Datasets:

Fawazzx

/

full

like 0

This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.Applicant found the prosecutrix alone in the road caught hold her from back side and pressed her breast and laid down her on the ground.On screaming, her brother rushed to the spot, then applicant fled away from the spot.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has opposed the bail application.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge ashish Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Date: 2019.07.25 11:12:51 +05'30'

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

1 MCRC-12607-2020 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-12607-2020 (LEKHRAJ Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 3 Indore, Dated : 15-07-2020 Heard through Video Conferencing.Shri Nilesh Dave, Advocate for the applicant.Smt. Archana Kher, Advocate for State.This is the first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail by the applicant.The applicant is being implicated in Crime No.496/2019, registered at police station Palasia District Indore, for the offence punishable under Sections 307(2), 370(3) and 370(k)(2), 346, 201, 120B and 34 of IPC, as also under Section 3, 4, 6 and 7 of PITA Act and under Section 22/38 of M.P. Excise Act.The facts of the prosecution story are that on 1.12.2019, on the basis of written complaint given by one Harbhajan Singh that owner of Lokswami News Paper Jitu Soni is running an illegal bar and restaurant called My Home, police raided the place and rescued as many as 67 girls from My Home.In the application it has been mentioned that the applicant was barely an instrument player and trumpet, dholac and cube have been recovered from him and he is not involved in trafficking of the girls as per prosecution story.Per contra, learned counsel for the State has submitted that even as a musician the applicant drew his earning from the tips showered upon the girls dancing before the musical band and applicant was instigator and conspirator in trafficking of the women.The case diary was perused.At page No.199 one of the girl has stated that she was compelled to perform obscene dance in indecent dresses and Lekhraj and other associates of the band used to assist Jitu Soni, the owner of the hotel and the musicians would keep a part of the tips which customers used to showered on dancing girls.Similarly, the statements of other rescued girls at pages referred above was seen.Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant was barely a music instrument player and was paid by the hotel for performing on musical instruments.However, there is no written documents showing that applicant was so paid by hotel authorities.Learned counsel further submits that there is no evidence to show that applicant used to assist the main accused persons, that the applicant was barely a music instrument player and even it is is assumed that he used to accept the part of tips showered upon the girls, such act would not attract Section 370 of IPC as also provisions of PITA Act. He has pointed out to the definition of Section 370 of IPC which reads as under :-370 of IPC.Trafficking of Person - (1) Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation, (a) recruits, (b) transports, (c) harbours, (d) transfers, or (e) receives, a person or persons, by -First.- using threats, or Secondly. - using force, or any other form of coercion, or Thirdly.- by abduction, or Fourthly.- by practicing fraud, or deception, or Digitally signed by Shailesh Sukhdev Date: 16/07/2020 20:39:30 3 MCRC-12607-2020 Fifthly.- by abuse of power, or Sixthly.- by inducement, including the giving or receiving of payments or benefits, in order to achieve consent of any person having control over the person recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received, commits the offence of trafficking.Learned counsel thus submits that applicant was barely music instrument player was not involved in conspiracy to recruit, transport, harbour, transfer or receive of the girls found to be rescued at My Home.As the allegation against the applicant is that he would receive tips showered on dancing girls and the allegation is not that he received any part of amount from the act of prostitution indulged in by any of these girls.Learned counsel submits that the provisions of PITA Act would be attracted against the applicant only if the above situation could be shown against the applicant.Learned counsel for the State as already stated has opposed the bail on the ground of rescued ladies have stated that the applicant used to assist the owner of My Home namely Jitu Soni.It has not been shown by the prosecution as to how the applicant assisted Jitu Soni apart from plying musical instruments.Playing of musical instrument per se would make him a conspirator of trafficking appears to be farfetched prima facie.In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and after perusing the material available against the applicant, a case is made out for grant of bail to the applicant.Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the application for grant of bail is allowed and it is directed that upon applicant's Digitally signed by Shailesh Sukhdev Date: 16/07/2020 20:39:30 4 MCRC-12607-2020 furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, the applicant shall be released on bail for his regular appearance before the concerned trial court on all the dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the said court, till the completion of the trial.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court for its compliance.as per rules.(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE SS/-Digitally signed by Shailesh Sukhdev Date: 16/07/2020 20:39:30

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

C.R.M. 11174 of 2018 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 06/12/2018 in connection Panskura P.S. Case No.308 of 2018 dated 25/06/2018 under Sections 448/323/325/307/379/427/506 gd /34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Sabyasachi Roy @ Babu & Anr.....petitioners.Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee Mr. Bhaskar Hutait Md. G.N. Imrohi ...for the petitioners.Ms. Faria Hossain Ms. Baisali Basu ...for the State.The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Panskura P.S. Case No.308 of 2018 dated 25/06/2018 under Sections 448/323/325/307/379/427/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners claim that the present complaint was lodged as a counterblast to the petitioners' previous complaint.The State produces the case diary and refers to the medical report.The allegation is that the petitioners attacked the victim with an iron rod which caused a fracture.Considering the long-standing enmity between the parties and the fact that the petitioners have been identified, there is no need to take the petitioners into custody at this stage as long as they cooperate with the investigation.In addition, the petitioners will also report to 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 on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.)

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The deceased is one Mahadevappa aged about 30 years.He was killed onthe Musky-Mudgal Road on 28.10.95 at about 8.30 am in the morning.SmtMallamma (PW-1) is the wife of the deceased.The deceased Mahadevappaalong with his wife Mallamma PW-1 and mother CW-5 had been residing inthe house situated in his land; on the outskirts of Bailagudda village.Pampanna (PW-2) and Erappa (PW-3) are the brothers of the deceased andthey were both residing in the village habitation of Bailagudda.The land ofthe deceased Mahadevappa was adjoining the land of the accused No.1Yamanappa.That is to say, they were possessing contiguous lands.Deceased Mahadevappa had seriously objected to the accused No.1Yamanappa digging a borewell near his own borewell and thereafter, thedifferences arose between the family of the accused No.1 Yamanappa andthe family of the deceased.Since then, there used to be some kind of frictionbetween the members of their two families.While this was so, on theevening of 27.10.95, the cattles belonging to the accused No.1 Yamanappa 3 entered into the land of the deceased Mahadevappa for the purpose ofgrazing and in that regard, there was a verbal quarrel between the wife ofthe deceased (PW1) and the wife of the accused No.1 namely Sharanamma.This incident was reported by PW-1 to the deceased on his return to thehouse.Thereafter, on the following morning, at about 8.30 am, after givingthe grains (Bajra) to one Muniyappa (PW-4) who had come to the house ofthe deceased to collect the grains, the deceased Mahadevappa wasproceeding along with PW-4 from his house in order to go to Musky, withthe intention to lodge a complaint with the police in respect of the incident,which occurred on the previous day evening.When the deceasedMahadevappa was so proceeding along the road near a school, all theaccused persons came in a group, armed with various weapons like clubs,axes and spears and after picking up a quarrel with the deceased, theycommitted assault on, him.Accused No.1 Yamanappa stabbed the deceasedwith a spear.The accused No.6 dealt axe blows on the deceased.ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench ofthe Karnataka High Court disposing of two criminal appeals i.e. one byaccused Yankappa (hereinafter described as `A1') who was convicted foroffence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IndianPenal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and the other field by the Statequestioning conviction by the trial Court for offence punishable underSection 304 Part I IPC read with Section 149 IPC in respect of A1 to A6.Sentence of 3 years is imposed.According to State, they should have been convicted also under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.Appellants 7to 15 were acquitted by the trial Court which was challenged in the State'sappeal.By the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the appeal filedby Yankappa (A1) but allowed the State's appeal to the extent that A2 to A8were convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.The acquittal inrespect of rest as was recorded by the trial Court was upheld by the HighCourt.Factual scenario giving rise to the trial of the accused persons is asfollows:The accused No.1 Yamanappa and 14 others were tried before theTrial Court on charges under Sections 143, 147, 148 & 302 read withSection 149 IPC.The Trial Court convicted the accused No.1 Yamanappaunder Section 302 read with 149 IPC and the accused Nos. 2 to 6 underSection 304 Part I read with 149 IPC.The rest of the accused persons viz.the accused 7 to 15 were acquitted of all the charges framed against them.The accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay afine of Rs.10,000/- u/s 302 IPC and the accused Nos. 2 to 6 were sentencedto undergo RI for three years and fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 304 2 Part-I read with Section 149 IPC.The accused No.1 filed an appeal againsthis conviction and sentence in Crl.The State alsopreferred an appeal in Crl.Appeal No.553/97 against an order of acquittalof the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.The accusedNos.2 to 6 did not prefer any appeal against their conviction and sentence.The othersviz.accused No.4 Kidiappa, accused No.7 Ayappa and accused No.8Hanumantha assaulted the deceased with clubs.Thereafter, the womenaccused No. 13 Sharanamma, accused No. 11 Garudamma, accused No.10Hanumavva, accused No.12 Fakiravva and accused N0.14 Shivammadropped stones on the deceased and so also one Kumarappa brother of 4 Sharanamma and son-in-law of Durgappa.As a result of the assaultcommitted by these accused, the deceased had sustained bleeding injurieson his head and legs.The complainant Erappa (PW-3) and Pampanna (PW-2), the brothers of the deceased, Mallamma (PW-1), the wife of thedeceased and one Shekara Gowda (PW-6) had intervened to rescue thedeceased.But they were not successful in preventing the accused fromcommitting the assault on the deceased.Thereafter, before the deceasedMahadevappa could be shifted to the hospital for treatment, he died on thespot.The PSI PW-17 who was on village rounds came to the spot at about11 am and recorded the statement of Erappa (PW-3) which is as per Ex.P.1and treated the same as the FIR.On the basis of such FIR Ex.P.1, theinvestigation was taken up and on completion of the investigation, thecharge sheet was laid against the 15 accused persons.Of them, PWs 1 to 4 & 6 claimed tobe eye witnesses to the occurrence.PW-5 was also examined as an eyewitness, but he did not support the prosecution case in its entirety.After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.As theaccused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held.The trial Court, as notedabove, held A1 to A6 guilty of different offences as noted above.A7 toA15 were acquitted.The High Court found that the conviction of A1 was inorder.The conviction of A2 to A6 was made under Section 302 read withSection 149 IPC.Similar was the case in respect of A7 and A8 who wereacquitted by the trial Court.The High Court gave the following reasons for its conclusions:"Therefore in our view the acquittal of the Accused Nos.9 to 15 is concerned warrants no interference in the appeal filed by the State.In so far as the other accused viz., Accused Nos.1 to 8 are concerned, there is consistent evidence of all the eye-witnesses, whose presence at the spot cannot be doubted, that they conjointly assaulted the deceased and caused his death.It is no doubt true that a reading of the evidence of PW-2 alongwith the evidence of PW-4 would create some doubt about the presence of PW-2 at the time of the actual occurrence.But there is absolutely no reason to doubt the presence of PWs.1, 3, 4 and 6 at the spot when the incident in question had occurred.The evidence against the Accused Nos.l to 8 is overwhelming.It consists of several eye-witnesses who saw the assault in the broad day light and who knew all these accused persons.There is no doubt that all these accused persons A1 to A8 joined in the assault committed on the deceased when he was near the gaddige with the various weapons and they inflicted such serious injuries to the deceased that he had died on the spot.They must have known that at the least, they were causing injuries, which were likely to cause death and if death has resulted, they were guilty of murder.In such cases, it is immaterial by 6 whose weapon the fatal injury is inflicted.In our opinion all these 8 accused persons Al to A8 ought to have been convicted for murder and if they have been so convicted of murder, we would not have interfered.It has to be stated that when several persons jointly attack the deceased with various weapons resulting in the death of the deceased, they are all equally guilty even though it may not be possible to prove which of them actually inflicted the fatal blow.In the instant case, the learned trial Judge was not justified in not convicting the Accused Nos. l to 8 under Section 302 IPC either with the aid of Section 149 of with Section 34 IPC.To that extent, the order of the trial Court needs to be modified.We are aware that we are interfering with the order of acquittal under Section 302 IPC, but we think interference in this case is imperative and hesitation to interference will lead to a miscarriage of justice."In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellants submittedthat the trial Court should not have found any of the accused persons guilty.The evidence of PWs.1, 3, 4 and 6 should not have been relied uponparticularly when PW5 did not support the prosecution and PW2 wasdisbelieved by the trial Court.We find that the reasoning indicated by the High Court as quotedabove suffers from no infirmity so far A1 to A6 are concerned.The trial 7 Court had committed grave error in holding that Section 302 was notapplicable to them.Therefore, the High Court has rightly convicted eachA1 to A6 in terms of Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.So far asappellants A7 and A8 are concerned, the reasoning indicated by the trialCourt for acquitting them does not suffer from any infirmity.That being so, while upholding the judgment of the High Court weallow the appeal so far as it relates to A7 and A8 i.e. the appellants.The bail bonds shall standdischarged.The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

CRM No. 8032 of 2018 Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 14th September, 2018 in connection with Naihati Police Station Case No. 472 of 2018 dated July 6, 2018 under Sections 417/ 376/341/323/354B/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Sunit Kumar Paul ... Petitioner Md. Sabir Ahmed Mr. Hillol Saha Podder ..for the Petitioner Mr. Rudradipta Nandy .. for the State Mr. Sujoy Sarkar Mr. Asis Dutta .. for the defacto complainant The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Naihati Police Station Case No. 472 of 2018 dated July 6, 2018 under Sections 417/ 376/341/323/354B/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The State produces the case diary which reflects that the primary allegations against the petitioner are that he sexually exploited the defacto complainant against the promise of a job and also obtained money from her without intending to return the same.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2

['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ORDER W. Broome, J.The applicant, Sri Sukhdeo Sharma, an Advocate practising in Ghaziabad (district Meerut) has been convicted by a first class Magistrate of Ghaziabad for an offence under Section 448 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, His conviction and sentence have been confirmed in appeal by the II Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut.The prosecution story in brief runs as follows.At about 10 p.m. on 4-8-1959, Sri M. Sayeedullah, S.D.M. Ghaziabad, returned home with his wife after visiting a friend and found the door of his office room open, with the light on.A man came out and went away without replying to any questions, and then the accused applicant also came out of the room, wearing a bush shirt and green striped pyjama trousers.The Magistrate asked him what he was doing in the office and he replied that he had brought some rulings.Sri Sayeedullah then enquired why he had come at such a late hour, but the applicant gave no further reply and hurriedly jumped down from the verandah and drove away in a car that was standing outside the gate.When the Magistrate went into his office he found that a red cloth bundle containing the file of a certain case under Section 145 Cr. P.C. in which the applicant had been appearing for one of the parties, had been opened and the file looked into; and suspecting foul play, he at once informed the police.The accused applicant has admitted practically all the facts alleged by the prosecution; the only item of any importance that is denied by him being the suggestion that Sri Sayeedullah asked him why he had come so late in the night and that he went off without replying to this question.He had been appearing in the court of Sri Sayeedullah along with Sri H. C, Mathur, an Advocate of Meerut, for one Ram Bilas in a case under Section 145 Cr.P.C. In the course of the arguments in that case, which were concluded on 4-8-1959, 17 rulings were cited on behalf of Ram Bilas; and the Magistrate, while fixing 6-8-1959 for judgment, asked the counsel to send him these rulings.Accordingly at about 9.45 p.m. that very night the accused, accompanied by his servant, drove in his car to Sri Sayeedullah's house with 11 of the rulings which he had been able to trace out.He was unable to take the remaining 6, as those had been cited by Sri H. C. Mathur and he had omitted to note down the references.On arriving at the house, he found that Sri Sayeedullah was out, but the orderly allowed him to enter the office room and the 11 books that he had brought were deposited there by his servant.While in the office he noticed the bundle containing the file of the Section 145 case and it occurred to him that the Magistrate had noted down the references to the 6 missing rulings; and in order to find out these references he opened the bundle and started going through the file.At this juncture the Magistrate and his wife returned home and the accused was so embarrassed at being found in the office room at that late hour in inadequate attire that he took his departure without waiting to give any proper explanation to Sri Sayeedullah for his conduct, apart from telling him that he had brought some rulings.It is asked, for example, why the accused went to the Magistrate's house so late at night, why he was so inadequately dressed, why he did not reply to the Magistrate's second question and why he jumped down from the verandah instead of walking down the steps.All these points however have been satisfactorily explained by the accused applicant and none of them seems to me incompatible with the story he has put forward in defence.He was understandably eager to supply the Magistrate with the cited rulings as soon as possible, before the judgment was written, and so he decided to take the books to the Magistrate's house that very night, rather than wait for the next day.He was delayed because he was busy in another court upto 8 p.m. and then had to attend the Law College to teach classes from 6.30 to 8.30 p.m. His unceremonious attire is explained by the fact that it was a very hot night and by the fact that he did not intend to meet the Magistrate personally but only to leave the books at his house through the servant whom he took with him in the car.And his failure to give proper replies and his jumping down from the verandah are obviously attributable to his extreme embarrassment at being caught by the Magistrate in the office which he must have known he had no business to enter without permission.

['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

26.08.13 Item No. 52 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 52And In the matter of: Kabita Dolui & Anr.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Subhendu Hazra For the Petitioners Mr. Syed Arif Ahmed For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Arambagh Police Station Case No. 631 dated 20.07.2011 under Sections 409/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record.The Petitioners are claiming parity with one Kazi Abu Zafar, who was granted anticipatory bail by this Court in CRM No. 7809 of 2011 on 13.09.2011, photocopy of which be taken on record and also some other accused who were granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(04/09/2019) The applicant has filed this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the order dated 29/09/2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.76/2018 by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Panna whereby charges have been framed for the offence punishable under Sections 304 and 308, 338, 185, 184 of IPC and also 2 under Section 66/192A of Motor Vehicles Act against the applicant.Learned trial Court after hearing both the parties framed charges against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 304 and 308, 338, 185, 184 3 of IPC and under Section 66/192A of Motor Vehicles Act because some persons died due to the negligent act of the applicant and some persons sustained grievous fatal injuries.If the charge is made out, the same may be made out under Section 304-A of IPC, however, learned trial Court instead of charging the applicant for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC, framed the charges against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 304 and 308 of IPC as well as under other sections, therefore, he prays to quash the charges framed under Sections 304 and 308 of IPC.State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648, in the same situation as found in the present case, approved the sentence passed under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and in the case of State through PS Lodhi Colony, New Delhi Vs.There shall be no order as to cost.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge ts Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2019.09.06 11:48:58 +05'30'

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This is an application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filedby the aforesaid Applicant, who has been arrested in Crime No.53 of2016 registered with Vaduj Police Station for the offences punishableunder Sections 394 and 397 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code andSections 27, 3(23), 3(1) and 4 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1), 3(2)and 3(4) of the M.C.O.C. Act.2. Heard Mr. Ashok Mundargi, the learned senior counsel forthe Applicant and Mrs. J.S. Lohokare, the learned APP for theRespondent-State.I have perused the records and considered theMegha 1/6 Megha 19_ba_2741_2017.docsubmissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties.The aforesaid crime was registered pursuant to the FIRlodged by one Mahavir Modi.The FIR prima facie reveals that on6.3.2016 the first informant and his two other employees wereproceeding towards Vaduj village by vehicle No.MH 11 BL 6663belonging to D.K. Trading Company to supply oil and groundnut seeds.It is alleged that upon supplying certain products to retailers they hadcollected cash of Rs.2,40,200/-.The first informant had kept cash ofRs.2,25,000/- in his bag and Rs.15,000/- in his pocket.They hadstopped the vehicle at Satewadi to supply products to one Sanjay Bote.It is alleged that when the first informant got off the pickup truck, hesaw one motorcycle parked behind the pickup truck with fourunknown persons standing near the said motorcycle.When the firstinformant told the said persons to remove the said motorcycle from theway, one of the persons from the group pointed a pistol at him and theother three assaulted him.It is alleged that the said four persons hadtried to snatch away the bag containing Rs.2,25,000/- however, thefirst informant held it tight and did not allow them to snatch it.Thefirst informant has stated that one of the boys had removed cash ofRs.15,200/- from his pocket.The first informant rescued himself fromMegha 2/6 Megha 19_ba_2741_2017.docthe clutches of the four persons and ran towards the house of SanjayBote.They took the vehicle upto a community centre.They also demandedmoney from him and when he told them that he had no money, theytried to unload the goods, which were in the said pickup truck.The Applicants are also alleged to have committed offenceunder the M.C.O.C. Act. The records reveal that apart from the presentcrime another crime bearing C.R. No. 54 of 2016 has been registeredagainst the Applicant.The said crime was registered after registrationof the subject crime.

