd dks nqdku dk fdjk;k nsus ls euk djuk bl dkj.k vkosnd }kjk fiNys ,d lky ls nqdku dk fdjk;k ugha nsuk rFkk fnukad 25-07-2020 dks 'kke djhc 4 cts Fkkuk cgksM+kiqj dh mfu laftrk feat] vkj{kd vpy 'kekZ o edku ekfyd fofiu vk;Z mldk HkkbZ vUuw] pkpk [ksjk vk;Z dk vU; O;fDr;ksa ds lkFk vkukA vkj{kd vpy 'kekZ ds }kjk vkosnd ls ikuh dh cksry o ehBh lqikjh ysuk ftlds iSls vkosnd }kjk 20 vkj{kd ls ekaxus ij vkj{kd vpy }kjk ds }kjk fofiu dk fdjk;s u nsus okyh ckr mlls dguk ftl ij vkosnd }kjk vkj{kd fofiu ds ?kjokyksa ls iwoZ esa bl laca/k esa ckr gks tkus dh ckr dgrs gq;s] vpy 'kekZ ds }kjk pkVk ekjuk rFkk eSMe feat ds }kjk vpy 'kekZ o fofiu vk;Z ls dgk fd nqdku ls ckgj ysdj vkus o ekjihV djus dh dgus ij vpy 'kekZ o fofiu vk;Z o muds lkFk vk;s lHkh yksxks ds }kjk ekjihV djuk o nqdku dk lkeku ckgj Qsaduk ftlls dkQh uqdlku gksuk rFkk eSMe }kjk lkeku dks yksfMax okgu esa Hkjdj cgksM+kiqj Fkkus ij ys tkuk rFkk mls >wBs gfjtu ,DV o NsM+NkM+ ds dsl esa Qalkus dh /kedh nsuk crkrs gq;s vkosnd }kjk mfu laftrk feat o vpy 'kekZ }kjk yksfMax esa Hkj x;s lkeku dh QksVks Hkh izLrqr fd, x; gS foLr`r dFku layXu gSA Fkkuk izHkkjh cgksM+kiqj ls izkIr fd, x, izfrosnu esa Fkkuk izHkkjh }kjk fnukad 25-07-2020 dks vkosfndk jkeorh ckbZ ds }kjk vukosnd v:.k 'kekZ ds f[kykQ vkosnu nsuk rFkk fnukad 25-07- 2020 dks ikxy[kkus frjkgs ij HkhM+ o yMkbZ >xMk tSls gkykr mRiUu gksus dh otg ls mfu lathrk feat e; QkslZ ds ikxy [kkuk frjkgs igqaph o yMkbZ >xMs dk dkj.k iwNus ij fofiu vk;Z ds }kjk nqdku [kkyh djokdj yksfMax esa lkeku Hkjok;k tkuk fookn dh fLFkfr ns[k mfu lathrk feat ds }kjk nksuksa ikfV;ksa le>kuk ugha ekuus ij nksuksa ikfVZ;ksa o yksfMax okgu dks Fkkus ij ysdj vkuk o edku fdjk;s ,oa iSls ds ysu&nsu dk fookn gksuk crk;k gS nksuksa ikfVZ;ksa dks le>kbl nsuk] nksuksa ikfVZ;ksa dk vkil esa vkilh le>kSrk ls jkthukek fd;k tkuk ckn nksuksa i{kksa dk lkeatL; gksus ls nksuks ikfVZ;ks dk viuk lkeku okil ys tkuk ys[k fd;k x;k gSA f'kdk;r lEiw.kZ tkap dFku vkosnd] Li"Vhdj.k mfu laftrk feat ,oa vkosnd }jk izLrqr fd, x, QksVks mfu lathrk feat ,oa vkj{kd 1644 vpy 'kekZ ds }kjk vukosnd fofiu vk;Z dk lg;ksx djrs gq;s vkosnd v:.k 'kekZ dh nqdku dk lkeku voS/k rjhds ls yksfMax esa Hkjdj Fkkus ij ykuk ik;k x;k gS tksfd mifujh{kd lathrk feat ,oa vkj{kd 1644 vpy 'kekZ Fkkuk cgksM+kiqj ds }kjk vius inh; vf/kdkjksa dk nq#i;ksx djrs gq;s iqfyl lsok dh 'krksZ dk mYya?ku fd;k tkdj iqfyl dh Nfo dks /kwfey djus dh d`R; fd;k x;k gSA izfrosnu mfpr dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr gSA layXu&vkosnd dk vkosnu i= e; QksVks Fkkuk izHkkjh dk izfrosnu e; izi= ukxsUnz flag fldjokj uxj iqfyl v/kh{kd vuqHkkx Xokfy;jThus, it is clear that although the complaint/application dated 25-7-2020 did not disclose commission of any cognizable offence, 21 but instead of directing the landlady to approach the Civil Court seeking eviction of the petitioner, the respondent no. 3, immediately usurp the powers of the Civil Court, and directed the respondent no. 4 to enquire into the allegations of non-payment of rent and non vacating of shop by the petitioner.Thereafter, without wasting even a single minute, the respondents no. 4 and 5 went to the shop of the petitioner, and after dispossessing him forcibly, his belongings were brought to the police station, where an undertaking was obtained from the petitioner, and only thereafter, he was allowed to take back his belongings from the Police Station.Thus, the manner in which the petitioner was evicted from his shop in an illegal manner, it appears that the respondents no 3 to 5 took contract from the landlady to get the shop vacated, which is an alarming situation and cannot be ignored by the Court.Incident dated 14-8-2020The admitted facts are that a reward of Rs. 5,000/- was declared by Superintendent of Police, Gwalior on 13-8-2020, against 23 one Arun Sharma, son of Omprakash Sharma, resident of Section No.2, D-97, Vinaynagar, Police Station Bahodapur, Distt.Gwalior, whereas the petitioner is Arun Sharma son of Omprakash Sharma, resident of Laxman Talaiya, Near Asmani Mata Temple, Kapate Wali Gali, Bahodapur, Distt.As the brother of the petitioner had already approached the S.P., Gwalior, therefore, the respondent no.3 was aware that the residential address of the petitioner is different from that of the person, against whom reward has been declared by S.P., Gwalior.From the said order, it is clear that reward against one more person, namely Avinash son of Ashok Upadhyay resident of Sector 3, behind Electricity Office, Vinay Nagar, Police Station Bahodapur, Distt.Gwalior, was also declared and he was also the resident of an area falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Bahodapur, then why instructions were issued to trace out Arun Sharma only and why not Avinash son of Ashok Upadhyay also? Thus, it is clear that Arun Sharma (Tenant) was unlawfully taken into custody with malice and in utter misuse of the official position.Further, the return of the respondent no.3, is completely silent on the question of timing of sending press release to I.T. Cell, Superintendent of Police, Gwalior.Further, it is the stand of the respondent no.3 himself, that since, the person against whom, the reward was declared was wanted in a crime registered at Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, and after due verification by Police of Gole Ka Mandir, the petitioner was released, but has not clarified that why the respondent no. 3, released the press note and forwarded the same to the I.T. Cell, Superintendent of Police, with uncovered face of the petitioner by branding him as "An accused with