['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2Therefore, this Court refrains from entertaining the petition for quashment of the FIR No.68/2019 registered at P.S. Crime Branch, Gwalior for the offence punishable u/Ss.420, 467, 468 and 120-B of IPC.

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

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

ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.By consent, heardboth the sides for final disposal.The proceeding is filed for relief of quashing of F.I.R. No.122/2015 registered with City Police Station, Jalgaon for offencespunishable under sections 306 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code andSessions Case No. 44/2016, chargesheet filed in the said F.I.R. bypolice.This Court has seen the papers of investigation.Inpapers of investigation, there is suicide note left behind by the fatherof the first informant.It appears that there was some matrimonialdispute between the first informant and his wife and there wasattempt of settlement.The allegations are made that the wife andher relatives were not ready to settle the dispute and presentpetitioners were taking the lead in the matter.They were saying thatthey would teach the lesson to husband in the matter.As nothingmaterialized, the father of the first informant committed suicide byconsuming poison.He has left behind the suicide note in which he ::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2020 09:33:44 ::: Cri.1804/2018 3has blamed the present petitioners.::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2020 09:33:44 :::It will be futileexercise if the petitioners are made to face the trial for the aforesaidoffences.Due to all these circumstances, this Court holds that reliefneeds to be granted.In the result, the petition is allowed.

['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

31.01.2018 ATIndex: Yes/NoToThis appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.4 of 2004 dated 31.01.2007 on the file of the learned Additional Special Judge, CBI Cases, Chennai.The trial Court, after considering the evidence let in by the prosecution, acquitted A3 of all charges.Whereas sentenced A1 and A2 to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.20,000/-, each in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 120B r/w 420 IPC, for offence under Section 468 IPC to undergo one year R.I and pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each in default 3 months S.I. To undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each in default simple imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 468, 471 IPC.To undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for thee months, each for offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The Substantive sentence ordered to run concurrently.The period of sentence if any ordered to be set off u/s 428 Cr.Aggrieved by the above said judgment, A1 and A2 have preferred the present appeal raising various grounds both on facts and in law, questioning the legality of the trial Court judgment.The main contention focused by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the charges against the appellants A1 & A2, who are working as Senior Divisional Manager and Record Clerk of United India Insurance Company Limited, is that they, in connivance, with A3-S.Mahadevan Proprietor of M/s Sri Balaji Stationery, Chennai-01, during the year 2001-2002, conspired to cheat United India Insurance Company and in furtherance of said conspiracy, dishonestly prepared false bills to a tune of Rs.2,07,230/- as if stationary papers and gifts were purchased from M/s.Sri Balajee Stationary and towards the payment of those bills, 13 account payee dates in favour of Sri Balajee Stationary drawn on 3 different banks and 3 different cheques were issued.Later, A1 fraudulently and dishonestly cancelled the account payee cheques and made them bearer cheques, enabling A2 to encash the same across the counter without depositing it in the account.Thus, A1 to A3 had committed offence of conspiracy to cheat with fabricated documents and used those as genuine.A1 and A2 being public servants, were also charged for offence under Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants pointed out that though A3 the supplier of goods had been exonerated by the trial Court, for no reasons A1 and A2 were held guilty and the trial Court, without considering the statement of the accused given during 313 Cr.P.C., questioning, which gives plausible explanation for cancelling the account payee endorsement of disputed 13 cheques, had arrived at the wrong conclusion.As Regional Manager, A-1 had no power to incur expenditure under the head presentation.Therefore he had purchased gifts and presentation from the 3rd respondent shop under the head stationery.Further more, the manual, mandates that payment voucher should be supported by original bills, invoices notes must be approved by the competent authority, chques over and above Rs.500/- should be sent under certificate of posting or registered post.A1 had not followed any of these procedures.Thereby, the preparation of false documents with intention to cheat United India Insurance Company and encashment of the account payee cheque converted into bearer cheques is proved by the prosecution.Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court.Heard the learned Senior counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.9. Perused the records.In fact Ex.P25, the manual relied by the prosecution itself indicates that articles presented or intended for presentation where expenditure of each such articles is in excess of Rs.1,000/- (where it exceeds Rs.1,000/- 50% of the excess over Rs.1,000/- to be taken).Which means that there is implicit permission for the officer concerned to incur expenditure towards presentation with total limitation of Rs.1,000/- and as it is a matter of policy, no expenditure in the nature of presentation or gift is incurred by the Divisional Office.However, in practice, it is admitted by the witnesses for the prosecution that gift articles were purchased by the branch manager and regional manager to enhance their business and keep good rapport with their customers.P.W.1 who has accorded sanction to prosecute the accused, admits that he has not taken any action against those Branch Managers, indulged in giving gifts and complements.Hence, there is no evidence to hold that purchase of gift articles for promotion of the company, is totally prohibited.The next point to be addressed whether really there was any purchase of gift articles as found in the invoices marked as prosecution exhibits for which the payments through, 13 cheques were given.When the deposition of the witnesses scrutinised, except P.W.18 and P.W.19, the branch manager in G.G.Complex, United India Insurance Company, Branch and others respectively has spoken about non purchase of the articles, even these two witness PW18 and PW.19 only say that the cheques were drawn from other branch as per the instructions of A1 but the gift articles were not for them.According to this witness, the divisional office can utilize the budget funds of the Branch Offices, if the funds available.Likewise, in the cross examination of P.W.18, Senior Branch Manager in the G.G.Complex branch of the company admits for promoting business and have good relation with the customer, the Divisional Manager as well as the Branch Manager used to give complements to the existing and prospective customers.Even though, they were not allowed to purchase presentation articles and gifts through the Divisional Office fund they used to purchase gift articles and debit the said expenses under the head of stationary purchase.Thus, it is proved by the defence that as a custom to keep their customers in good terms, gifts and presentations were given to them and expenditure used to be met out from the funds under the head of stationary purchase.If really there was any serious objection in handling of the fund, the internal audit report should have reflected the same.Contrarily, it has been elicited from the cross examination of P.W.2, P.W.6 and P.W.7 that there was no objection by the audit for the purchase of gift articles.PW.8, Inbanathan, who was working as AAO and AO in the G.G.Complex Branch Office, during the relevant point of time admits that G.G.Complex and branch are under control of division VI (which was headed by A1).The said branches as well as Divisional office, VI are having target to do the business.To promote the business complements used to be given and those complements used to be purchased under the head Stationery.These complements, used to be purchased by divisional office and distributed to G.G.Complex and Bathula road office.A3 categorically stated in his response to the questioning that he had supplied gift articles and for which he was paid under 13 cheques which are subject matter of this trial.While so, in the absence of proof that the articles and goods mentioned in the bills, for which payment made was really not supplied and in contrary, prosecution witnesses say that goods were supplied and used by the company for promoting its business.So, for violating the manual which is only directive in nature, which had been breached often than obeyed the action of the appellant cannot be criminally held liable.For the above said reasons, this Court finds that the prosecution case is bound to be rejected.The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in a holistic manner and has turned nelson's eye to the statement of A3 as well as P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.6 and P.W.7, who had not whispered anything about non supply of goods.In fact, the sanctioning authority had feigned ignorance about the maintenance of report for purchase of gift articles.In the light of the above lacuna, the conviction of A1 and A2 is non sustainable.Hence, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants are set aside.The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded.The Inspector of Police, SPE:CBI:ACB:The Special Public Prosecutor (CBI), High Court, Madras.Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.A.No.156 of 200731.01.2018

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

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

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J) The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.15 of 2003 on the file oflearned Sessions Judge, Karur Division, Karur.Altogether there were fouraccused.The fourth accused namely Anju Reddi, S/o.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased inthis case was one Venkatachalam.The appellant/A1 is his wife.The first accusedhad developed illicit intimacy with the second accused.The deceased reprimandedthe first accused and warned her not have with any contact with the secondaccused.This was not to the liking of the first accused and she told thedeceased that she would continue to have illicit intimacy with the secondaccused.This is projected as the motive for all the three accused to conspireto kill the deceased.It is alleged that on 26.12.2011, at about 10.00 p.m. these threeaccused were working in a textile mill known as Parameshwari mill, where thedeceased was also working.It is further alleged that thereafter, the accused 2 to 4strangulated the deceased by using a rope and the second accused strangulatedthe testis of the deceased with the use of a rope.The deceased died due toAsphyxia.Thereafter, all the four accused took the body and threw the same intoa well nearby, thereby making an attempt to screen the evidence.With theseallegations, the accused were tried before the lower Court.Out of the said witnesses examined bythe prosecution, PW1 is the mother of the deceased.According to her, there werefrequent quarrels between the appellant and the deceased.She has further statedthat on one Wednesday at 08.00 p.m., two years prior to her deposing before theCourt, the deceased left the house and thereafter, he was not seen.She hadfurther stated that on the next Saturday, at 03.00 p.m. she was informed that adead body in a gunny bag was found floating in a well near the railway station.She rushed to the said place and identified the dead body as that of thedeceased from out of the sweater found on the body of the deceased.PW2 is the contractor of the Parameswari Textile mill.According tohim, on 26.12.2001 at 09.00 p.m. the accused 1 to 3 were working in the mill andthe deceased Venkatachalam was also there.PW3 is also working in the very same mill.He has stated that on26.12.2001, between 03.00 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. he found the accused working inthe mill.PW5 is yet another star witness for the prosecution.According to him,he is a neighbour of the deceased and he has stated about the frequent quarrelsbetween the appellant and the deceased.He has further stated that on Wednesday(probably he refers to 26.12.2001) at about 02.13 a.m., when he was returning tohis house from Arigarampalayam, he found the accused 2 and 3 carrying a gunnybag.When he enquired them, they told that the bag contained Cloth.No.1623 of 2001 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.26 is theFirst Information Report.Then he forwarded Ex.P1 and Ex.Taking up the case for investigation, PW18, the then Inspector ofPolice, attached to Karur Town Police Station, proceeded to the place ofoccurrence at 11.30 a.m. on 30.12.2001 and prepared an observation mahazar(Ex.P4) in the presence of PW9 and another witness.He prepared a rough sketchEx.P27 showing the place where the dead body was found.Then, he arranged for aphotographer to take photographs.Then, at 01.00 p.m. he recovered bloodstainedcement floor and sample floor under Ex.P5 mahazar.Then he took out the deadbody from the well and conducted inquest on the body.P28 is the inquestreport.Then, he examined the other witnesses and forwarded the body forpostmortem examination.9. PW4, doctor Ganesh Ram, conducted postmortem examination on the body ofthe deceased on 30.12.2001 at 05.00 p.m. Ex.P10 is the said disclosure statement.In pursuance ofthe same, she produced MO7, shirt, from her house.Kuruvaiya was abscondingbefore the commencement of the trial.The accused 1 to 3 facedthe trial.They stood charged for the offence under Sections 120(b), 364, 201and 302 IPC.By judgment, dated 21.11.2003, the trial Court acquitted all thethree accused from the charges under Section 120(b) and 364 IPC.However, thetrial Court convicted them under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced all thethree accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offenceunder Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years andto pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment fora period of two years for the offence under Section 201 IPC.As against the saidconviction and sentence, the first accused has come up with this appeal.Thereafter,the body was found in the well near railway station on 29.12.2001 at 03.00 p.m.PW1 made a complaint to PW17, the then Sub Inspector of Police, KarurTown Police Station.On 30.12.2001 at 10.00 a.m. PW17, registered a case on thesaid complaint in Cr.Heopined that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due tostrangulation about 3 to 5 days prior to autopsy.Based on the opinion of the doctor, PW18, altered the case into oneunder Section 302 IPC on 01.11.2002 and submitted Ex.P29, the Express Report, tothe jurisdictional Magistrate.On 02.01.2002 at Karur -Salem By pass road, hearrested A2 and A3 in the presence of PW11 and another witness.On such arrest,A2 made a voluntary confession, out of which, a watch belonging to the deceasedwas recovered.Then, A2 identified a place in the Mill room, where MO6, a matstained with blood was recovered.P9)in respect of the said place and a Rough sketch (Ex.P13).On returning to thepolice station, PW18 sent the accused for judicial remand and handed over thematerial objects to the Court.On 03.01.2002 at 09.00 a.m. at Vangapalayam bus stand he arrested thefirst accused in the presence of PW11 and another witness.On such arrest, shealso made a voluntary confession, by which she had identified the place whereshe had hidden a shirt.PW11, recovered the sameunder Ex.P11 mahazar.Then, he made a request to the Court for sending thematerial objects for chemical examination.P14 is the chemical analystreport.According to the said report, no blood was deducted on the mat.PW18,examined the doctor and few more witnesses and collected the medical records.Oncompleting the investigation, he laid charge sheet against all the four accused.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respectof the incriminating materials, they denied the same as false.However, they didnot choose either to examine any witness on their side or to exhibit anydocument.Having considering the above materials, the trial Court acquitted thefirst accused from charges under Sections 120(b) and 364 IPC.However, convictedthe appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.That is how the appellant isbefore this Court with this appeal.We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor and also perused the records carefully.This is a case based on circumstantial evidence.The following are thecircumstances.i) Because of the alleged intimacy between A1 and A2, there was ill-feeling between A1 and the deceased.ii) On 26.12.2001, at about 09.00 p.m., these three accused were workingin the textile mill, where the deceased was also working.Thus, the deceased waslastly seen alive on 26.12.2001 around 10.00 p.m. and thereafter, he was notseen.iii) The dead body of the deceased was found on 29.12.2001 at 03.00 p.m.in a decomposed condition in the Well.iv) As per the evidence of the doctor, the death is due to asphyxia andthus, it is a homicide.v) PW5 had seen the accused A2 and A3 carrying a gunny bag and whenenquired by PW5, they told him that it contained cloth.vi)On the arrest of A2, on his confession, the watch belonging to thedeceased was recovered.vii)On the arrest of the appellant/A1, a shirt was recovered from herhouse.viii)A2 identified a place in the mill from where the mat was recovered.The mat contained bloodstain indicating that the deceased was done to death inthe mill.According to the prosecution, these circumstances clinchingly point tothe guilt of the accused and thus, the conviction imposed on the appellant isliable to be confirmed.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that except thefirst circumstance, no other circumstances has been proved.He would furthersubmit that assuming that these circumstances have been proved or some of thecircumstances have been proved, these circumstances would not form a completechain unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused.Thus, according to thelearned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is entitled to acquittal.But, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that allthe circumstances projected by the prosecution have been proved beyond allreasonable doubts clearly and thus, clinchingly complicity of the accused in thecrime has been proved.We have considered the above submissions.As we have already pointedout there is no much controversy about the quarrels between the appellant andthe deceased.As we have already pointed out, PW2 has told that theaccused 1 to 3 were found in the mill where the deceased was also working.Thisis not at all incriminating, because it was the place of work for all theaccused.After that, what had happened to the deceased and at what time did heleave have not been investigated by the police.For the first time PW5 has stated that he found the accused 2 to 4carrying a gunny bag.But, that gunny bag has not been recovered.Assuming thatthere was gunny bag, since the accused had explained to PW5 that the gunny bagcontained cloth, even that is not incriminating against the accused 2 to 4.Assuming that it is incriminating, it has got nothing to do with the presentappellant, namely the first accused.Next, the prosecution relied on recovery of watch at the instance ofthe second accused.As per Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, the samecannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence and it can be used only ascorroborative piece of evidence provided the evidence regarding alleged recoveryof watch is trustworthy.In our considered opinion, in the present case, sincethere is no substantive piece of evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused,there is no occasion for this Court to invoke Section 30 of the Indian EvidenceAct so as to consider the recovery of the watch at the instance of A2 as againstthis appellant.The prosecution now relies on the recovery of the shirt from theappellant, on her confession.The connection between the shirt and the crime hasnot been proved at all by the prosecution.Lastly, the prosecution relies on the evidence regarding the place ofoccurrence.According to them, the death would have occurred inside the mill,which is connected by the bloodstained mat recovered from the said mill.The mat was thereafter recovered and it isalleged that there was bloodstain.But, the chemical analysis report says therewas no bloodstain at all found on the mat.Thus, where the actual murder hadtaken place also has not been proved.Thus, a complete analysis of the entire evidence available on record,would go to show that absolutely there is no evidence against the appellant atall so as to conclude that she was a party to the commission of murder of thedeceased.In view of the same, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trialCourt is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal.In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of convictionand sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karur Division, Karur, madein S.C.No.15 of 2003, dated 21.11.2003, are set aside in respect of theappellant/A1 alone.The appellant is acquitted of all the charges.1.The Sessions Judge, Karur Division, Karur.2.The Inspector of Police,Karur Police Station,Karur District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J.In these circumstances, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, which shall not affect his service career, the sentence of imprisonment and fine as awarded to him is set aside.The fine if already paid is ordered to be treated as litigation expenses to the State.With this modification, the order under challenge is upheld.Rev. P. 293/1998 stands disposed of.

['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The appellant is not residing with the respondent."Grant of permanent alimony to ( 6) F.A. No. 132/2008 wife - Factors to be considered.Heard finally.Per Justice S.K. Palo, J Appeal has been preferred by the non-applicant / wife under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.4.2008 passed in Case No. 60-A/2007 by the Additional District Judge, Chachoda District Guna, whereby the learned Trial Court has allowed the application of the respondent / husband under Section 13 (1) (1-b) of HMA 1955 and granted a decree of divorce.The undisputed facts in this case are that the marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnized 7-8 years back.P/1 notice was served upon the appellant by the respondent.The reply to the notice is Ex.On the report of appellant at Police Station, Chachoda, a criminal case was registered under Section 498-A of IPC against the respondent and his father, in which charge sheet has been filed in the Court.( 2) F.A. No. 132/2008 The appellant has further stated that the criminal case under Sections 494, 109, 120 of IPC has been lodged against the respondent and other persons.She is residing with her father.The appellant has also moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C for maintenance for herself and her minor son.(3).The factual matrix before the Trial Court in brief are that the respondent married to the appellant on 8.5.1997 observing Hindu Customs for 2-3 years they lived happily.In the year 2003 appellant gave birth to a baby boy.She left the matrimonial home with the child and started living in her parental house.After repeated requests she did not come to matrimonial home.She has expressed that she is not willing to live with the respondent, without any reason, she has deserted the respondent and deprived the respondent of his right to cohabit and also spoiled the career of son.(4) The respondent filed the application for restitution of conjugal right and subsequently amended the application, for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion.(5) Per contra, the appellant / wife denied all the averments levelled against her and submitted that after ( 3) F.A. No. 132/2008 marriage the respondent demanded Rs. One Lakh dowry.The family of the respondent was not keeping her well, they harassed her.When she went to her parental house, respondent did not come to take her to matrimonial house.She further stated that when the respondent did not receive Rs. One Lakh, she was driven out by the respondent from the house.In June 2007 the respondent married to another woman.Therefore, a private complaint case has been lodged by the appellant under Section 494 of IPC.Regarding demand of dowry also another case has been registered, beside an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The appellant has no means of income.Notice given to her in this case was for the reason that the respondent wanted to escape from the criminal cases.The learned Trial Court allowed the application under Section 13 (1) (1-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and granted decree of divorce in favour of the respondent.(7) The appellant assailed the impugned judgment on several grounds, contended that the judgment is manifest illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law.There is ( 4) F.A. No. 132/2008 no ground of desertion.As the appellant has not willfully left the matrimonial house.Restitution of conjugal rights cannot be travelled with relief of divorce.The appellant has stated that she is ready to live with the respondent but the respondent is not ready to live with the appellant.The learned trial Court absolutely ignored the criminal cases under Section 498-A of IPC and 494 of IPC and the case for maintenance has been instituted because of the default of the respondent.Therefore, the respondent cannot take the benefit of the same.(8) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.(9) The appellant has reiterated before the learned trial Court that she is not willfully living separately but because of the demand of dowry Rs. One Lakh and for the reason that she was beaten by the respondent, she is living with her parents.But this pleading has not been substantiated.Besides allegations have also been levelled by the appellant that the respondent has entered into a second marriage.This fact has not been proved by the appellant.(10).The statement made by the appellant show that she has not seen the second marriage herself.But her brother had seen the same.Gopal Singh (PW-2), the ( 5) F.A. No. 132/2008 cousin brother of the appellant has stated that he attended the second marriage of the appellant at Ujjain.But he did not try to stop the marriage nor he lodged any report.After this incident, he kept silent and informed the same to the appellant and her father after 20 days.She wants to live separately.In view of the aforesaid, we fix one time permanent alimony Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs) which shall be deposited before the learned Additional District Judge Chachoda, Guna.Out of which Rs.5,00,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of appellant wife in nationalized bank which would be utilized for benefit of her and her son.The deposit shall be made in such a manner so that the appellant wife would be in a position to draw quarterly interest.If respondent / husband fails to deposit the said amount, the decree of divorce in his favour will be deemed inoperative.Accordingly, appeal disposed of.

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(i) Bail Application No.1901 of 2018, is allowed;(ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R.No.185 of 2018, registered with Meghwadi Police Station, Mumbai, on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one or more sureties in the like amount;rpa 7/7 910-ba-1901-18.doc(vi) Bail Application No. 1901 of 2018, stands disposed of.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(S.K. GANGELE) sh JUDGE e ad pb Pr a hy Digitally signed by PRASHANT ad BAGJILEWALE Date: 2018.05.08 03:32:19 -07'00' M of rt ou C h ig HTHE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-14607-2018 (RATAN SINGH TOMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 2 Jabalpur, Dated : 04-05-2018 Shri R.K. Sanghi, counsel for the applicants.Shri B.P. Pandey, Govt. Adv.for the State.Shri Amit Jain, counsel for the objector.sh Perused the case diary.This is first application under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for e ad grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants, as they are under apprehension of their arrest in connection of Crime No.60/2017, Pr registered at Police Station Timarni District Harda for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 and a 120-B of IPC.hy Earlier the applicants were granted anticipatory bail by the ad trial Court vide order dated 27.03.2017 for commission of offence punishable under Section 420 and 120-B of IPC.Subsequently, M Section 409 of IPC has been added by the prosecution hence, the of applicants filed another application for grant of anticipatory bail before the trial Court.ou During the period 2011-12 to 2015-16 Societies purchased wheat from farmers on support price fixed by the Government.C Audit of the Society was conducted and no irregularity was found.h Subsequently, complaints were made that a loss to the different ig Societies was caused.Thereafter, special audit was conducted H and an offence under Section 420 and 120-B of IPC was registered.Accused persons were granted anticipatory bail by the trial Court.Subsequently, Section 409 of IPC has been added.Section 405 prescribes Criminal breach of trust.Prima facie, the offence of Criminal breach of trust appears to be suspicious.Applicants were granted anticipatory bail.They are on bail and they have not misused the liberty.In this view of the matter, and looking to the nature of allegation and evidence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, application is allowed.It is directed that at the event of arrest of the applicants in respect of the aforesaid crime, on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) by each of the applicant along with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating officer, the applicant be released on anticipatory bail.The applicants are directed to cooperate with the investigating agency.They will further abide by the conditions enumerated in sub-Section 2 of Section 438 of Cr. P. C.C. C. as per rules.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Assailing the judgment dated 26.03.2013 passed in SC No.382 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Judge (MahalirNeedhimandram), Chennai, convicting the accused / appellant for an offence under Section 306 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months, the appeal has been preferred by the accused.Briefly stated, according to the prosecution case, the accused and the complainant’s daughter Munira Begum, nearby residents, had been engaged in love for nearly two years and on coming to know of the same, the elders of both the family decided to arrange the marriage between the accused and Munira Begum and also betrothal had been performed between them and the families had agreed to celebrate the marriage of the accused and Munira Begum one year thereafter and consequently it is stated that the accused and Munira Begum started frequently moving closely with each other and resultantly, Munira Begum got conceived and on coming to know that she had become four months pregnant , the complainant along with her daughter Munira Begum went to thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/16 Crl A. No.295 of 2013 accused on 17.12.2008 at about 9 AM and apprised him about the factum of Munira Begum having conceived and being four months pregnant and accordingly, requested him to fix the marriage with her daughter immediately and if the marriage is not celebrated, they will be put to shame and to the abovesaid request put forth by the complainant, it is stated that the accused had refused to marry Munira Begum and that he had informed that he could decide about his marriage only after consulting with his friends and if there is any urgency on the part of the complainant and her daughter, they could arrange some other person to marry Munira Begum and on hearing the abovesaid version of the accused, noting that the accused had ignored her and put her to shame, it is stated that, Munira Begum rushed to upstairs and locked the door and doused kerosene on her and set herself to fire and resultantly, she having died, according to the prosecution, the accused, having abetted the suicide of Munira Begum, is liable to be punished under Section 306 of IPC.Following the abovesaid incident, the complaint had been lodged by P.W.1, Katheeja, marked as Ex.Immediately on the basis of the same, it is found that the case had been registered and thereafter, afterhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/16 Crl A. No.295 of 2013 conducting investigation and obtaining the cause of death of the deceased Munira Begum after examining the witnesses acquainted with the occurrence, it is found that the final report had been laid against the accused under Section 306 of IPC.To sustain the prosecution case, in toto, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked.M.O.1 was also marked.After the closure of the prosecution witness, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.PC, qua the incriminating evidence put forth against him by the prosecution witnesses and the accused had denied the same.On the side of accused, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.D1 was marked.No M.O. was marked.On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the trial court was pleased to convict the accused under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and also directed him to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the accused.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/16 Crl A. No.295 of 2013The deceased Munira Begum is found to be the adopted daughter of P.W.1 Katheeja and her husband Fakrudeen (P.W.2).As above pointed out, on the side of accused two witnesses were examined as D.Ws.1 and 2. D.W.1 is the mother of the accused.D.W.1 has clearly admitted during the course of Chief Examination that the accused had loved the deceased Munira Begum and the elders of both the families had decided to fix the marriage of the accused and the deceased Munira Begum and with that end, they had celebrated the betrothal function.However, they had decided to celebrate the marriage after some time.On similar line, D.W.2, the maternal aunt of the accused had also tendered evidence.It is found that the accused had not disputed the love affair, which he had with the deceased Munira Begum.In fact, acknowledging the love affair, the elders of both the families had also decided to celebrate their marriage and with that view, as above pointed bout, the betrothal function had also been celebrated.The fact remains that the elders of the family had decided to celebrate the marriage some time thereafter.In the light of the abovesaid undisputed facts, it is seen that, inasmuch as the deceased Munira Begum and the accused are living nearby, following the betrothal function as well as their love affair even prior to the same, they had started movinghttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/16 Crl A. No.295 of 2013 closely with each other.Now, according the prosecution, on account of the close acquaintance between the deceased Munira Begum and the accused, Munira Begum got conceived and she became pregnant.When the factum of the deceased Munira Begum having conceived and becoming pregnant had come to the knowledge of the parents, namely, P.Ws.1 and 2, it is found that the P.W.1 along with her daughter, namely, Munira Begum, had approached the accused on 17.12.2008 and informed him about the pregnancy of the deceased Munira Begum and accordingly requested the accused to arrange the marriage immediately or else, they will be put to public shame and abuse.However, according to the prosecution, the accused, instead of acceding to their demand, despite the fact that betrothal function between them had already been celebrated , had retorted saying that he cannot marry the deceased immediately and he could decide about the marriage only after consulting his friends and also uttered that if there is any urgency on the part of the complainant and her daughter, they could arrange the marriage of the deceased Munira Begum with some other person and on hearing the abovesaid outburst of the accused openly repudiating the love affair he had with the deceased Munira Begum and thereby putting her to public shame and abuse, according to the prosecution, inasmuch as the accused had gone to the extent of disowning thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 6/16 Crl A. No.295 of 2013 baby conceived by the deceased Munira Begum apprehending that she would be put to public shame and agony, it is stated that Munira Begum rushed upstairs locked the door and doused kerosene on herself and set fire to herself and thereby died.Thus, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused had committed the offence of abetting to commit the suicide of the deceased Munira Begum and liable to be punished.Even in the complaint Ex.P1, it is seen that the complainant had averred about the factum of she and her daughter approaching the accused to fix the marriage immediately on account of the gestation of the deceased Munira Begum and the response made by the accused to the same as if he is not ready to celebrate the marriage immediately and also abused her by saying that if she is in any urgency, she could engage some other person for marriage and on hearing the abovesaid outburst of the accused, it is put forth that the deceased Munira Begum rushed upstairs, locked the door and committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and setting fire to herself.As rightly found by the trial court,P.W.5, Shahin, who is acquainted with the offence, has also deposed on similar lines and P.W.4, Nizam, son of P.W1 and P.W.2 had come to the scene after coming to know of the incident.From the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5, in toto, it is found that the accused and the deceased Munira Begum had been engaged in love affair forhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8/16 Crl A. No.295 of 2013 more than two years and accordingly their parents having acknowledge the same, arranged to celebrate the marriage and betrothal function had also been performed as a token to celebrate their marriage, in such view of the matter, it is found that as deposed by P.Ws.1 to 5, in toto, the accused and the deceased Munira Begum, taking the same as an acknowledgment of their relationship, started moving closely with each other by going out independently and on account of the abovesaid close acquaintance, it is seen that, as put forth by P.Ws.1 to 5 in unison, the deceased Munira Begum got conceived and however, had not come out with the truth and only after the development of the pregnancy to a level, it is seen that unable to suppress the same further, had apprised the same to her mother P.W.1, resultantly, it is seen that P.W.1 left with no other alternative, immediately along with the deceased, approached the accused and requested him for the marriage immediately informing about her daughter’s pregnancy due to the close acquaintance of her daughter and the accused.Instead of soothing and pacifying the deceased and also giving a positive response to their request particularly when the factum of their betrothal function had not been disputed as above pointed out, the accused is found to have come out openly disowning the love affair which he had with the deceased by refusing to marry her andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 9/16 Crl A. No.295 of 2013 also asking the deceased to marry some other person if she is in any urgency and accordingly, on seeing the abovesaid utterance of the accused, as rightly put forth by the public prosecutor when the deceased had directly heard about the accused disowning her as well as the baby she had conceived through the accused openly, unable to digest the same and in such view of the matter, it is seen that the deceased had gone to the extent of committing suicide and resultantly rushed upstairs and poured kerosene on her body and set fire to herself and died thereby.Considering the abovesaid evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 to 5 in toto as well as the facturm of the love affair between the deceased Munira Begum and the accused having not been repudiated by the accused and also admitted by D.Ws.1 and 2 and their betrothal function having also been admitted, in all, it is found that the accused by his utterance and exposing his mind set and having openly discarding the deceased and also having uttered that the deceased is free to marry any other person if she is in urgency, thereby disowning the baby conceived by her, in the light of the abovesaid background, when the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of IPC are that there should be a suicide of a person and that it should have been committed in consequence ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 10/16 Crl A. No.295 of 2013 abetment by the accused and when the Apex Court in the decision reported in 2001 9 SCC 618 (Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chattisgarh) has laid down as to what conduct would amount to incitement or instigation and further the Supreme Court has held that before holding the accused guilty of the offence under 306 of IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the deceased had committed suicide due to the abetment of the accused, considering the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the various decisions and applying the same to the case at hand,when it is seen that the deceased had developed pregnancy following the betrothal function between her and the accused and when it is seen from the evidence of the medical officer P.W.8 and the medical record placed before this Court that a baby embryo has been found in the body of the deceased, in such view of the matter, the factum of the deceased having conceived cannot be easily brushed aside.Therefore, the deceased, as rightly put forth by the public prosecutor, was with the fond hope of marrying the accused following the betrothal function and accordingly is found to have been closely moving with the accused and resultantly became pregnant.When it is found that she was firm that the accused wouldhttp://www.judis.nic.in 11/16 Crl A. No.295 of 2013 also confirm that her pregnancy is only due to him, however, when on hearing the words of the accused not only dis owning her but also dis owing her baby which she had conceived due to him, it is found that the deceased unable to bear the abovesaid utterance of the accused had gone to the extent of putting an end to her life and thereby committed suicide as above pointed out.9.In the light of the abovesaid factors, as rightly determined by the trial court, when the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 is assessed in toto coupled with the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2, it is seen that the accused's utterance on the date of occurrence played a vital role in driving the deceased to her fate and in such view of the matter, the accused cannot plead or defend that the deceased had died only due to the scolding of her brother Nizam (P.W.4).In this case, the mother of the accused, examined as D.W.1, would state that the deceased’s natural mother approached them for celebrating the marriage and she had also acceded to the same and on hearing the same P.W.1 picked up quarrel and both P.W.1 and P.W.4 beat the deceased alleging that it was the deceased who had brought the natural mother to mediate and on account of the same, according to her, the deceased committed suicide.However, the abovesaid defence version is found to be highly improbable.If really, ashttp://www.judis.nic.in 12/16 Crl A. No.295 of 2013 deposed by D.W.1, the accused and her mother had agreed to celebrate the marriage between the decease and the accused on the natural mother’s approach, there would have been no necessity on the part of P.Ws.1 to 4 to pick up quarrel with the deceased on account of the same, particularly, when P.W.1 had been endeavouring to celebrate the marriage of the deceased with the accused immediately on coming to know of the pregnancy of the deceased and in such view of the matter, the abovesaid defence version put forth by the accused is found to be highly unbelievable and unacceptable.The other defence version projected by the accused is that both P.W.2 and P.W.4 are involved in narcotic cases and they were frequently called to the police station and accordingly it is put forth that inasmuch as the accused had also been associating with their family, he was also directed by the police to come to the police station at that time and the accused was let off by the police only after P.W.2 and P.W.4 coming to the police station and in that back ground, according to the accused, they had informed that the marriage between him and the deceased would be celebrated after the narcotic cases leveled against the P.W.2 and P.W4 coming to an end.Only on account of the same, it is stated that false case hadhttp://www.judis.nic.in 13/16 Crl A. No.295 of 2013 been laid against the accused.Merely on that score, it cannot be held that the accused had been postponing the marriage between him and the deceased Munira Begum.When it is found that the accused and the deceased Munira Begum are nearby residents and engaged in love affairs for more than two years, naturally, the accused would have been in the know of things about the involvement of P.W.2 and P.W.4 in the narcotic cases.Despite the same, it is found that the accused had performed the engagement function with the deceased Munira Begum and the parties had also proceeded to arrange the marriage immediately thereafter.However, after the deceased had developed pregnancy, the accused, for one or the other reason, started disowning her as well as the baby and in such view of the matter, it is found that the deceased was driven to the position of committing suicide on account of the agony and shame that she would be put and subjected to in the event of the accused refusing to marry her eventually.In the light of the abovesaid factors when it is seen that the accused had been instrumental and instigated and abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased Munira Begaum by openly discarding her as well as openly disowning the baby, which she hadhttp://www.judis.nic.in 14/16 Crl A. No.295 of 2013 conceived on account of her acquaintance with him, unable to bear the public shame and agony that she would be subjected to, it is found that as put forth by the public prosecutor, the deceased had decided to put an end to her life, accordingly, she had committed suicide by setting fire to herself and the facts being above, in my considered opinion, the trial court had rightly appreciated the materials available on record in the right perspective and found the accused guilty under Section 306 of IPC and in view of the same, I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the abovesaid determination of the trial court holding the accused guilty under Section 306 of IPC and sentencing him to Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years.No mitigating circumstance or factor has been projected to modify or lessen the sentence imposed on the accused.bga Copy to

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the FIR in crime No.04 of 2020 for the offence under Sections 147, 448, 294(b), 323, 506(i) and 120B of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, on the file of the first respondent police.2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have filed a suit as against the defacto complainant and that they have obtained an order of injunction and a civil dispute is also pending between the parties.He would further submit that as a counter-blast, a false complaint was given as if the petitioners caused damage to the properties.He would submit that the name of the second petitioner does not find place in FIR and that the petitioners are Advocates.He would also submit that the petitioners did not commit any offences as alleged in the impugned FIR.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case as against the petitioners in Crime No.04 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 147, 448, 294(b), 323, 506(i) and 120B of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and they have abused the defacto complainant and caused damage to CCTV.She 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.Perused the materials available on record.5.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners, which has to be investigated.This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with the investigation.The investigating machinery has to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneoushttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J., gns petition is also closed.However, the respondent police is directed to complete the investigation and file final report before the concerned Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.04.02.2020 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No gns To1.The Inspector of Police, Palani Adivaram Police Station, Palani, Dindigul District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1832 of 2020http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

According to the prosecution, on 27.07.2017 at about 5:20 am complainant Shivam lodged the FIR stating that he is the Manager of Level Three Beer Bar at Hajira Chauraha Gwalior.Manish Shivhare is the owner of the Beer Bar.On 26.07.2017 at about 11:30 to 11:45 pm co-accused persons namely Kallan Koli and Rahul Khatik with four other unknown persons came to the Beer Bar with various types of weapons.They asked whereabouts of Manish.They took Vinod to the hospital where the examining doctor declared him brought dead.He submits that the name of the applicant does not find place in the FIR.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.376/2017 registered at Police Station Gwalior against him and other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 427 and 302 of the IPC.Thereafter, they hurled filthy abuses and vandalized the Beer Bar.He and staff members of the Beer Bar namely Ashok, Chhotu and Vinod prevented them from the acts of sabotage.In the mean time, he informed Manish.He came to the Beer Bar.They also hurled filthy abuses at him and they committed marpeet with Chowkidar Bharat Pandey of the M.Cr.C. No.23694/2017 (Gopal Rathore Vs.State of M.P.) Beer Bar.Meanwhile, co-accused Kallan fired at the chest of Vinod, as a result he fell down.Seeing that, both the co-accused persons with their four unknown companions fled away from the place of offence.He submits that the Test Identification Parade of the applicant and other co-accused persons was done on 30.10.2017 at about 2:40 p.m. in the Central Jail, Gwalior and thereafter the same day, the police filed the charge sheet in the concerned Court.Thus, the proceedings of the T.I.P are doubtful.He submits that the police got the statements of four witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C recorded.Out of the four, only Manish has stated that he saw the applicant at the time of the offence.C. No.23694/2017 (Gopal Rathore Vs.State of M.P.) regular bail to co-accused persons namely Arun Rathore and Sanjay Batham almost on similar grounds.Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer.