reward of Rs. 5000", even prior to verification.However, the Counsel for the respondent no. 3, could not point out any thing from the then existing circular, to show that the police officers were given unfettered right to declare any innocent person as a "an Accused against whom reward has been declared" and release the press note with his uncovered face photograph, even without due verification.Thus, it is clear that now the respondents no. 3 to 5 are trying to indulge themselves in mud sledging against each other, however, the fact of the case is that while doing so, they themselves have disclosed certain inculpatory facts which were suppressed by the respondents no. 1 and 2 in their return.Further, Additional Superintendent of Police, Gwalior has also conducted a preliminary enquiry.Further, the Add.Superintendent of Police, City (Center), Gwalior did not even try to verify that whether the respondent no. 5 was on his duty in the police station or was on duty at somewhere else.It is fairly conceded by the Counsel for the respondent no.5, that as per the duty Rojnamcha Sanha, the respondent no. 5 should not have been in the police station at the time of photo session.Further, it is the stand of the respondent no.3, that it was the respondent no.5, who had given an information that the petitioner is the same person, against whom a reward of Rs. 5000 has been declared by the Superintendent of Police.Thus, it is clear that inspite of the best efforts by the respondents no. 3,4, and 5, as the petitioner had not handed over the vacant possession of the Shop to the landlady, therefore, the petitioner was taken into unlawful custody on 14-8-2020 at 13:56 and was kept in the police station unlawfully till 21:37 and was released only after the intervention of the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior and in the meanwhile, the photograph of the petitioner was circulated amongst Social Media as well as Print Media by projecting him as under :ikap gtkj :i; dk bukeh /kks[kk/kMh dk vkjksih idMk x;kAAnother important aspect of the matter is that according to the preliminary enquiry report prepared by the Add.Superintendent of Police, City (Center), Gwalior, the petitioner was brought to the Police Station Bahodapur, Distt.Gwalior on 14-8-2020 at 13:56 and was kept till 21:37, but for the reasons best known to the respondents no. 3 and 5, the petitioner was not formally arrested.Further, the respondent no. 3 has tried to shred his responsibility by stating that he had acted on the information given by the respondent no.5, but the said stand of the respondent no. 3 cannot be accepted because, even if the stand of the respondent no.3 is accepted, but still it cannot be said that he had acted in good faith.The word "Good Faith" has been defined in Section 52 of I.P.C., which reads as under :It is not the case of the respondent no.3, that before and after taking the petitioner in custody and before releasing the press note with news "An accused with reward of Rs. 5000 has been arrested" with uncovered face of the petitioner, he had acted with due care and attention.So far as the registration of two criminal cases against the petitioner is concerned, the Counsel for the respondent no.3, could not point out that if any criminal case has been registered against a person, then the police in an illegal manner, and without there being 39 any allegation in a particular case, can project him as a "An accused with reward of Rs. 5000" and can publish his uncovered face in the print as well as social media.The respondent no.3 has filed a copy of the charge sheet filed by the police in crime No. 173/2913 registered at Police Station Heeranagar, Indore.The only restriction allowed as a general principle of law common to all legal systems is the period of 24 hours post arrest on the expiry of which an accused must mandatorily be produced in a court so that his remand or bail can be judicially considered.It is clear that after taking the petitioner in unlawful custody, the respondents no. 3 and 5 did not waste a single minute in sending the press note with photograph to I.T., Cell, Office of S.P. Gwalior.Although the Add.Thereafter, the respondent no.3 moved an application for revocation of his suspension on 28-8-2020, and on the very same day, his suspension order was revoked.Thus, it is clear that after taking an application from the respondent no.3 for revocation of his suspension, the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior revoked his suspension on the very same day and the chapter was closed.Considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the respondent no. 5 and Shri Amit Sanghi, S.P., Gwalior.However, Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Additional Advocate General submitted that a specific circular restraining the police from parading the accused persons in general public shall be issued and accordingly, after the conclusion of hearing, he supplied a copy of order dated 26- 11-2020 issued by the Police Headquarters, directing that no parading shall be done in general public.The said order dated 26-11-2020 is taken on record.Let a copy of this order be sent to Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt), Gwalior immediately for necessary action and compliance.G.S. Ahluwalia Judge Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA ARUN KUMAR MISHRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=51f931b13b82ad5df5aefb2200fa24abe6935164546dbcd5c17c43c78b5ee233, cn=ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2020.12.02 17:43:45 +05'30'

['Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The appellant has been held guilty for commission of offence Cr.A. No.1675 of 2005 2 punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and he has been awarded a sentence of RI 10 years and fine of Rs. 5000/-.2. Deceased Indramani Singh committed suicide on 31.07.2003 by hanging.He was working as Middle School Teacher at village Etma.He was assigned duty to identify the persons living below poverty line.Mr. K.S. Chandel was supervisor of the work.It is alleged that the present appellant had used undue force on the deceased to add the names of certain persons in the list and due to the aforesaid act, deceased committed suicide by hanging.3. PW-1 - Kamlesh Singh, who is the brother of the deceased, deposed that the deceased was his brother and he committed suicide by hanging on 30 th August, 2003 and I lodged the FIR at the police station.Deceased returned to his house at 8 or 9 O'Clock in the evening.He had taken his meal.The family members, next day came to know that deceased had committed suicide.The wife of the deceased was living separately for the last three-four years.PW-2 - Arun Kumar, who is the son of the deceased, deposed that his father used to harass his mother after drinking liquor, hence, he alongwith his mother were living separately for the last three years.(Pronounced on :25.10.2016) Per S.K. Gangele, J.Appellant and another person Kamleshwar Singh Chandel (K.S. Chandel) were prosecuted for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Panel Code.The trial Court acquitted the accused K.S. Chandel.PW-3 - Dharmendra Singh deposed that deceased was Cr.A. No.1675 of 2005 3 working with him as Teacher.His duty was assigned to identify the persons living below poverty line at village Shivgarh and Etma of Gram Panchayat Etma.Mr. K.S. Chandel was the supervisor.Mr. Indramani came on 30th July to deposit the record at Deosar, however, the record was incomplete, so, he returned back.Deceased had handed over him the list of the persons living below poverty line and requested him to get it verified the same by the Executive Officer.On the next day I came to know that the deceased had died.PW-6 - Heeralal deposed that the duty of the deceased was assigned to identify the persons living below poverty line at village Etma.His duty was also assigned with the deceased.The appellant, who had posed himself as Incharge Supervisor, directed the deceased and him to deposit the list in block office.Thereafter, the appellant posed himself as K.S. Chandel and told them that the record is incomplete and directed them to complete the record.Deceased had told him that he was distraught and his record be deposited.He further deposed that the deceased had also apologized with the action " " and thereafter, deceased returned to his house and next day I came to know that deceased had died.Cr.A. No.1675 of 2005 4PW-8 - Dr. C.S. Singh, who is the doctor who conducted the postmortem.PW-12 - Ramesh Chandra Bansal is the Investigating Officer.The substantive evidence, on which conviction is based is of PW-7 - Jagbandan Singh.In the present case, evidence of PW-7 is that the present appellant himself posed as Supervisor and he had directed the deceased to correct the record and the list was not accepted.The deceased was weeping and he had apologized in front of appellant.There is no evidence that the present appellant had instigated the deceased or said the deceased to commit suicide.Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.