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Thus, school is a private unaided school.The School is affiliated to Secondary Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).The petitioner in its meeting dated 14.02.2011 decided to enhance the fees for Class I to X by Rs. 600/- and for Class XI to XII Rs. 1000/- per quarter.Shri K.N. Gutpa, learned senior counsel contends that this decision of enhancement of fees was made known to the parents.The said decision of enhancement of fees was taken in the meeting of society and also in the meeting of School Management Committee (SMC).In the SMC, three parents' representative were also present.An enquiry Committee comprising of Principals of Govt. Railways Girls' Higher W.P.2450/2012 5 Secondary School, Govt. Vidyapeeth Higher Secondary School and Govt. Girls' Higher Secondary School Gwalior was constituted to enquire into the matter.The said committee issued a notice dated 12.12.2011 and demanded certain details.Thereafter a notice dated 12.01.2012 (Annexure P/2) was issued by Collector Gwalior informing that the report of enquiry committee aforesaid has been received by the Collector and petitioner should appear and plead his case in the office of Collector.It is common ground that Collector did not afford any opportunity to cross-examine the complainant.In turn, the impugned order dated 12.03.2012 was passed whereby the action of petitioner of enhancement of fees vide SMC meeting dated 12.02.2011 was disapproved and set aside.It is further directed that Registrar of Firms and Society should constitute a team and audit the accounts of petitioner- society of last three years.The said Commissions shall, while inquiring into any matters relating to child's right to free and compulsory education under clause (c) of sub- section (1), have the same powers as assigned to them respectively under sections 14 and 24 of the said Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act.Where the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights has not been constituted in a State, the appropriate Government may, for the purpose of performing the functions specified in clauses (a) to(c) of sub-section (1), constitute such authority, in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions, as may be prescribed.Redressal of grievances.-(k) "Limit of neighbourhood" means, in case of classes I to V, in rural area the village and adjoining villages and adjoining wards of urban area, if any, and in urban area, the ward and adjoining wards and adjoining villages, if any, and in case of classes VI to VIII, area of 3 k.m.from this limit;(5) If a school established before the commencement of the Act does not fulfill the norms and standards specified in the Schedule of the Act, the District Education Officer shall issue a provisional certificate granting permission to run the school for a period upto three years from the date of commencement of the Act. The provisional certificate shall be issued in Form 3 appended to these rules;Provided further that if the school does not claim further recognition within the period specified in the provisional certificate, the certificate issuing authority, on receipt of application for recognition, satisfy himself and shall issue the certificate of recognition as laid down under sub-rule (4):(7) Where a school contravenes the condition s of the recognition or any provisions of the Act, the authority issuing the certificate of recognition shall issue show cause notice to the school specifying the violations of conditions of grant of recognition.(8) The order of withdr5awal or recognition passed by the District Education Officer shall be operative from the immediate succeeding academic year and shall specify the neighborhood schools to which the children of that school shall be admitted.(9) Information of recognition of any school shall be sent to the local authority i.e. to the urban local body in case the school is situated in the urban area and to the Gram Panchayat and Janpad Panchayat in case the school is situated in the rural area.The school managing committee should consist of the following :--(a) the managing committee of a recognised W.P.2450/2012 23 aided school shall consist of not more than fifteen members; and the managing committee of a private unaided school shall consist of not more than twenty one members;xiv) It shall have the power to propose to the Society rates of tuition fees and other annual charges and also review the budget of the school presented by the Principal for forwarding the same to Society for approval.xv) The Managing Committee will meet at least twice in an academic session."The unaided schools should consult parents through parents' representatives before revising the fees.The fee should not be revised during the mid session.e/;iz n s ' k 'kklu lkekU; iz ' kklu foHkkx ea = ky;(3) Listing and mapping of amenities at village, block and district levels;(4) Determination of policies, programmes and priorities for development of the district, in order to ensure maximum and judicious utilisation and exploitation of available natural and human resources.(5) Formulation of draft Five-year and Annual Development plans of the district in their Socio- economic, temporal and spatial dimensions, consolidating the plans prepared by the Panchayats and Urban bodies and submission thereof to the State Government for incorporation in the State Plan; (6) Preparation of an employment plan for the district;(7) Estimation of financial resources for financing the district plan;(8) Allocation of sectorial and sub-sectorial outlays within the overall framework of the district development plan;(9) Monitoring, evaluation and review of progress under the schemes and programmes being implemented in the district under the decentralized planning framework including central sector and centrally-sponsored schemes, and the Local Area Development Schemes of Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Constituencies.(10) Submission of regular progress reports to the State Government in respect of schemes included in the District Plans;( 13 / 05 / 2015) In all these petitions there is a commonality of significant issue involved which basically relates to jurisdiction of Collector in taking coercive steps / coercive measures in the matter relating to school fee being charged by unaided private educational institutions in District Gwalior.WP No. 2450/2012The petitioner Little Angels Shiksha Samiti is a society registered under the Firms and Societies Act. The said society is running a school namely " Little Angels High School Gwalior".Admittedly, the petitioner is not getting any grant-in-aid from the Government.There is no justification in challenging the order of the Collector.A copy of said policy is provided to the court during the course of hearing.Mrs. Sudha C. Sharma, Advocate appeared for parents- Association.Appearing for the parents, she contends that schools are running to earn profit whereas imparting education is a work of charity.Profiteering if any, needs to be used for the development of institution itself.She supported the order of the Collector.It is urged that Collector being head of the administration in the District is empowered to pass the impugned order.It is contended that action was taken by the Collector based on complaint in "Jan Sunwai".Collector has wide powers to take cognizance on the grievance of public at large.It is submitted that petitioners have taken recognition from the State and affiliation from C.B.S.E. The affiliation of Little Angels School is provisional till date.The petitioners were required to fulfill a form which contained a condition that if any provision of the Act, rules or education code is violated, coercive action can be taken against them.She relied on various provisions of M.P. Education Code.It is contended that as per various provisions of Code, Collector has jurisdiction to deal with the question of fee hike.She submits that parent-teacher association is not constituted as per the provisions of the Act, rules and C.B.S.E. guidelines and Code.She relied on Clause-21 of C.B.S.E. regulation to bolster her submission regarding constitution of SMC.She relied on C.B.S.E. regulation for the purpose of question of determination of fees.The said order of Collector was not challenged.However, this contention is refuted by Shri Sanjay Dwivedi by contending that said order was challenged by amending the concerned writ petition.Thus, in cases where Collector has passed the order for these years, Collector's order has to be treated as null and void.The school shall be given at least one month time to file the reply.In case the explanation is not found to be satisfactory or no explanation is received within the stipulated time period, the District Education Officer W.P.2450/2012 22 may cause an inspection of the school, to be conducted by a committee of three to file members comprising of educationalists, civil society representatives, media and Government representatives, which shall make due enquiry and submit report, along with its recommendations for continuation of recognition or its withdrawal to the District Education Officer.On receipt of the report and recommendations of the committee the District Educational Officer may pass order for withdrawal of recognition :Provided that no order for withdrawal of recognition shall be passed by the District Education Officer without giving the school adequate opportunity of being heard :C.Sharma is based on Annexure R-1 dated 30.3.1990 (W.P. No.2450/12).I deem it apposite to reproduce the said order in its entirety:-The order of Collector is liable to be interfered with for yet another reason.The Hon'ble Chief Justice Shri A.K.Sikri (as His Lordship then was) has taken into account the relevant provisions and judgments on the question of fee hike.

['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

6/9/2019 This revision petition, under sections 397 read with 401 of the Cr.P.C., is directed against the order dated 6/8/2018 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in S.T. No.118/18, whereby charge under section 304, IPC has been framed against the petitioner.The facts, in nutshell, are that on 23/2/18, at about 17.15 hours, petitioner was driving I-20 car bearing registration no. MP-07-TC-0015 in a rash and negligent manner and as the Car reached near the house of complainant Dhan Singh Jatav , it dashed against a Hero Honda Motorcycle parked there, as well as, three year old nephew of complainant who was playing there namely Honey Singh, which resulted into his death.The petitioner after alighting from the Car ran away from the spot.The imputability arises from the neglect of civic duty of circumspection.The revision petition stands allowed.(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge (and) ANAND SHRIVASTAV A 2019.09.06 18:22:10 +05'30'

['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 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 backdrop of the present case may briefly be stated as follows:On the basis of police enquiry an FIR was registered under Sections 120B/420/409/468/471/477A IPC on 24th September, 2002 against the Indus Ind Bank and 15 other brokers.If there is shortage, the manager takes margin money cheque and gets it cleared from the bank and thereafter allow a broker to do further trading through CSE trading terminal.For immediate clearing there is Indus Ind bank branch in CSE compound having account of all brokers and CSE.The committee is headed and controlled by E.D. and SEBI only.The Settlement Committee control trading transactions pay-in pay-out obligation, auctions and entire trading of the Exchange.It is also headed and controlled by E.D. and SEBI only.The entire function of the CSE i.e. the stock transactions, settlement of pay-in, pay-out and auctions of transaction, cancellation of the transaction, collection of margin money from member brokers, daily regular dealing with the bank is managed and handled only by the Executive Director, Management Committee, Settlement Committee and Surveillance officers under the strict control and direction of the SEBI.In March 2001, 16 CSE brokers could not pay their due pay-in obligation of settlement No. 2001448 49 and 50 on due time.The CSE Settlement Committee being legally duty bound paid Rs. 120 crores from the Exchange's security guarantee fund.It was the biggest loss to CSE.On 9.9.02 after thorough investigation by SEBI, a detailed complaint was filed with the respondent, No 1 against the Indus Ind bank and 15 brokers.It was alleged therein that the margin money cheques by Harish Chandra Biyani group (9.22 crores), Ashok Poddar (3.90 crores) and Prema Poddar (1.38 crores) and Dinesh Singhania group (38.68 crores) deposited as on 5th and 7th March 2001 withheld by the bank and were returned on 10th March 2001 as dishonoured due to insufficient fund while at the time of presentation there were sufficient balance in their accounts and the bank had cleared the other cheques of Harish Chandra Biyani group Rs. 24 crores, Ashok Poddar Rs. 10 crores and Dinesh Singhania group Rs 35 crores.In the meanwhile those brokers built up heavy buying position at CSE and defaulted to pay it.On due pay-out day CSE had to pay out of SGF fund which caused total financial loss to the CSE to the tune of 120 crores i.e. Rs. 106.95 crores belonging to the three groups of brokers and Rs. 13 crores to 13 other brokers.On 7.3.01 CSE paid Rs. 34.S0 crores to SHCIL as rolling settlement pay-out liabilities out of total due of Rs. 7034 crores and expunged remaining transactions of Harish Chandra Biyani with SHCIL.Buyers H.C. Biyanigroup paid Rs. 34,80 crores.After proper enquiry an FIR was registered on 24.9.02 against the Indus Ind bank and 15 other brokers.As per CSE and SEBI bye-laws on due date and time payment was to be done either from buyer broker's margin money accounts or from SGF fund of the CSE.At the last moment of pay-out CSE could not expunge the trade due to any reason.

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

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

Shri Manas Dubey, Advocate for the complainant.I.A. No.6730/2020, an application under section 301(2) of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.Heard learned counsel for the parties.Case diary perused.The applicant has filed this third application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The first one was dismissed on merits vide order dated 16/12/2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 52273/2019 and the second application was rejected for want of material change in the circumstances of the case vide order dated 17/2/2020 passed in M.Cr.Allegation against the applicant in short is that due to previous animosity with the complainant, on 24/08/2019 at about 8.00 pm in the evening when the complainant Nandkishore was returning back to his home alongwith his brother Ram Kishore, co-accused Shiv Kumar armed with Katta, present applicant armed with pistol, co- accused persons Shailendra and Sanyam armed with Katta surrounded both the complainants and started using filthy language.Thereafter, co-accused Shiv Kumar fired with the help of Katta on Ramkishore.Present applicant also fired on Ramkishore by pistol due to which he received injuries.On the aforesaid basis, crime has been registered.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated.After rejection of the previous applications, Challan has been filed.Recovery has been shown prior to registration of FIR.The applicant is said to be having a pistol, whereas as per the report of the ballistic expert, the injury received by injured was caused by a Katta (country made pistol) having loose chamber.As such, that injury cannot be ascribed to the present applicant.It is further submitted that as per the report of Ballistic Expert, blackening is seen at the holes on shirt worn by the injured, which can only occur if the gunshot was fired from a very close distance.However, as per prosecution version one gunshot fired by HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C. No.11780/2020 ( Veer Singh Bhadoriya Vs.It is further submitted that it cannot be presumed at this stage that from what distance the alleged gunshot was fired by the applicant while chasing the injured.Attention has also been invited to the fact that there is an entry wound and exit wound of the injured from posterior to anterior side.Even otherwise, the applicant has been arraigned with the aid of section 34 of the IPC.Besides, three co-accused persons are yet to be arrested.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

C. C. as per rules.(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE bksHeard on IA No.11908 of 15, an application filed on behalf appellant no.1, Parvat Singh for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail.The appellant no.1 has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 307 and 323 of IPC RI for five years with fine of Rs.2000 in the first count and only fine of Rs.3000/- in the second count.As per para 9 of the impugned judgment the appellant no. 1 has also received injuries on his head which was caused by sharp edged weapon.It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that counter case was also registered against the complainant party and they have also been convicted for commission of offence punishable 323 and 324/34 of IPC and other two accused have been enlarged on bail.Looking to the nature and fact of the case, an the fact that there is no likelihood that appeal shall be heard in near future, subject to depositing the fine amount, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case the IA is allowed.It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand) along with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Bhopal by the appellant no. 1, Parvat Singh shall be released on bail with a further direction that he will appear before the Registry of this court firstly on 7th December 2015 and other dates as are fixed by the office in this regard till disposal of this appeal.

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

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

km CRM No. 10204 of 2010 In the matter of: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 07.07.2010 in connection with Santipur P.S. Case No. 280 of 2010 dated 20.6.2010 under sections 147/148/149/448/342/379/186/353/333/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code .We have heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for the Petitioners and for the State.The materials collected against the Petitioners have also been perused by us.This application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Amit Talukdar, J) (Dr. M.K. Chaudhuri, J) 1

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The writ petition is allowed.No costs.27.08.2007rshIndex : Yes Website : Yes ToThe Director General of Police Tamil Nadu Chennai  600 004The Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order) Tamil Nadu Chennai  600 004The Deputy Inspector General of of Police Coimbatore Range Coimbatore  18The Superintendent of Police District Police Office Coimbatore  18A. KULASEKARAN, JrshWP No. 40550 of 200527.08.2007D1/PR/07/2004 dated 02.09.2004 imposing a punishment of removal from service and the consequential order passed by the second respondent herein in his proceedings Rc.No.203219/AP I (1)/2004 dated 25.07.2005 rejecting the appeal petition of the petitioner and further consequential order passed by the first respondent herein in his Rc.No.178032/AP I (1)/2005 dated 01.11.2005 insofar as declaring the petitioner unfit for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to reappoint the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 1997-98 with all consequential monetary and service benefits.On his coming out successful in the interview, he was selected on 16.02.1999 to the Post of Sub-Inspector of Police subject to medical verification and police verification.In the meantime, the petitioner submitted verification roll dated 08.02.1999 in which he has categorically stated that he has not involved in any civil or criminal cases.While things are such, on 11.11.2002, the third respondent issued charge memo, which reads as follows:-"Highly reprehensible and ulterior act on the part of a Government Servant in having suppressed his involvement on 17.08.1997 in a criminal case dealt in Perundurai Police Station (Erode District) Cr.No.461/97 under Sections 147 and 323 IPC at the time of (i.e., on 08.02.1999) submitting his candidature for verification for selection as Sub-Inspector of Police under departmental quota and got selection as Sub-Inspector of Police and thereby desecrated the declaration signed by him in the verification roll."On receipt of the report, the third respondent herein, remanded the report back to the enquiry officer to consider afresh along with other documents.Accordingly, the enquiry officer considered the other two documents and came to a conclusion that the charge against the petitioner was proved.Thereafter, the third respondent has issued second show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation if any.The petitioner has filed Review Petition dated 11.08.2005 before the first respondent, who has reduced the punishment to that of reappointment as Grade-II Police Constable.Hence, challenging these orders, the present writ petition is filed.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has issued a charge memo based on the F.I.R. Dated 21.08.1997 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station in Cr.When the petitioner was working as Grade-II Police constable, he attended the interview for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police.The petitioner also submitted his verification roll as required by the respondents on 08.02.1999, wherein he has categorically stated that there is no civil or criminal case pending against him.Based on the same, the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police.Later, the third respondent came to know that the petitioner involved in an occurrence dated 21.08.1997 and a case was registered under Section 174 and 323 IPC on the file of Perundurai Police Station, Erode District.According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the said incident and even in the FIR his name is not mentioned.It is stated by the petitioner that in this case, the Revenue Divisional Officer has forwarded his report on 07.08.1999 to the District Collector recommending departmental action, hence, on the relevant date i.e., on 08.02.1999 when verification roll was signed and submitted by the petitioner he was not aware what would be the outcome of the report of the revenue divisional officer in the back drop that his name was not found mentioned in the FIR.The said fact was not specifically denied in the counter filed by the respondents, however, it is simply alleged that the petitioner is fully aware of the said criminal case.Hence, this Court is of the view that remanding the matter to set right the defect in the enquiry will not invalidate the enquiry report.After remand, the enquiry officer issued proceedings for adding PW2, A. Jaganathan, Assistant, RDO's office as an additional witness and the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 07.08.1999 as additional prosecution exhibit.The enquiry officer, after set right the same, came to a conclusion that the charge against the petitioner is proved for which he relied much on the report dated 07.08.1999 of the Revenue Divisional Officer wherein it is stated that in the test identification parade, the complainant therein identified him two times.Before concluding this judgment we hereby draw the attention of Parliament to step in and perceive the large many cases which per law and public policy are tried summarily, involving thousands and thousands of people throughout the country appearing before summary courts and paying small amounts of fine, more often than not, as a measure of plea-bargaining.Foremost among them being traffic, municipal and other petty offences under the Indian Penal Code, mostly committed by the young and/or the inexperienced.The cruel result of a conviction of that kind and a fine of payment of a paltry sum on plea-bargaining is the end of the career, future or present, as the case may be, of that young and/or inexperienced person, putting a blast to his life and his dreams.Hence, the impugned orders are quashed.The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner in the post of Sub-Inspector with all benefits.The respondents are directed to comply with this order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

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

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

They were tried along with original accused No.1 ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 ::: Criminal Appeal No.214/2000 2 Raosaheb Ghadge, (the father of accused No.2 and husband of accused No.3), and accused No.4 Anita and accused No.5 Baban @ Saprasen, (the daughter and other son of original accused No.1 Raosaheb respectively).The victim of the incident was Mangal (hereinafter referred as "victim), the wife of accused Dhanraj.The case of prosecution in brief is as follows :-On 26.2.1993, her brother Ratan Shahaji Pade (P.W.2) filed F.I.R. (Exh. 47) at Police Station, Ambajogai, District Beed, informing that he is resident of Pimpri Shiradhon, Taluka Kallam, District ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 ::: Criminal Appeal No.214/2000 3 Osmanabad.His sister victim Mangal was married to accused Dhanraj about one year back, on 16.2.1992 (in evidence, this date is stated to be 10.2.1992).::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 :::The F.I.R. claims that, for the purpose of marriage, it was agreed to give Rs.25,000/- cash, one wrist watch and two dresses.Out of the agreed amount, Rs.20,000/- was paid at the time of marriage and Rs.5000/- was to be paid after one year.mentions the names of persons from the village Pimri Shiradhon, who were present, and others.The dowry as agreed was paid at the time of marriage.The victim was treated properly at the place of in-laws for 5-6 months.Thereafter, for the balance amount of dowry of Rs.5000/-, the victim was being given trouble.When the victim came to the place of her parents at the time of Panchami, Diwali, Sankrant, she was telling about the trouble.However, in order to save the relationship, they did not hurt the in-laws and were making their sister understand.The victim Mangal had trouble at the place of her in-laws, was known to her brothers, parents and others in the brotherhood.On 25.2.1993, at about 11.00 p.m. in the night, one Ramesh Shinde and Jeevan Gite came to the house of complainant and informed ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 ::: Criminal Appeal No.214/2000 4 that their sister has died and her body was at Dastagirwadi.After getting the information, the complainant along with persons mentioned in the F.I.R.went to Dastagirwadi and saw the dead body of their sister Mangal kept near the wall.They enquired about the death from the accused persons, who only informed that the victim worked till 2.00 o'clock, and in the evening she died at about 4.00 p.m. The complainant had come to the Police Station and was filing the F.I.R.that the victim was given cruel treatment for the balance amount of dowry and getting fed up, she had committed suicide and thus the complaint.(b) The F.I.R. was received by Head Constable Pandharinath Kamble (P.W.9) and the offence came to be registered at 9.10 a.m. on 26.2.1993 as Crime No.52/1993 at Police Station, Ambajogai.The investigation was taken over by P.S.I. Ramchandra Shinde (P.W. 12).He drew inquest panchanama (Exh.44) and also prepared spot panchanama (Exh. 45).The dead body was sent for post mortem.The post mortem was done by Dr. Satyanarayan Goli (P.W. 11) at the Medical College Hospital, Ambajogai.Initially, the opinion was that the victim died of suspected poisoning with injury to the gravid uterus and contusion under the ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 ::: Criminal Appeal No.214/2000 5 scalp.After examining the C.A. report and vicera, the final opinion was that she died due to injury to gravid uterus and the contusion under the scalp.::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 :::The five accused were tried in Sessions Case No.30/1993 for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short).The other accused got acquitted of the offence while present appellants- the accused No.2 and accused No.3 were convicted for offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years.They were convicted also for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC, but no separate sentence was imposed.Thus, the present appeal.::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 :::The investigating officer Ramchandra Shinde recorded statements of witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 :::After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambajogai.The offence being Sessions triable, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions at Ambajogai.Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai framed charge against all the accused under Sections 302, 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Prosecution brought on record evidence of 12 witnesses.The defence taken by the accused persons was of denial.Brother of accused No.1 D.W.1 Sukhdeo Ghadge was examined to claim that there was no such talk of dowry and the couple was living happily.After the trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai considered that there was evidence to show that original accused No.1 Raosaheb was out of the village for a marriage on the day concerned and that accused Nos.4 and 5 were taking education and accused No.5 was out of station and thus, acquitted those accused while accused No.2 Dhanraj and his mother accused No.3 Kushavati came to be convicted as ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 ::: Criminal Appeal No.214/2000 6 mentioned.::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 :::The criminal Appeal raises grounds and it has been argued on behalf of the appellants- accused that the conviction is bad in law.Only the brothers of the victim were examined and not her parents.The witnesses had improved their statements.The injury to the victim was possible by fall and doctor had deposed regarding such possibility.The complainant P.W.2 Ratan at one place stated that Rs.20,000/- were given at the time of Tila and at another place stated that the same was given at the time of marriage.He should have been disbelieved.The offence was not established.Although P.W.3 Vishnu Patil (Police Patil), P.W.5 Babruaahan (then Sarpanch) and P.W.6 Baban Pade were disbelieved regarding their evidence of demand and harassment to the victim, still relying on the evidence of the brothers, the conviction has been imposed holding that cruelty and harassment was there in connection with dowry.I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence available on record.Regarding the marriage, there is evidence of P.W.2 Ratan Pade and his brother P.W.4 Sandipan Pade, supported by evidence of P.W.3 Vishnu Patil, P.W.5 Babruvahan as well as P.W.6 Baban Pade, (who is relative).The evidence of these witnesses shows that, for the purpose of ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 ::: Criminal Appeal No.214/2000 7 marriage, between the two sides, there was talk and it was agreed that the girl's side would give dowry of Rs.25,000/- cash, one wrist watch and two dresses to the accused.Evidence shows that, it was agreed that, expenses regarding the marriage ceremony will be borne by the accused's side.The evidence also shows that, when the marriage took place, Rs.20,000/- were paid in cash and Rs.5000/- had remained, which were to be paid in a year.The evidence of these witnesses is consistent regarding the above facts.In the cross-examination, the witnesses were asked various details and on the basis of those details, arguments have been raised that there is inconsistency regarding how many days before the marriage discussion took place; the dowry was paid at the time of Tila or at the time of marriage; who all were present at the time of talks for settlement of marriage and what was the day, date etc. While analysing the evidence, the trial Court observed that, the evidence was being given after 6 to 7 years of the incident and the trial Court did not give much weight to minor inconsistencies.Clearly there was a big time gap and these witnesses are from a small village who are basically agriculturists.Too much of insistence on details would be unfair.The trial Court has analysed the evidence, and I have also gone through the same, and considering the evidence ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 ::: Criminal Appeal No.214/2000 8 available on record, it must be held that the prosecution proved the facts regarding what was settled to be given as dowry at the time of marriage and the fact that Rs.5000/- remained to be paid as dowry, which became cause of the troubles for the victim.::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 :::::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 :::7. P.W.2 Ratan Pade and P.W.4 Sandipan Pade are the brothers of the victim.The evidence shows that, initially the victim was treated well.The evidence shows that, the victim had gone to the place of her parents at the time of Panchami, Diwali and Sankrant during one year.It appears that, Dastagirwadi in Taluka Ambajogai, District Beed is about 45 Kms.From Pimpri where P.W.2 and P.W.4 reside.(See cross-examination of P.W.2).P.W.2 Ratan has deposed that, when the victim came for the festivals, she was complaining that her in-laws are demanding the balance amount of dowry and for the purpose, they have started giving her ill-treatment.According to him, the victim told this to him as well as the parents and others in the relationship as well as to the neighbours.This evidence of P.W.3 read with his F.I.R. shows that the F.I.R. did record that initially the victim was treated well and thereafter for the balance ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 ::: Criminal Appeal No.214/2000 9 amount of dowry of Rs.5000/- she was being troubled.The evidence of complainant Ratan regarding the ill-treatment is that, his sister was being assaulted by fist and kicks and was not provided meals.The F.I.R. did record that the sister complained that she was being given trouble and in order not to spoil the relations, the sister was made to understand and sent back.::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 :::P.W.2 in evidence gave the details of said trouble as the physical assault.Complainant is supported by P.W.4 Sandipan, who deposed that, when the victim came at the time of Dipawali, she was saying that the in-laws are insisting for payment of balance amount and for the purpose, were harassing her.He has deposed that, he made her understand.The evidence of P.W.4 Sandipan is that he had gone to the house of accused persons at the time of Sankrant to bring the victim.She was in the field and so he went there.He deposed that, nobody from the in-laws of the victim talked with him and so, he had to return back without any talk with the in-laws of the victim.His evidence is that, the in-laws did not let him talk with the victim.He had to come back without her.This evidence of this witness regarding his going at the place of accused at the time of Sankrant to bring her sister and the accused persons not even talking to him, and that he had to return without the victim, needs to be examined.::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 :::Criminal Appeal No.214/2000 10 In the cross-examination, there is only a suggestion that it was not true that the people from the place of in-laws did not talk to him.The evidence cannot be said to be shaken.Thus, the evidence survives that this witness had gone to the place of accused to bring the victim, but nobody talked to him and he had to return without being able to bring his sister.When the brother had come to take the victim for Sankrant, if he received such treatment at the matrimonial home of victim, it must be treated as cruelty and harassment to the victim.Evidence shows that, after P.W.4 Sandipan was required to go back without the sister, after 3-4 days the accused did take the victim to Pimpri to the place of P.W.2 and P.W.4. P.W.4 has deposed that, at that time, the accused Dhanraj had told them that the balance amount of dowry should be handed over to him.This evidence of P.W.4 Sandipan also that the accused later on brought the victim and had stated that the balance amount of dowry should be paid to him, also cannot be stated to be denied in the cross-examination and the witness cannot be said to have been shattered on this count.It is apparent that, soon before the death of the victim in February 1993 with bodily injuries the death which was not under normal circumstances, the victim was subjected to harassment with relation to demand of dowry.::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 :::Criminal Appeal No.214/2000 119. P.W.2 and P.W.4 are supported by P.W.3 Vishnu Patil, P.W.5 Babruvahan and P.W.6 Baban also regarding the fact that after the marriage, the victim was suffering harassment at the place of her in-laws.The trial Court has no doubt ignored the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 6 regarding harassment in a one line statement that there are improvements in this regard.However, the improvements in evidence appear to be mainly regarding the details.However, some of the omissions enquired about, do not even appear to have been put up to the witness P.W.3 Vishnu or they were not put up to the investigating officer in the words in which the witness was asked in the cross-examination.For instance, I.O. P.W.12 was asked in cross-examination and he stated regarding P.W.3 Vishnu Patil that, "He had not stated before me that at the time of marriage Rs.20,000/- in cash as a dowry, 2 dresses and wrist watch was given."If examination-in-chief of P.W.3 is perused, he ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 ::: Criminal Appeal No.214/2000 12 deposed that :-::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 :::"In the meeting the marriage was settled and it was agreed to give dowry of Rs.25,000/- cash, one wrist watch and two dresses.Within one month thereafter the marriage ceremony performed.Out of the dowry agreed, Rs.5000/- was remained to be paid and it was agreed that same could be paid after one year."In cross examination of the witness for purpose of omission, on this count, what was asked was only that and he stated:-"I had stated before police that it was agreed to pay the balance after one year."Thus, what was asked to investigating officer is nowhere in evidence of witness in such words.For proving the omissions or contradictions, it is firstly necessary that, with reference to the evidence given by the witness in his examination-in-chief, he is first confronted with his statement to police and the omission or contradiction is got put up to him.As cross-examiners, ignoring substance, stick to presence or absence of specific words in statements to police, while recording contradictions/ omissions, it is necessary for Court to highlight the same to have clarity.Witness should be given chance to explain why the complete sentence or highlighted or specific ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 ::: Criminal Appeal No.214/2000 13 words are not so recorded in Police statement.Then that omission and contradiction is required to be put up to the investigating officer in those specific words.Without confronting the witness with alleged contradiction or omission asking about the same to the investigating office is not helpful.Without specific omissions and contradictions being put up to witness questions were asked to investigating officer in that regard.::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 :::Such cross-examination of investigating officer should have been objected to and should be treated as baseless and ignored.I find, P.Ws.3, 5 and 6 corroborating P.Ws.2 and 4 to the main effect that the victim, after marriage was suffering harassment at the place of her in-laws.These P.Ws. were connected with the marriage and in village came to know about the harassment and deposed accordingly.P.W.2 Ratan and P.W.4 Sandipan have deposed that, on the day of incident, they came to know about the death of their sister.It appears, these persons along with other villagers went to the house of accused and saw the dead body of the victim.P.W.5 Babruvahan has deposed that, he had also gone.The evidence of P.W.2 is that, coming to know about the fact from one Ramesh Shinde and Jeevan Shinde, he along with ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 ::: Criminal Appeal No.214/2000 14 others went to Dastagirwadi.According to him, he made enquiries from the accused and they stated that, the victim worked till 2.00 p.m., and expired at about 4.00 p.m. In the cross-examination of P.W.2 Ratan, details were sought by the accused.It appears that, for going from Pimpri Shiradhon to Dastagirwadi, the way goes from Ambajogai.P.W.2 admitted in the cross-examination that, after getting the message, while he was proceeding to the house of the accused, he had been to the Police Station, but was advised to first visit the place and then make the report.Even if this was so, I do not find that the F.I.R.::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 :::filed needs to be doubted.It is natural for the relatives to get disturbed on getting news of sudden death of their sister and if the complainant P.W.2 on the way stopped at the Police Station and was advised to first go and verify, it cannot be said that the F.I.R. is afterthought.It is natural that, at that time, complainant did not have all the details if really the sister had expired as he had heard or what was the cause of death.The F.I.R. (Exh. 47) shows that the complainant could reach the place of accused persons in the night only by about 3.00 a.m. Looking to the incident, naturally some time would get spent at the place of the accused persons and then go back to the police station.The F.I.R. thus filed in the morning around 9.00 a.m. cannot be said to be delayed or to be a result of discussion.At such times, it is natural for the relatives to gather.That by itself ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 ::: Criminal Appeal No.214/2000 15 does not mean that the F.I.R. claiming that there was harassment and thus unnatural death requires investigation is doubtful.::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 :::In the F.I.R., no doubt the complainant stated that his sister had committed suicide due to the harassment at the place of in-laws.But, the subsequent medical evidence available shows that the victim suffered bodily injury and the death was not in normal circumstances.There is evidence of P.W.1 Sitaram Mane, who is panch of the inquest panchanama (Exh. 44) as well as the spot panchanama Exh. 45).His evidence shows that, the victim had swelling to her left wrist.Then there is evidence of P.W.1 Dr. Satyanarayan Goli who found that there was abraded contusion to the left forearm of the victim.He also found contusion under scalp on left frontal region and behind frontal eminents.On internal examination of the abdomen, he found 100 cc whitish fluid.The uterus was enlarged about 3 months gestation period and products of conception were seen.There was evidence of haemorrhage.The anterior aspect of uterus showed contusion.The initial opinion given by the doctor was of suspicion of poisoning with injury to the gravid uterus and contusion under the scalp.The C.A. report (Exh. 64) did not show any recognisable poison.The final opinion given by the doctor was thus that, the victim died due to injury to gravid ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 ::: Criminal Appeal No.214/2000 16 uterus and contusion under the scalp.It has been argued that, the injury to the scalp was possible by fall, has been admitted by the doctor.Even if the injury was possible by fall, there is no such defence of the accused.The victim was in the custody of appellants/ accused at the time concerned and the cross-::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 :::examination of witnesses or statement of accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. does not in any manner explain the cause of injuries found by the doctor in the post mortem.What happened with the victim when she was with both the accused is fact specially within the knowledge of the appellants- accused.The prosecution has proved that within seven years of the marriage the victim suffered death which could not be said to be normal or under normal circumstances and she had injuries.Under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the onus would shift on the accused to explain the injuries of the victim.There is evidence to show that soon before the death the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused persons for the balance amount of dowry.As such, under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, it needs to be presumed that the accused persons caused the dowry death.In view of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to disagree with the trial Court regarding the conclusion ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 ::: Criminal Appeal No.214/2000 17 that offence under Section 498-A as well as Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code has been established.For the given evidence available on record, findings arrived at by the trial Court, is a possible view and I have no reason to interfere with the same.::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 :::The appeal stands dismissed.The appellants- accused to surrender to their bail bonds to suffer the sentence imposed.(A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.) ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 :::::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2014 23:50:07 :::

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

the petitioner and Shri N.H. Joshi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent 2/State.Respondent 1 is duly served.::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2018 02:18:54 ::: wp56.18.J.odt 2::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2018 02:18:54 :::The Investigating Agency cannot be compelled by an order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to submit a final report notwithstanding that the investigation may reveal the innocence or absence of complicity of the person facing the allegation.::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2018 02:18:54 :::6] The order dated 15.03.2014, to the extent the Police Station Officer, Police Station Washim City is directed to register specific offences and then to submit final report/charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., is quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2018 02:18:54 ::: wp56.18.J.odt 4 The Police Station Officer, Police Station Washim City is free to investigate and then take a decision on filing a report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. or to proceed under Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. It is made clear that the Investigating Officer shall not be influenced, directly or indirectly, by any observation made in the order impugned dated 15.03.2014 or any observation made in the revisional order.::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2018 02:18:54 :::7] The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms.JUDGENSN ::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2018 02:18:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2018 02:18:54 :::

['Section 504 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.