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

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

Mustafa Khan have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14/12/07 at about 8.25 p.m., Afaq Ahmad (PW3) informed at Police Station Budhar that a suit pertaining to land dispute was pending between him and his uncle Sattar at SDM Court, Sohagpur.At 8 a.m., when he was going to answer the call of nature, he saw that respondents were irrigating his field and planting bushes of Barahmasi.Upon his objection, respondent no.1 gave a Tangia blow on his head due to which he fell on the ground and respondent nos. 2 and 3 assaulted him with Dandas.Upon his shouts, his brother Israr (PW8), Anwar (PW4), Ishaq (PW9) and Jagannath (PW10) came on the spot and intervened.Upon the aforesaid report, Crime No.687/07 was registered in respect of the offence punishable under Section 307/34 and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Learned Government Advocate submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and deserved to be set-aside.Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Government Advocate, we have gone through the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court.After appreciation of entire evidence on record, the trial Court found that all the respondents along with their mother Kaleeman Bi and sister Sahina Bi had also sustained injuries as per corresponding MLC reports (Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/5).At the time of incident when the respondents along with their mother and sister, were carrying out agricultural work in their field, complainant party reached on the spot and entered into a brawl with them, in which respondents and their mother and sister also received injuries.These injuries have not been explained by the prosecution.Therefore, if some injuries were caused to complainant party, then certainly respondents were entitled to get the benefit under the right of private defence of property.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.The application for grant of leave to file appeal, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.