In default of payment of fine, they have to undergo simple imprisonment of one month.Shambhu @ Shyam and Dharmender have also been convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- each.In default of payment of fine, they have to undergo CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 2 of 28 simple imprisonment for two months.CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 2 of 28As per the Post Mortem Report (Ex.PW-9/A), Garima was strangulated to death.Dr. Komal Singh (PW-9) had conducted the post mortem.On external examination, he found that there was contusion on the inner surface of the upper lip, nail marks over the right tip of the nose, left cheeks and at centre of the forehead.Ligature mark of 27cm 8mm was found over the entire circumference of the neck except at the right upper side of the neck.The cause of death, as opined, was asphyxia subsequent to the ligature strangulation over the neck and smothering incomination.She has deposed that at about 3-3.30 P.M., Sarthak came to the roof of her house and called her through the Jaal that her mother was not opening the house door.She telephoned Garima but no one responded.She, along with Sarthak, succeeded in entering Garimas house, from the rear entrance.They saw that house was ransacked, the almirah and the bed were open and Garima was lying dead.He went over to PW-7s house and asked her to call her mother Garima.When no one responded to the phone calls, PW-7 and PW-2 came to the terrace and then the front door but could not gain entry.Ultimately, they discovered that the rear side door was bolted from outside.They entered the house and found it ransacked.Garima, his mother, was lying dead on the floor.PW-7 raised an alarm and called other neighbours.Aastha, his sister, was entangled in the diwan, under the mattress, in the middle room.Her upper portion of the torso was outside the Diwan and her rear portion was inside the Diwan.Naveen Kumar (PW-1), who worked as a Junior Engineer in CPWD, had left for office at 8.30 A.M., on the date of occurrence.His daughter Aastha, a student of LKG, had not gone to school that day, but his son Sarthak, studying in the 5th standard, was at school.When CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 5 of 28 PW-1 left home, both Garima and Aastha were present in the house.At about 4.00 P.M., he received a telephone call from his neighbour, who said that there had been a mishap with his wife.PW-1 left for home with a senior, and when he reached, he saw that his wife Garima was lying dead on the floor, in the rear bedroom.The cupboard adjoining the bed was ransacked and there were marks on Garimas neck.Savitri Devi (PW-7) was taking care of his children.Aastha, when asked by the police, had stated that Shyam uncle had come to the house.He reached the spot, along with the SHO Inspector Ranjeet Singh and others.There he found a girl, namely Aastha, aged about 5 years, and she was found to be scared.CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 8 of 28Inspector Dig Vijay Singh (PW-22) has deposed on similar lines.On the date of occurrence, he was posted as Inspector (Investigations).He was directed to conduct further investigation in the case.He reached at the spot and recorded statement of the witnesses.One girl Aastha, 4 years old, met him there, but she was very scared.In PW- 22s presence, father of Aastha spoke to her and she revealed that Shyam uncle and another uncle had come to the house.PW-1 said that Shyam had worked as a carpenter, in his house.This raised suspicion against Shyam and inquiries were made but he was found to be absconding and untraceable.On 25th April, 2008, they received secret information that Shyam was spotted around C-1, Janakpuri.PW-22, along with staff members, in civil clothes, reached there and at about 2.00 P.M. apprehended Shyam.He was arrested vide memo Ex.PW- 16/A.The testimonies of ASI Mahender Singh (PW-15) and Inspector Dig Vijay Singh (PW-22) create doubt regarding whether Shyam was accompanied by one or more than one person, according to Aastha.She was extremely nervous and was not in a position to speak cogently and to recall the entire incident or to indicate the number of persons, who had come with Shyam.However, on a specific question, she has stated that she does not remember how many others were there.She has stated that two persons had pressed her neck and Shyam uncle had also pressed her neck.In the end, she has stated that she does not remember anything other than the presence of Shaym uncle.These are great advantages accompanied by some corresponding drawbacks.With regard to recoveries, as per the endorsement made in the rukka, four articles, worn by the deceased, were found to be missing, namely, gold bangles, gold chain, gold tops and nose ring.However, PW-1, in his statement in the court, has stated that cash of about Rs.26,000-27000/-, silver coins, three-four silver statues (murtis) of God and Goddesses, rings, three-four pair of tops, three silver anklets, one heart shaped plate and other jewellery were found to be missing, from the cupboard.These details were mentioned in subsequent statement of Naveen Kumar (PW-1), recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer Dig Vijay Singh (PW-22) has stated that when they made inquiries about accused Shyam, the carpenter, he was found to be absconding from his house RZ-B38, Bindapur Extension and was untraceable.On 25th April, 2008, he received information that Shyam was spotted around Janakpuri area and was arrested at around 2.00 P.M. He was identified by the informer and arrested vide arrest memo (Exhibit PW-16/A).The arrest memo mentions and has thumb impression of Krishna Devi, i.e., mother of accused Shambhu Nath (Shyam).The alleged disclosure statement of Shambhu Nath (Exhibit PW-16/C) was recorded on the day of his arrest itself.In the said disclosure statement, it is alleged that he had revealed the name of his associates as Aditya, Dharmender and Babu CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 20 of 28 Hasan.To this extent, the disclosure statement would be inadmissible.However, on examination of the police diary, we find that on the date of occurrence, i.e., 16th April, 2008 itself the police had carried out investigation to find out the address of Shambhu Nath and they had been apprised of the fact that Dharmender was working and residing with Shambhu Nath.They had tried to locate the residential house number of Shambhu Nath but they could not locate it, though they had come to know that appellant Shambhu Nath was close to the three other accused and several other persons, whose names were mentioned."....................After that we four went to my house and divided the looted money and jewellery among us.One gold bangle and one chain was taken by Babu.Our reasons are as under:CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 22 of 28Subject matter of challenge in these four appeals by Aditya Gupta @ Babloo, Babu Hasan, Dharmender Kumar and Shambhu @ Shyam Sharma is the common judgment, dated 30th October, 2010 in Session Case No.978/2008, arising out of FIR No. 102/2008, Police Station Binda Pur.The four appellants have been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.25,000/- each, which has to be paid to the family of the deceased-Garima as compensation.In default of payment of fine, they have to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.The four appellants have also been convicted under Section 394 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of seven years and fine of Rs.5,000/- each.Both were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, together or individually.In the cross- examination, he has clarified that if the ligature mark is due to use of a wire or a rope for strangulation, then it would have made different impressions over the neck, though it is not necessary that in all the cases there would be cut marks if strangulation was by means of a metallic wire.There is evidence that the baby Astha, aged about 3-4 years, was also strangulated and then put inside the box bed (Diwan).Her injuries have been proved by her father Naveen Kumar (PW-1), brother Sarthak (PW-2), neighbour Savitri Devi (PW-7) and police officials, who had visited the place of occurrence.CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 3 of 28CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 3 of 28Regarding the involvement of the four appellants, the prosecution case, as is apparent from the facts narrated below, is premised upon the statement of Aastha, who was present in the house and was injured in the alleged incident, and on recovery of the stolen articles.Savitri Devi (PW-7) is the complainant, who was residing in the neighbourhood.Her daughter Astha was heard crying in other room, and Sarthak took his sister out from the box bed.PW-7 came out and raised an alarm.Husband of Garima, Naveen Kumar (PW-1) was informed on the telephone and the police was called.PW-7s statement was recorded (Ex.PW-7/A).PW-7s statement has not been contradicted and cannot be doubted.But the statement does not implicate the appellants as perpetrators of the crime.Sarthak (PW-2), son of the deceased and brother of Astha, has deposed on identical lines.He knocked at the door and called his mother, but she did not open the door.He climbed over the terrace and called his mother from the Jaal, on the terrace.PW-2 could hear his sister crying.However, he was not aware if his father (PW-1) made inquiries from Aastha because he was sent to a neighbours house.He remembered that carpentry work was being carried out, till the evening before the incident.CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 4 of 28PW-1 has averred that there were abrasions on the neck of his daughter and she was sent to the hospital for medical examination.After returning from the hospital, when asked by her father, she had revealed that Shyam uncle had come with 2-3 other persons.She could not give much information and, being in a state of shock, she started weeping.PW-1, therefore, did not push her for further information.He testified that one Shyam @ Shambhu had worked as a Carpenter, at his house, on 2-3 occasions, and, at times, for longer period of duration and this could be the reason why his daughter had referred him as "Shyam uncle".He averred that his wife usually wore one gold chain, two gold kara, a pair of tops and a nose pin which were missing.He has stated that cash of about Rs.26,000/- to 27,000/-, silver coins, 3-4 silver statues of God/Goddess, rings, 3-4 pairs of tops, three gold chains, three silver anklets, a heart shaped plate and other jewellery were CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 6 of 28 missing from the cupboard.He had participated in the TIP proceedings (Ex.PW-1/A) and identified a pair of gold tops, three silver coins, a gold necklace, a pair of gold tops, a gold kada, two silver coins, gold necklace (chain type), silver statue of God Krishna, silver plate, one gold nose pin, statue of Goddess Durga, an artificial necklace and pair of silver anklets marked Ex.P-1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 respectively.He identified the different currency notes, marked Ex. PW-15 to 17, allegedly recovered from the appellants-Dharmender and Aditya Gupta.In the cross-examination, he deposed that the appellant Shyam Sharma was introduced to him by his cousin, Anand Prakash Mittal.Shyam had earlier worked in Anand Prakash Mittals house.The kara, worn by the deceased, belonged to his mother and he had seen his mother wearing it since his childhood.He deposed that the robbed money belonged to him and the rest was a gift which had been received by his wife on various occasions.CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 5 of 28CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 6 of 28What is noticeable in the statement of PW-1 is that Aastha had told him that Shyam uncle had come with 2-3 other persons.After that she had not given much information and had started weeping.She was in a state of shock and, therefore, PW-1 did not ask for more details.He further deposed that Aastha had said, in the SHOs presence, that Shyam uncle had come to the house.We record here that the testimony of PW-1, that Aastha had stated Shyam uncle to be with 2-3 CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 7 of 28 persons, was not specifically questioned in the cross examination.However, to our mind, this is irrelevant, as the statement of Aastha, to her father or to the police, would substantially fall in the category of hearsay, except to the limited extent that certain leads were provided by Aastha.Aasthas recollection of events has to be examined and evaluated separately, when we deal with her testimony to the Court.Aastha informed them that one Shyam uncle, along with another, had come to their house and, thereafter, she started weeping.SHO prepared the rukka and the case was registered.He remained at the spot, till 8.00 P.M., along with SHO CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 8 of 28 Inspector Ranjit Singh.CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 7 of 28PW-15 and PW-22 deposed that according to Astha, Shyam had come with another person and not with 2-3 persons.PW-15 and PW-22 were not cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor on this aspect.Aastha was not examined as a prosecution witness due to her CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 9 of 28 tender age and incoherent statements, to her father and the police officers.In the Trial Court, final arguments were heard and judgment was reserved.Thereafter, vide order dated 7th October, 2010, the Additional Sessions Judge directed that statement of Aastha should be recorded as a court witness.She was, therefore, examined, as a Court witness, on 8th October, 2010, about 26 months from the date of occurrence.At that time, she was about 6-7 years of age while at the time of occurrence she was aged 4 years.The Additional Sessions Judge posed several questions to Aastha, to satisfy that she had maturity to depose.Aastha identified the appellant- Shyam, in the court.Dharmender was also identified by her, in the court, as the one who had caught her legs along with Shyam and both of them had thrown her in the Diwan.She identified Babu Hasan and Aditya Gupta, as the other two people who had come with Shyam.Aastha stated that she was lying in a different room and, after some time, Shyam uncle came and pressed her neck while other man caught her legs and both dumped her in a diwan.She has stated that Aditya, Babu Hassan and Dharmender had come to the house with Shyam.The question is whether the identification made by Aastha, of the appellants Aditya Gupta, Dharmender and Babu Hasan stands proved and should be accepted by the Court? We have grave reservations in view of the statements of the Investigating Officer (PW-15) and CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 10 of 28 Inspector Digvijay Singh (PW-22).In addition to their statements, we have in the trial court record Aasthas statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The application for recording her 164 Cr.In the application, it was stated that Aastha had uttered Shyam uncles name to her father.Aastha was about four years of age and was extremely nervous, as the accused had tried to kill her.She, therefore, could not be examined as a prosecution witness.Her father had also stated that Aastha was not in a position to give a statement.We may note that the appellants herein were arrested earlier i.e. before the application dated 22nd July, 2008 was filed.In the application, it was not mentioned that Aastha could recognize the other accused or that she had indicated that there were 2-3 other persons, who were present with Shyam uncle.Aastha, on 23rd July, 2008, in her statement, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., before the Metropolitan Magistrate stated as under:-CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 9 of 28CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 10 of 28"Shyam uncle had come that day.His friends (dost) had also come with him.Their names are not known.One of them was Shyam uncle.Do not know how many friends had come.Earlier I was sleeping.I woke up as soon as they came.They had come to steal the money.Two persons had strangulated me.Shyam uncle had also strangulated me.At that time my mother was packing the clothes.She was keeping them in the Almirah.I found my mother lying on the floor.She was not getting up.I had gone to the hospital CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 11 of 28 later.My mother has died.She has become a star.CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 11 of 28CW-1, Aastha was a very young child at the time of occurrence, aged about four years.She had gone through a traumatic experience, which had petrified and shocked her.The credibility and truthfulness of the statement has to be established.CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 18 of 28The police diary does not record that they had visited the residential house of Shambhu @ Shyam or he was absconding.On the other hand, it is recorded that the two police parties had gone to the village of Shambhu Nath in Bihar.The relevant portion of the disclosure statement Ex.CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 20 of 28One ear ring and silver coins were taken by Bablu and balance jewellery was kept by me and Dharmender in my room.It was agreed that we shall sell the jewellery and divide the proceeds."As per the prosecution version, the actual recovery made at the instance of Shyam was Kada, two silver coins, Rs.3,500/-, gold CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 21 of 28 necklace and one pair of ear tops.On the same day itself, as per the police version, Dharmender was arrested from RZB-59, Bindapur Extension and had made a disclosure statement, that he had kept one silver murti, one necklace (artificial) and one pajeb.On this basis, from premises No. RZB-38, Bindapur Extension one necklace (artificial), one top, silver like metal-idol of Durga, silver coin, Rs.2,000/- were recovered below the clothes from a rexine attache.Thus, the place of recovery in the case of Shyam and Dharmender is the same room RZB-38, Bindapur Extension.In his disclosure statement, he has stated that the stolen articles retained by them, i.e., Shyam and Dharmender had been kept in the same place.He did not talk of any bifurcation or division between him and Dharmender.There were no special marks on the currency notes and it is not indicated that there was any identification mark put on these currency notes, to distinguish them from others.The said TIP proceedings did not relate to the currency notes.The TIP with regard to articles will show that the recovered article belong to or were stolen from the house.However, the pertinent question is slightly different, as to whether the recoveries made by the police were pursuant to the disclosure statements and from the custody of Dharmender and Aditya Gupta.Having carefully examined the said aspect, there is a strong element of doubt whether the aforesaid recoveries were in fact made from the accused Dharmender and Aditya Gupta, as alleged by the prosecution.(ii) As per the said disclosure statement, he has not stated that there was any division of articles between him and Dharmender.(iii) On the basis of disclosure statement made by Shyam (Exhibit PW-16/C), articles were recovered from premises RZB-38, Bindapur Extension, which is a one-room house.These recoveries have been attributed to the disclosure CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 23 of 28 made by Shyam.From the same room and on the same day itself, later on recoveries were attributed to Dharmender on the basis of subsequent disclosure statement made by Dharmender marked Exhibit PW-CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 23 of 28Aditya Gupta also made a disclosure statement vide Exhibit PW-16/J, and from the same premises recoveries were again made.(iv) No public witnesses were joined in the said recovery proceedings.He has stated that Shyam Sharma along with his father, mother and brother was residing on the second floor, which is given on rent to them.He did not know the name of any other person residing with the family of Shyam Sharma.He denied that Dharmender was residing with Shyam Sharma and stated that he had seen appellant-Dharmender visiting the family of Shyam Sharma but he was not residing with them.CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 24 of 28As per the disclosure statement, one gold chain, one nose pin, one silver idol and silver plate were lying at his residence house No. C-112, Pocket-4, JJ Colony, first floor room.We may note that Babu Hasan was not arrested.Babu Hasan had surrendered before the Court on 30th April, 2008 at 2.30 P.M. It is clear from the Court records that from the beginning itself the police had suspected involvement of Babu Hasan as the fourth person.In the application requesting for three days police custody of Shyam dated 26th April, 2008 it was stated that the one accused Babul, i.e., Babu Hasan was absconding and case property had to be recovered from him.The said police custody was allowed vide order dated 26 th April, 2008 for a period of three days after medical.It may be relevant to state here that Babu Hasan had filed an application dated 26 th June, 2008 and asked for conducting Test Identification Parade by the eye witness.This application was opposed by the prosecution/Investigating Officer on the ground that there were no eye witnesses.Accordingly, no TIP was conducted as the Investigating Officer did not want to get it conducted.CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 25 of 28CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 25 of 28Way back in the year 1943, Justice Muneer, in the decision reported as AIR 1943 Null 5 Shera v. Emperor had cautioned Courts to be vigilant against the known practice of the police to plant ordinary objects on the accused persons to prove their guilt.Against appellants Kuldeep, Pramod, Sanjay and Dalip, the incriminating evidence sought to be produced is the stated recoveries, one article belonging to the deceased, and they having, in conjunction with accused Sachin and Prem Pal getting recovered the body of the deceased pursuant to disclosure statements made by them.We have already commented upon the weak evidence pertaining to the recovery of one article each by them and it being linked to the deceased.It is settled legal position that Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be used to "rediscover a discovered fact.CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 26 of 28No evidence has been put forth to establish that there was forceful entry in the house.The police officers, PW-8 and PW-21, who had visited the site of occurrence, were not cross-examined and no question was put to them.Shyam Sharma, is a Carpenter, and there is evidence to show that he had worked at the residence of PW-1 and the deceased.Learned counsel, appearing for Shyam Sharma, has relied upon the report of the Crime Team that had visited the place of occurrence.In the said report (Ex. PW-6/A), in Col. No. 8., it was recorded that electricians involvement was suspected.We do not find any merit in the said contention.Rukka (Ex.PW-7/A) was sent to the police station for recording and the FIR was registered at 8.15 P.M. In the FIR itself, name of accused Shyam is mentioned.However, at the same time, one cannot ignore the immediate investigation conducted, between the time when police reached at the crime spot and when FIR was registered.It reflects that, right from the beginning itself, Shyam uncle was named and mentioned by Aastha (CW-1).In view of the above findings, we uphold the conviction and sentence of CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 27 of 28 Shambhu @ Shyam Sharma under Section 302 IPC, Section 307 IPC and Section 394 IPC.Other appellants, Aditya Gupta, Babu Hasan and Dharmender Kumar are, however, acquitted, giving them benefit of doubt.Appeals are accordingly disposed of.CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 27 of 28(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE ( S. P. GARG ) JUDGE November 22nd, 2012 NA/VKR CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 28 of 28CRL.A. No. 478/2011 + connected maters Page 28 of 28

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

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

CM No. 5383/2015 (for necessary directions and early hearing) This is an application seeking necessary directions and early hearing of the writ petition.For the reasons stated in the application, and as the counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition involves a very short issue and the same be heard, accordingly, I allow the early hearing of the petition and the learned counsel for the parties have been heard on merit.WP (C) No. 6315/2010 Page 1 of 18 WP (C) No. 6315/2010WP (C) No. 6315/2010 Page 1 of 18The challenge in this writ petition is to the orders dated March 24, 2005 and November 17, 2005 whereby the petitioner was issued a show cause notice seeking the petitioners representation on a proposed decision taken by the Executive Council of the respondent No. 2 University to remove the petitioner from the services of the University (respondent No.2) and was in fact, removed after considering the representation so made by the petitioner.The brief facts are, while the petitioner, at the relevant point of time was working as Professor in the respondent No. 2 University, a FIR No. 87/2002 under Sections 120-B and 420 of IPC was lodged against him in the New Friends Colony Police Station, on an allegation that he was running a fake Medical College at Sarai Jullena, New Delhi.The petitioner was arrested in the said case.On August 1, 2003, a memorandum was issued to hold an enquiry against the petitioner on two articles of charge.On October 18, 2004, the enquiry was adjourned sine die as the charges in the departmental enquiry were identical to the charges framed against the petitioner in the WP (C) No. 6315/2010 Page 2 of 18 criminal case.On March 24, 2005, the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner seeking his representation on the proposed action of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to remove the petitioner from services on his conviction in the criminal case.It is noted that a further representation dated June 10 2005, was also given by the petitioner to the Registrar of the respondent No. 2-University bringing to his notice an order passed by the Addl.Sessions Judge on May 23, 2005 with regard to an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi wherein, the learned ASJ has dropped the charge under Section 120-B IPC against the petitioner and waived the fine of Rs. 1 lakh and curtailed the sentence of 7 years to the already gone period.The competent authority, Executive Council on consideration of the representations made by the petitioner on April 18, 2005 and June 10, 2005, and also perusing the order passed by learned Addl.The revision petition was finally decided on August 28, 2009, wherein, this Court was of the following view:WP (C) No. 6315/2010 Page 2 of 18WP (C) No. 6315/2010 Page 3 of 18However, the order on sentence as passed by the learned Magistrate was modified to the extent that the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.Learned Additional Sessions Judge had also noted that the appellant had remained behind bars not only during his trial but also while his appeal was pending.Petition stands disposed of."Accordingly, the petitioner on October 19, 2005, wrote a letter to WP (C) No. 6315/2010 Page 4 of 18 the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 requesting for his reinstatement.Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors., this Court upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the original application filed by the petitioner in that case seeing the direction for being appointed as Constable (Male) Executive by holding as under:The stand of the petitioner is that when he submitted the application form, the case registered vide aforesaid FIR was sub-judice against him in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Thana Gazi.The petitioner had already mentioned about the case in the application form.WP (C) No. 6315/2010 Page 7 of 18The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank reported in (2010) IV LLJ 297 SC after taking note of various decisions on the issue, where after conviction, a person was released on probation, has upheld the dismissal of an employee who was convicted for an offence involving mortal turpitude.Even in the said case, appellant therein was given the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act by the criminal court.If that is so, there is no reason to uphold the contention of petitioner who is involved in a serious crime".Even in a subsequent judgment dated April 18, 2013, a Division Bench of this Court while deciding W.P.(C) 2372/2010 in the case of Ajit Kumar Vs.Commissioner of Police and Ors.involving an identical issue, was of the following view:The Petitioner had already mentioned about the case in the application form.(ii) His reinstatement shall be highly prejudicial to the academic environ of the University.Resultantly, no indulgence whatsoever can be granted to him in Jamia Millia Islamia".The decision of the Executive Council was on relevant considerations and this Court, in exercise of judicial review, would not like to sit as an Appellate Authority over and above the Executive Council and come to a different conclusion.I do not see any merit in the writ petition.No costs.(V.KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE JULY 06, 2015/akb WP (C) No. 6315/2010 Page 18 of 18WP (C) No. 6315/2010 Page 18 of 18