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

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

2.The writ petitioner pursuant to the notification issued forrecruitment to the post of Grade II Police Constable participated in theprocess of selection.The writ petitioner had successfully passed in thewritten examination and thereafter participated in the physical eligibilitytest, endurance test and medical examination.During the verification of thecharacter and antecedents of the writ petitioner, the respondents found thatthe writ petitioner was an accused in a criminal case in Crime No.57 of2009, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 506(ii) IPC.Even during the process of selection, the criminal case against the writpetitioner was pending.Since the name of thewrit petitioner was removed from the list of the accused, his case should beconsidered for appointment to the post of the Grade II Police Constable.4.The learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of therespondents states that the writ petitioner, no doubt was provisionallyselected for appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable for theyear 2009 ? 2010, after passing the written examination, physical measurementand physical efficiency test and also medical test.Therefore, the candidature of the writ petitioner hadbeen rejected.5.The counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent and therelevant paragraphs are extracted as hereunder :-The order of rejection was issued based on the rule 14 (b) of theSpecial Rules for Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Services as amended in G.O.Ms.No.101 Home(Pol-IX) Department, dated 30.01.2003, no person shall be eligible for appointment to the service unless he satisfies the appointingauthority as follows:Entering into the police service required a candidate to be of goodcharacter, integrity and clean antecedents.In fact, even his privatelife must adhere to high standards of probity and propriety, higher thanthose deemed acceptable for others.We make no order as to costs of this appeal."Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.However, thereshall be no order as to costs.2.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District.3.The Inspector of Police, Ahanakkottai Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original for direction to the first respondent to pay a fair and just amount as compensation for the malicious and mischievous arrest, detention and prosecution and further direction ordering any other relief as this Honouroable Court may consider fit and proper in the circumstances of this matter.The petitioner supporting his direction petition, has filed an affidavit in his name.The petitioner further states that the terrorizing tactics of the second respondent has put him to grave suffering due to the custody for 30 days and a 12 months period of facing the trial.Thus, he has been forced to shoulder the stigma as an accused for a period of 18 months.Hence, the petitioner is approaching this Court for making the first respondent/State of Tamil Nadu, accountable for its callous functioning and unconcerned approach when his human rights violations by the police were visible and reported in the press and other media.Thus the petitioner contends he is entitled for monetary compensation and hence is placing the materials substantiating his claim.The petitioner states that he is a proud Indian Citizen and supporter of Srilankan Tamils and has never attempted to do any anti-National activity or help an unlawful organisation as alleged by the respondents.The petitioner states that he used to attend meetings in Periyar Thidal and got introduced to Mr.Eelavendan, a Srilankan Tamil refugee who is residing in Chennai and Mrs. Malini Devi Rasanayagam, an Australian Citizen who is the wife of a leading Orthopedic Surgeon.Malini Devi Rasanayagam is a Tamilian, originally hailing from Srilanka and is settled in Australia.Upon seeing the news reports of Mrs. Malini Rasanayagm's meeting with the Chief Ministier, as she had donated Rs.50,000/- to Chief Minister's Relief Fund, the petitioner decided to help Mrs.Malini Rasanayagam when she wanted to provide medical help to Srilankan Tamil refugees staying in Tamil Nadu.She had requested the petitioner to enquire the prices of certain medicines by providing a list of medicines to be bought for organising a series of medical camps and to run a nursing home for serving the Tamil refugees at the petitioner's premises.It was subsequently requested by the second respondent to report for an enquiry with regard to the procurement of medicines for unlawful purposes.The petitioner appeared on 08.02.1997 before the second respondent and explained the said reason for the visits to medical shop.Subsequently, he was arrested.The learned Magistrate recorded his statement and remanded him.He was released on bail on March 7, 1997, thus he had been kept in jail for a period of one month.The petitioner submits that the charge sheet was filed by the second respondent on 14.12.1997 and the first respondent has also accorded sanction for prosecution through his letter Ms.No.1768 dated 05.12.1998, even though his name was not mentioned in the First Information Report filed by police.The matter was taken up as C.C.No.7493 of 1997 before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate at Saidapet and judgment pronounced on 08.09.1998, acquitting him of all the charges.Further, the petitioner in support of his case has filed 15 documents.The prosecution case had miserably failed against the petitioner.The first respondent had filed the counter statement and denied all the allegations of the petitioner.

['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']

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