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The Inspector of Police, C.B., C.I.D., Madras, on the lodging of a report, registered a case against the petitioners herein for alleged offences under section 120B read with Sections 147, 148, 364, 302 and 201, I.P.C. and took up investigation.The investigation revealed that six murders were committed on different dates by the petitioners and consequently they were arrested and later remanded to custody by the Magistrate, as detailed below :The remand periods were extended on various dates by the Magistrate time and again.The petitioners were placed under detention under the provisions of the National Security Act. The investigating agency was stated to be having obstacles in the course of investigation relating to the identity of the deceased, since skeletons of five of the murder victims alone were recovered during investigation.The detention of the petitioners under the National Security Act was however set aside by this Court.In these circumstances, the petitioners have filed Crl.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Shri Kuldeep Singh, counsel for the Objector.Heard learned counsel for the parties.It is alleged against the applicant that he demanded the amount of loan from the deceased.It is also alleged that he assaulted him in consequence of that demand.However, the allegation made against the applicant does not fall within the purview of Section 107 or 109 of I.P.C therefore, prima facie no offence under Section 306 of I.P.C is made out against the applicant.The applicant is in custody without any substantial reason.Under these circumstances, applicant prays for bail.Learned P.L 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)

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This is an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, "the Act") has been preferred before this court for grant of bail to appellant Ajay Singh Yadav in connection with Crime No.238/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of IPC and section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at Police Katara Hills, District Bhopal.The appellant is in judicial custody since 24.10.2019 in the aforementioned case.The allegation against the appellant is inter-alia of having murdered the deceased and disposing of her body.Besides the IPC related offences, there are relevant sections of the SC/ST Act which have also been added against him.There are no eyewitnesses in this case.The evidence against the appellant is based upon "last seen".Learned counsel for the State, while opposing the application for grant of bail, has submitted that the daughter's statement clearly reveals that the appellant was the last person with whom the deceased was seen.Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased being last seen with the appellant was normal and explainable as the appellant is a Contractor and the deceased used to work for him.As per the 27 memorandum, only a Gamcha has been seized from the appellant.The post-mortem report shows external injuries as abrasions on the body of the deceased.The cause of death is shown as asphyxia on account of strangulation.Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, the period of incarceration already undergone as an under-trial by the appellant herein and also the fact that the evidence is only based upon "last seen", the appeal is allowed and direct that the appellant herein be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.The appeal is finally disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.(Atul Sreedharan) Judge ps PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA 2020.08.24 17:01:27 +05'30'

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

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

Heard on the question of admission.This appeal has already been admitted.Record has been received.Heard on IA No.7374/2019 which is first application under Section 389 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Kaliya S/o Gulab.The appellant has been convicted by First Additional Sessions Judge, Alirajpur in Sessions Trial No.160/2017 under Sections 307/34 (3 counts) and 452/34 of IPC and has been sentenced as under:It has been mentioned that the imprisonment or sentence shall run concurrently.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has completed half of his jail term on 12.12.2019 and he also submits that another co-accused-Ratniya who was convicted 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3210 OF 2019 (Kaliya vs State of Madhya Pradesh) and sentenced identically has been let off by considering the quantum of sentence of eight months spent by him in jail to be adequate punishment.With these submissions, suspension has been sought.Learned public prosecutor for the State was also heard.The substantive jail sentence of the appellant-Kaliya is suspended subject to his depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited) and on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 17.02.2020 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.Accordingly, IA No.7374/2019 stands disposed of.List the appeal for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per Rules.(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE Arun/-Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR Date: 2020.01.07 13:47:16 +05'30'

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 389 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 is second application under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.356/2019 registered at Police Station - Dharampuri, District Dhar for commission of offence punishable under Sections 354, 34-B, 294, 323 and 506 of IPC.Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present crime due to dispute between the parties regarding an ancestral land.The applicant is in jail since 5.08.2019 and conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time.In such circumstances, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned counsel for the State submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail, hence the application filed by the applicant be dismissed.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, but without commenting on merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed.The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(Ms. Vandana Kasrekar) Judge HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.42045/2019 (Amarsingh Vs.State of M.P.) -1- mk MUKTA KAUSHAL 2019.10.16 16:25:46 +05'30'

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

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

The sentence was confirmed by this court in C.A.NO:1177 0f 2004 by order dated 25-8-2006 now he is jail for about 9 years.To find out whether he was a juvenile as per our direction, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, In-charge of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Erode had conducted an enquiry and has given a report stating as follows:So considering the evidence and documents produced, it revealed that at the time of the alleged occurrence, the said accused Venkatesh has completed 17 years 10 months and 26 days.According to the learned counsel the detenu has not completed the age of 18 at the time of commission of offence and therefore, he is entitled to benefit under the Act and to be set at liberty.Therefore, in the present case, the age has been determined by the Trial Court and it was found that the detenu was juvenile at the time of committing the offence and that he has already undergone imprisonment for three years, therefore, his further detention is not necessary and he is to be set at liberty.In the result, the petition is allowed and the detenu, if continue to be in custody, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.(K.M.J.,) (G.M.A.,J.)30.03.2012 Index : Yes Internet : Yes ToThe Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Department of Home Secretariat, Fort Saint George, Chennai-600 009The Superintendent, Central Prison, CoimbatoreThe Inspector of Police Karunkalpalayam Police Station Erode District K. MOHAN RAM,J.,andG.M.AKBAR ALI,J.srPredelivery order inHCP No.120 of 201230-3-2012

['Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

There are no injuries.The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 2942 of 2012 (State Vs.Manoj Kumar Sharma and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 206 of 2002, under Sections-452, 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C., Police Station- Narsaina, District-Bulandshahr, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.3, Bulandshahr.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature.The FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged.There never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred.At present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and made peace.In view of the settlement reached between the parties, they pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship.The continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship.In such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the applicant.In the above regard, a compromise has been entered into between the parties.Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and 3 has filed short counter affidavit.Opposite party no.3 had been injured in an incident dated 27/28.04.2019 and the assailants could not be identified.Although, opposite party no.2 had been attacked with a knife, he did not sustained any injury which was life threatened.That after having amicably settled their differences with the applicants, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have submitted a compromise application supported by affidavits in Case No. 2942 of 2012 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Bulandshahr, having arisen from Case Crime No. 206 of 2002 under Sections 452, 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Narsaina, District-Bulandshahr.That opposite party no.2 and 3 undertake not to lead evidence against the applicants in Court, with respect to Case Crime No. 206 of 2002, Police Station Narsaina, District-Bulandshahr."In compliance of the order of the Court dated 28th November, 2019, the applicant no.1, namely, Manoj Kumar Sharma and the opposite party no.2 and 3, namely, Anis (informant) and Saukeen (victim) are present in Court today, who have been identified by their counsel and their signatures have also been attested by them.On the instruction received, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 & 3 submits that since the parties have entered into a compromise, opposite party no. 2&3 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The allegation culled out from the F.I.R. is that the mother of applicant was registered agent of Post Office having Agent Code No.It is on her efforts, she succeeded in 600 accounts open of different investors.This bail application has been listed before me pursuant to the direction of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 04.04.2020 for consideration, therefore, same is being decided in Chamber under the extraordinary conditions prevailing now a days.Written objection dated 4.5.2020 filed on behalf of State as well as written submission filed on behalf of applicant through e-mail are taken on record.I have perused the bail application filed on behalf of Ashish Agrawal, who is languishing in jail since 20.11.2019 in connection with Case Crime No.408 of 2019, u/s 420, 409 I.P.C., P.S.-Souron, District-Kasganj.Contention made in the bail application on behalf of applicant is that Vikas Tiwari s/o Shri Girraj Kishore for himself and on behalf of number of other account holders in his representative capacity has lodged the F.I.R. u/s 420 IPC on 09.10.2019 against the applicant, his mother Mrs. Mridula Agrawal and his wife Mrs. Kanak Agrawal.In this process she opened recurring account of Rs.300, 500, 1000 and 5000/- and collected the amount by providing door to door service to her investors and keep their pass-books with her.In this process her son, the applicant extended his services as her helping hand.It is alleged that after collecting the sum, on 08.10.2019, entire family fled away in clandestine way causing huge loss to the investors.It is also borne out from the records that the applicant was not an agent.He has been made vicariously liable for this offence.(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith.Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The petitioners have preferred this revision under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated March 22, 2012 passed by learned Judge, Special Court (C.B.I), at Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Special Case No. 21/2008 and praying for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Special Case No. 21/2008 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the said Special Court.The backdrop of the present revisional application is as follows: On October 11, 2006 the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., SEB, Kolkata registered FIR No. RC 0102006A0034 dated October 11, 2006 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner no.l - Tej Prakash Shami.The Superintendent of Police authorized one T. J. Ghosh, Deputy Superintendent of Police to carry out the investigation under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On December 22, 2008 one Inspector of Police, CBI, SEB, Kolkata submitted charge sheet no. 50/2008 against both the petitioners before learned Judge of the Special Court.On March 22, 2012 learned Judge of the Special Court framed charge against petitioner no.1 for the offence under Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Both the petitioners pleaded not guilty when the contents of the charge were read over and explained to them.I am informed that out of eighty-seven prosecution witnesses, nine prosecution witnesses have already been examined before the trial court.Both the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the above criminal proceeding and for setting aside the order dated March 22, 2012 by which charge was framed against both the petitioners.In the instant case Sri S. K. Sinha, Inspector of Police, CBI, SEB, Kolkata submitted the charge sheet under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner no.1 and under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner no.2 before the learned Judge, Special Court (C.B.I.) on November 22, 2008 after being duly forwarded by the Superintendent of Police as per provision of Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.So, there is bound to be variation between First Information Report and charge sheet for which the petitioners are not entitled to get any benefit at this stage.The Investigating Officer has made an analysis of the materials collected during investigation and found that the petitioner no.2 has opened joint Bank Account with her husband, petitioner no.1 in a bank at Naida disclosing her identify as housewife and that the petitioner no.1 and the petitioner no.2 failed to produce any contemporaneous documents during the check period in support of the claim of income of the petitioner no.2 from her profession and business during the check period.In the absence of any evidence to establish the prima facie charge of abetment against the petitioner no.2, I would like to accept the contention made on her behalf that she is not liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. My above view is fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in "Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal V. State of Maharashtra" reported in (2001) 4 SCC 525 wherein the Apex Court quashed the criminal proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against two octogenarian ladies on the ground that the materials were insufficient to prove that those two ladies initially abetted the public servant in acquiring disproportionate assets to his known sources of income and that there was possibility of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial of the said case.The issue whether the sanctioning authority granted sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by non-application of mind is left open for decision of the trial court, as the deficiency in granting sanction for prosecution cannot be a ground for quashing of the criminal proceeding.I have already observed that nine prosecution witnesses have already been examined out of eighty-seven prosecution witnesses and as such learned Judge of the trial court will expedite the hearing of the case and to dispose of the same as early as possible.The natural corollary of my entire above observation is that the order dated March 22, 2012 passed by learned Judge, Special Court (C.B.I), at Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Special Case No. 21/2008 and criminal proceeding of Special Case No. 21/2008 pending before learned Judge, Special Court, (CBI), at Alipore is quashed, so far as the petitioner no.2 is concerned.The criminal case will continue against the petitioner no.1 before the trial court.

['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur had a branch atBayana in the district of Bharatpur.At about 1.30 p.m., onMarch 17, 1971, seven or eight persons looted the Bank.Jugal Kishore Paliwal, the Agent of the Bank, was working inhis chamber, while Bhagwan Dass Goyal, Head Cashier, andSuresh Chand Goyal, Assistant Cashier, were in the cashcabin at that time.The decoits, who were armed withcountry-made pistols, knives and a hand-grenade, orderedthese Bank employees to stand up and raise their hands.Three dacoits entered the Agent's room, beat him up andopened the safe and the almirahs.They could not find anymoney therein.They then took the agent to the cash cabin,where they tore open the lid of an iron cash box and tookaway currency notes of Rs. 15,253 from it.They snatched ablack-coloured confidential box lying on a nearby table,threw away the papers which were in that box and put themoney in it.They carried away the black box, got into ablue Ambassador car and drove away.The first Information Report of the occurrence waslodged by the Head Cashier, Bhagwan Dass Goyal, within abouthalf an hour i.e. at 2.00 p.m., at Police Station Bayana.The Police Officer there sent wireless messages to thesurrounding police stations as also to police outposts.Onreceipt of the message, the Head Constable in charge of thepolice station at Weir, posted police personnel to block thecar on the road.Soon thereafter, an Ambassador car bearingNo.DLJ 7458, in which seven persons were seated, arrivedfrom the direction of Bayana.Driven in panic, the cardashed against an oil barrel in front of a shop and wasdamaged.The occupants of the car were forced by thatcircumstance to come out of the car, whereupon they weresurrounded by the police and the members of the56public.The occupants fired from their pistols and tried toescape under cover of fire but the police and the publicgave them a hot chase for over a mile and succeeded insurrounding them once again.B.D. Sharma for the Appellant.D. Mookerjee and Dr. B.S. Chauhan for Respondents 1 toThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, C.J. The respondents were convicted by thelearned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, under section 395 of thePenal Code and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment forthree years.By its judgement dated November 13, 1972, theHigh Court of Rajasthan has set aside that judgment and hasacquitted the respondents.The State of Rajasthan has filedthis appeal by special leave against the judgment of theHigh Court.The occupants of the car openedfire causing injuries to some members of the public.Ultimately, they were over-powered and caught.Babu Lal,Station House Officer of the Bayana Police Station, arrivedon the scene and arrested the respondents.It transpiredduring the investigation that the Ambassador car which therespondents had used was stolen from New Delhi a day beforethe occurrence.The case of the prosecution is that therespondents before us were the very persons who looted theBank, escaped in the car and were chased and arrested.The respondents admitted that they were arrested nearWeir but they denied that they had any hand in the loot ofthe Bank.Each of them furnished a different explanation asregards his presence at Weir at the time of their arrest.They also examined four witnesses to show, principally, thereason of their presence at the place of arrest.It would appear from the judgment of the learned SingleJudge of the High Court of Rajasthan that three points wereargued on behalf of the respondents: (1) There is noevidence regarding the identification of the respondents;(2) There is no trustworthy evidence regarding the recoveryof the stolen property from their possession; and (3) Thereis no evidence to show that they had escaped in theparticular Ambassador car and had come out of the car afterit met with an accident.On the question of identification of the respondents,the High Court has rejected the evidence of the Agent of theBank Jugal Kishore Paliwal (PW 4), Head Clerk Radhey CharanBhargava (PW 5), Head Cashier Bhagwan Dass Goyal (PW 6),Agricultural Asst.. Murari Lal (PW 7), Daftaries RadheyShyam Sharma (PW 8) and Amba Prasad (PW 9), and Asst.Cashier Suresh Goyal (PW 10), on the ground that though someof these witnesses had identified the dacoits in the jail,they had failed to identify them before the trial court.Itappears that these witnesses had wrongly identified some ofthe accused in the committing court as also before the trialCourt.According to the High Court "The only irresistibleconclusion which can be drawn from their statements is thattheir evidence regarding identification is not convincing."On the question of recovery of the stolen property fromthe possession of the respondents the case of theprosecution is that each of the respondents was carrying abundle of hundred currency notes of Rs. 10 each.It isfurther alleged that the black box lying in the Ambassadorcar was found to contain currency notes of the value of Rs.6,800 belonging to the Bank.In addition; live cartridgesand knives are also alleged to have been recovered from thepossession of some of the respondents.The High Court hasrejected the whole of this evidence on the ground that therecovery memos "cannot be said to be genuine" and wereprepared subsequently, that the knives and live cartridgeswere not produced before the Court, that the story that eachof the respondents was carrying currency notes worth Rs.1000, while running away is unnatural and that, it is notlikely that the respondents would leave the sum of Rs. 6,800in the black box in the car and would each carry a sum ofRs.1,000, as if to create evidence against themselves.On the third question regarding the allegation that therespondents has escaped in the Ambassador car and had comeout of that car after it met with an accident, the HighCourt has rejected the evidence that the respondents hadfled away in the particular car on the ground that in theentry Exhibit D-40, in the General Diary of the PoliceStation, relating to the First Information Report the numberof the car was not mentioned.If two views of the evidence were reasonably possible,we would not have substituted our own assessment of theevidence for that of the High Court in this appeal againstacquittal.Evidence which isincontrovertible has been rejected by the High Court onsuspicion and surmises.Witnesses who had no axe to grindand had no personal motive to implicate the accused on afalse charge, have been disbelieved on feebleconsiderations.Different crimes have differentpatterns and the offenders improvise their strategyaccording to the exigencies of the occasion.The High Courthas rejected the prosecution story as not fitting in withthe common course of events on the supposition andinsistence that a crime of the present nature had to conformto a pattern of the kind which the High Court harboured inits mind.On the first question, that is to say the question ofidentification, the High Court gave an exaggeratedimportance to the infirmities attaching to the ability ofthe witnesses to identify the respondents.We are unable tounderstand how, in these circumstances, the High Court couldhave held that since the accused were not arrested on thespot, the evidence regarding their identity must assumeimportance.The incident which took place in the Bank, theattempt made by the offenders to escape and their pursuit bythe police and the public, are but links in the same chainof causation.They are parts of one and the sametransaction.The box also contained certaindocuments belonging to the Bank, including a passbook ofHead Clerk Radhe Shyam Bhargava (PW 5).Some of thewitnesses examined by the prosecution turned hostile, whichonly shows what terror a lawless group of dacoits can strikein the minds of men.But the evidence of Babu Lal, theStation House Officer, Bayana, who was examined as a Courtwitness by the High Court itself, shows that the black boxcontaining the money and the other articles was seized fromthe Ambassador car.The High Court has rejected thisevidence with a broad and unfounded observation that therecovery memo was prepared subsequently.The story that a sum of Rs. 1,000 was found on theperson of each of the respondents may or may not beaccepted.But there is no infirmity attaching to theevidence of Babu Lal regarding the recovery of the black boxfrom the car.Shri R.K. Garg, who appears on behalf of therespondents, urged that the box could have been easilyplanted by the police after the respondents were arrested.The High Court has dwelt copiously on the question asto whether the number of the Ambassador car was disclosed inthe first Information Report.Then they would cease to be summaries.The learned Judge hadsentenced each of the respondents to rigorous imprisonmentfor three years.We,however, impose upon each one of them a fine of rupees threethousand, which they shall pay within three months from to-day.Failing such payment, the respondents shall eachundergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli District, in C.A.No.84 of 2006, dated 06.02.2008, modifying the sentence from 7 years to 5 years in S.C.No.126 of 2005, dated 07.03.2006 on the file of the II Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Tirunelveli.2.The case of the prosecution is that on 08.09.2004 at 1.30 am, when PW1, PW2 and their daughter were all sleeping in their house, they heard the noise in their back door of the house broken and they were seen four masked men entered into their house with sickles and removed the valuable jewellery.The Inspector of Police, attached to Sivanthipatti Police Station has filed a final report under Sections 454, 457, 402, 397, 395 r/w 75 of IPC against the accused examining the witnesses.3.In the trial court, 17 witnesses were examined, 21 Exhibits and 24 Material Objects were marked.When the accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances, they denied the same.The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-,http://www.judis.nic.in 3 in default to undergo RI for further 3 months for the offence under Sections 457(ii) and to undergo RI for a period 7 years for the offence under Section 397 IPC.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the accused filed an appeal in C.A.Nos.84 and 85 of 2006, which were heard by the I Additional District Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.The first appellate Court modified the sentenced and A1 to A3 sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years under Sections 457(2) and 397 IPC.In other aspects, the judgment of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli is confirmed.Aggrieved by the order of the first appellate court, the revision petitioner/A1 is before this court.6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.7.PW1 stated in his complaint and evidence that on 08.09.2004 at about 1.30 am, when he, his wife and daughter were sleeping in their house, his daughter heard the noise in the back door of the house broken open and they immediately rushed there and found that the door was broken and four masked men entered in their house with sickles and they intimidated the inmates of the house and demanded the key of the almirah and for that, they told that almirah was already open and thereafter, they removed the valuable jewellery and took to heels and since, it was night time, he chose to give complaint to the police station.http://www.judis.nic.in 58.PW2 stated in her evidence that on 08.09.2004 at about 1.30 am, when she, his husband and daughter were sleeping in their house, her daughter heard the noise in the back door of the house broken open and they immediately rushed there and found that the door was broken and four masked men entered in their house with sickles and they intimidated the inmates of the house and demanded the key of the almirah and for that, they told that almirah was already open and thereafter, they removed the valuable jewellery and took to heels and since, it was night time, her husband has given the police on the next day morning and she identified the jewels in the police station.9.It is mainly argued on the side of the revision petitioner that the conviction and sentence based on the finger print expert opinion is unsafe and unreliable and hence, the revision petitioner is entitled to acquittal.10.It is seen from the records that according to the prosecution, the decoits had masked their face and there is no option for PW1 and PW2 to identify the accused, who committed the offence and hence, the identification parade had not conducted.http://www.judis.nic.in 611.The only evidence possible under circumstances which investigating Officer can procure is finger print reports.PW12 is the finger print expert and he collected six samples.PW12 had guarded himself against any of the inmates of the house meddling with the finger prints and he has not spared them by comparing the finger prints of PW1, PW2 and their daughter and found that their finger prints does not match the finger prints he collected.12.In this regard, it is relevant to refer the judgment reported in (2014)12 SCC 133 (Prakash vs. State of Karnataka), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-28.Assuming Prakash's fingerprint was in fact obtained by D'Souza, it was clearly not given voluntarily, but perhaps unwittingly and in what seems to be a deceitful manner.In Mohd. Aman v. State of Rajasthan [(1997)10 SCC 44: 1997 SCC (Cri) 777] ,this Court referred to the possibility of the police fabricating evidence and to avoid an allegation of such a nature, it would be eminently desirable that fingerprints were taken under the orders of a Magistrate.We may add that this would equally apply to the creating evidence against a suspect.As far as this case is concerned, the entire exercise of Prakash's fingerprint identification is shrouded in mystery and we cannot give any credence to it.”6.On careful perusal of the materials available on record, it reveals that the Finger Print Expert has not proved the provisions mandated under the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 and the Police Standing Order and hence, this court is of the considered view that on the basis of the report given by the Finger Print Expert, we cannot come to the conclusion that the accused have committed crime in this case.13.Keeping in view of the above facts, this court finds that the prosecution has not proved the charges against the accused.14.In the result, this Criminal Revision is allowed.The revision petitioner/A1 is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.The bail bond if any executed by him shall stand cancelled and the fine amount if any paid by him shall be refunded to him.24.04.2018 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No erhttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 To,1.The II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.2.The I Additional District Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 12 T.KRISHNAVALLI,J er Judgment made in Crl.R.C(MD)No.1061 of 2008 24.04.2018http://www.judis.nic.in 13http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This Criminal Original Petition is filed praying to call for therecords in S.C.No.148 of 2011 on the file of the Hon'ble Mahila Court(Sessions Judge), Trichy and to set aside the charges framed against theaccused on 18.11.2011 with the specific reference to the framing of chargefor an offence under Section 302 of IPC and to direct the Trial Court toproceed against the accused only for an offence under Section 498(A) and304(B) of IPC.2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned GovernmentAdvocate (Crl. side) for the first respondent and the learned counsel for thesecond respondent.3.Originally the case has been registered in Crime No.128 of 2010 underSection 174 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Sections were altered into 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. A perusal of the charge sheet would show that the deceased consumed insecticide and died at the instigation of the petitioner.Thereafter, charges have been framed for the offenceunder Section 302 I.P.C. by adding the same additionally.This was done basedupon the very same facts ie., to the effect that the deceased consumed poisonby the harassment of the petitioner.5.In view of the same, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed andthe charges framed against the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. by the Courtis directed to deleted.Taking not of the long pendency of the case, adirection is issued to the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichy to dispose ofS.C.No.148 of 2011 within a period of nine months from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order.Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 isclosed.1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichy.2.The Inspector of Police, Thuvakudi Police Station, Trichy District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

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

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

THIS is first application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.338/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 420/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station- Old Industrial Area Ratlam and Deen Dayal Nagar District-Ratlam.As per the prosecution case, on 07/10/2009, complainant Manoj Sharma has purchased second hand four wheeler vehicle from Anand Shah for a consideration of Rs.2,97,000/- and Anand Shah handed-over the vehicle to Manoj Sharma.On 05/11/2009, applicant Surendra Kothari, who is the financer, has forcibly taken possession of the vehicle and sold the vehicle to Renuka Shrivastava without consent of Manoj Sharma.Then a case has been registered against the applicant and other persons.A false report has been lodged after five years.The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.Hence, the applicant be granted anticipatory bail.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the Non- applicant/State opposes the prayer.Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties, nature of the offence and the complaint has been made after lapse of more than five years.The applicant shal ensure that he would not commit any such offence during currency of bail and rest of the conditions stipulated under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be binding on him.It is made clear that if the applicant will breach any of the condition, then this order shall automatically stand cancelled without reference to this Court and the concerning Court shall be free to take appropriate action to secure the presence of the applicant.Certified copy as per rules.(JARAT KUMAR JAIN)

['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Prosecution case, in short, is that on 16/11/2004, complainant Babulal (PW-1) was coming back from the house of one Raghuvir Singh Tomar at about 8:30 PM in the 2 Criminal Appeal No.923/2007 night to his house situated in Village Deora.When he was passing through a street near the house of Mathar Mehtar, the appellant-accused fired a gun shot from his back causing him injuries.On shouting witness Kunjilal Sen (DW-1) rushed towards the place of incident, and saw the appellant-accused running from the spot.Similarly, one Raghuvir Singh Tomar also came at the spot after hearing the sound of the gun shot.They took the complainant Babulal to his house.A man was sent to Outpost Kudi of Police Station Kishangarh District Chhattarpur to inform the incident.One Head Constable wrote the Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-1 as narrated by the complainant Babulal.The complainant Babulal was taken to the District Hospital Chhattarpur for his medical examination and treatment, where Dr. R.P. Gupta (PW-4) examined him and found some wounds of gun shot injury on the back of complainant, but he did not find any blackening or tattooing on those wounds.According to his opinion, those wounds were caused due to some firearm within 12 hours of his examination.In the present case, the Dehati Nalishi was written at the house of complainant and it was sent to the Police Station Kishangarh whereas the victim was sent to the District Hospital Chhattarpur.(Delivered on the 11th day of October, 2010) This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence dated 13/3/2007 passed by the Special Judge [SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act], Chhattarpur in Special Case No.66/2005, whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, an additional RI for one year.He took shirt and baniyan of the complainant and handed over to the concerned Constable after sealing them.On the basis of the Dehati Nalishi, a crime was registered by F.I.R. Ex.One handmade gun of .315 bore was recovered from the appellant-accused and entire seized property was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory.As per 3 Criminal Appeal No.923/2007 the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.P-10, that gun was in working condition, but it could not be ascertained as to when it was fired for the last time prior to the examination.After due investigation, the police Kishangarh had submitted a charge sheet before the committal Court for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)The appellant-accused abjured his guilt and took the defence that the complainant had some criminal background, and therefore, he was a target of so many persons.He could not identify the actual culprit, and therefore, after due consultation he had lodged a cooked Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-1 against the appellant-accused.In support of his contention, Kunjilal Sen (DW-1) and Uma Kanghar (DW-2) were examined as a defence witnesses.After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Special Judge, Chhattarpur acquitted the appellant-accused for commission of offence under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but convicted him for commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC and inflicted the aforesaid sentence.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.4 Criminal Appeal No.923/2007Learned counsel for the appellant has made his submission in three folds.First of all, the injuries sustained by the victim and the intention of the appellant-accused can be assessed.By the evidence of complainant Babulal (PW-1), it is clear that he was assaulted by gun shot from his back and the assailant immediately ran away from the spot.He did not even observe as to whether the complainant has survived or not.As it is discussed above, the alleged fire was shot from a distance of more than 8 feet and the complainant sustained simple injuries by that gun shot.Under these circumstances, it is clear that there was no intention of the assailant to kill the victim Babulal, otherwise when at the time of incident, the complainant Babulal was alone in the street, the assailant could fire for more than once, upon the complainant Babulal to make himself sure that complainant Babulal sustained sufficient injuries to cause his death, but as per the evidence of 6 Criminal Appeal No.923/2007 complainant Babulal himself, the conduct of the assailant was not so, and therefore, it could not be said that he had intended to cause the death of victim Babulal.The assailant did not approach near the complainant, but he assaulted him from, more than 8 feet away and thereafter he ran away immediately, though there was nobody at the time of incident to prevent him to make another gun shot.Complainant Babulal (PW-1), Lalsingh (PW-2) and Uttam Kanghar (PW-3) were examined to be eye-witnesses.The complainant Babulal (PW-1) has stated that only one gun shot was caused by the appellant-accused from the back and the appellant-accused was duly identified by one Kunjilal Sen. Lal Singh (PW-2), who is son of the complainant Babulal, has claimed himself to be an eye-witness.He has stated that at the time of incident he was in the temple and after hearing the sound of fire, he rushed towards the spot and in the midway he saw the accused, who was running with a pistol.R.P. Gupta (PW-4) opined that the victim was brought before him at about 12:05 AM on 17/11/2004, whereas the witnesses Lalsingh has admitted in para 4 of his statement that he reached Chhattarpur at about 10 to 10:30 PM, whereas the witness Uttam Kanghar (PW-3) has stated that the police came two hours after the incident and one hours' time was taken in transporting the victim to the District Hospital Chhattarpur.Looking to the evidence given by these witnesses, it appears that the incident took place at 8:30 PM and the police came to the house of the victim at about 10:30 PM in the night, then the victim was taken from the village at about 11:00 PM, who reached the 10 Criminal Appeal No.923/2007 District Hospital Chhattarpur at about 12:05 AM, in the night.In that case, time mentioned by the doctor in his report Ex.P-5 confirms the entire timings assessed.Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-1 shows that it was written at about 9:30 PM in the night, but it is clear that after two hours of the incident, police could reach to the house of the victim, and therefore, it seems that Dehati Nalishi was written with mentioning the time, one hour earlier to its actual time, and therefore, it appears that it is written ante-time.Similarly, this fact can be observed from the register of FIR Ex.P-6, in which it is shown that the FIR was registered at Police Station Kishangarh at about 7:00 AM in the morning.If the Dehati Nalishi was written at about 9:30 PM in the night, then what was the reason of delay in lodging the FIR at Police Station Kishangarh.It clearly shows that actually the Dehati Nalishi was written after a long time, though it was shown that the Dehati Nalishi was written one hour after the incident, therefore, when a doubt is created that Dehati Nalishi was delayed at least by one hour, then the possibility of concoction arises.His wife fought election for a member of Panchayat.He admitted some criminal cases against him by which it would be clear that he could 11 Criminal Appeal No.923/2007 be a target of so many persons, looking to his criminal past.Similarly, he narrated so many things about the accused that he had some criminal past, whereas defence witness Kunjilal Sen (DW-1) has stated that at the time of incident the accused was Up-Sarpanch of the Panchayat of village Deora, therefore political rivalry between the complainant and the appellant-accused cannot be ruled out.In Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-1 it is clear that Kunjilal Sen was the first person who came to the spot, then it was Raghuvir Singh Tomar, who came after him.Kunjilal Sen was not examined by the prosecution, because he turned hostile, and therefore, he was examined as a defence witness.Similarly, Kanhaiya Gautam, who was alleged to have come at the spot, just after the incident as mentioned in the Dehati Nalishi was also not examined before the trial Court.It is very strange that the police has not taken any statement of witness Raghuvir Singh Tomar, who was alleged to be an eye-witness in the case, and therefore, his name was in the witness list before the trial Court.It is very clear by Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-1 that Babulal has not mentioned the name of his son Lalsingh (PW-2) and his nephew Uttam Kanghar (PW-3), who claimed to be an eye- witnesses.If Lalsingh had seen the accused when he was running, then he must have told this fact to his father when he reached his house and this fact must have been informed by the complainant to the police, but no such description 12 Criminal Appeal No.923/2007 was given in Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-1, therefore, it is clear that Lalsingh and Uttam Kanghar are concocted witnesses.In Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-1 he has mentioned that on 13 Criminal Appeal No.923/2007 his shouting witness Kunjilal Sen came to the spot and he saw the accused running from the spot.At present Kunjilal Sen has appeared as a defence witness and he has not corroborated the testimony of the complainant.Nothing is brought in the cross examination of Kunjilal Sen by which it can be said that he was related to the appellant-accused or he had some rivalry with the complainant Babulal.However, the evidence of Kunjilal Sen strikes the testimony of the complainant Babulal.Investigating Officer Rajesh Raghuvanshi (PW-7) has prepared the spot map Ex.Similarly, the house of Mathar Mehtar is shown to be quite away from the spot and witness Lalsingh in para 4 of his statement has admitted that the spot was on the back side of house of Mathar Mehtar, and therefore, there was no possibility of any light from the house of Mathar Mehtar to 14 Criminal Appeal No.923/2007 the spot .Also in Ex.P-8, door of Mathar Mehtar is not shown towards that street, and therefore, it was not possible that any light may come to the spot from the house of Mathar Mehtar.The incident took place at about 8:30 PM in the night and there was no arrangement of light shown in the investigation, then it was not possible for the complainant or anyone to see the actual assailant.It is not a case in which any witness has stated that he saw the incident in the moonlight, therefore, the testimony of the defence witness Kunjilal Sen seems to be probable that the assailant could not be seen by anyone, and therefore, the testimony of the complainant Babulal comes in the clouds of doubt.If delay caused in writing the Dehati Nalishi is considered with such a suspicion create, then it would be clear that after due discussion with the family members and friends, the complainant Babulal thought to lodge the named FIR against the appellant-accused, because he had his main rivalry with the accused at that time, whereas looking to the criminal past and political activity of the complainant, he could be a target of so many persons.Under these circumstances, in absence of any source of light at the spot, it appears that the complainant could not see anyone at the time of incident causing fire on his back, and therefore, he lodged an after thought Dehati Nalishi naming the appellant-accused.15 Criminal Appeal No.923/2007Under these circumstances, the testimony of complainant Babulal cannot be believed beyond reasonable doubt, hence in the absence of corroboration of evidence etc. it cannot be said that the appellant was the actual assailant in the matter.He cannot be convicted for commission of offence under Section 307 or 324 of IPC or any other inferior offence of the same nature, therefore, the conviction and sentence directed by the Special Judge, Chhattarpur cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, I find that the Court below has erred in convicting and sentencing the present appellant, hence the finding of guilt recorded by the Court below is hereby set aside.Consequently, this appeal succeeds and is allowed.

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

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

In default of payment of fine, one month rigorous imprisonment was directed in addition.The facts of the case, in short, are that, the deceased Guddi Bai was married to the appellant No.1 Murari Lal, 5 years prior to her death.She was sister-in-law of the remaining appellants.She died on 12.1.1996 due to-:- 2 -:-Criminal Appeal No.643 of 1997 burn injuries.Her dead body was sent for postmortem and Dr.Anita Jain (P.W.14) and Dr.Naresh Saraogi (P.W.15) had performed the postmortem on the body of the deceased Guddi Bai and they found that she died due to burn injuries.On 14.1.1996, Ramlal (P.W.2) gave a written report, Ex.P/1 that the deceased was being harassed by the appellants about dowry demand and she was being assaulted for that demand and therefore, she committed suicide.(Delivered on the 3rd day of March, 2014) The appellants have preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 26.2.1997 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T.No.146/1996, whereby each of the appellants were convicted for offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced with 5 years Rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.250/-.After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and case was committed to the Sessions Court and ultimately, it was transferred to the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Katni.The appellants abjured their guilt.They denied that the deceased was harassed for dowry demand.In defence, one Nathulal Mishra (D.W.1) was examined to show that the dispute between the deceased and her husband was not referred to him.He was a reputed person of the society and if there was any dispute then, certainly it would have been referred to him.After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni acquitted the appellants from the charges of offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC but, convicted them-:- 3 -:-Criminal Appeal No.643 of 1997 for offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.Though Dr.The investigation officer Shri N.D.Yadav (P.W.8) has stated that he found a plastic can having capacity of 5 liters filled with half liter of kerosene and one match box at the spot.Under such circumstances, the appellants did not take a plea that death of the deceased was caused due to an accident.The deceased died due to burn injuries and her death was neither homicidal, nor accidental then, certainly it was a suicidal death.The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants from the charges of offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC.He did not mention that the charges under Section 304-B of IPC could not be proved because the deceased died after 7 years of her marriage but, it was found that there was no harassment to the deceased on the basis of dowry demand.If the statements of various witnesses like-:- 4 -:-Criminal Appeal No.643 of 1997 Radha Bai (P.W.1), Ram Lal (P.W.2), Gopal Prasad (P.W.3), Munni Bai (P.W.4) and Bhedi Lal (P.W.12) is considered then, each of them has stated that the deceased was being tortured for demand of Chandi ki choori (set of silver bangles) and Chandi ka choora (pair of thick silver bangles) but, such allegation was not made in the alleged FIR, Ex.P/1, which was a written complaint given by Ram Lal within 2 days of the death of the deceased.In the document Ex.P/1 omnibus allegations were made that the deceased was being tortured for dowry demand but, it was not shown that what was the demand of the appellants.Under such circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly found that the deceased was not being tortured for any dowry demand because if there was a dowry demand of some articles and cash then, the witnesses would have stated about that demand and if there was only a demand of silver bangles or pair of thick silver bangles then, it should have been mentioned specifically in the complaint, Ex.It appears that specific demand shown by the witnesses, is nothing but, creation of the witnesses after lodging the complaint Ex.Now a days a trend is spreading like anything that after death of the bride, the parents and relatives of the deceased start making allegations of dowry demand though there was no harassment or any such dowry demand done-:- 5 -:-Criminal Appeal No.643 of 1997 by her in-laws.The present case also appears to be of that nature and therefore, the various prosecution witnesses could not prove the alleged dowry demand as shown by them in their evidence.However, if there was a dowry demand of silver bangles then, for whom such bangles were required.Silver bangles could not be used by male members out of the appellants, whereas the appellant No.3 could not get those silver bangles if those were brought by the deceased from her father's house.If those silver bangles were to be used by the deceased herself then, there is no question of consistent dowry demand for silver bangles from the side of the appellants because by that demand, there was no advantage to any of the appellants.Under such circumstances, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the deceased herself was demanding for the silver bangles for herself and her wish is shifted upon the appellants that they were demanding those silver bangles.Under such circumstances, there was no dowry demand from the side of the appellants.The prosecution utterly failed to prove that the deceased was being tortured for dowry demand.Though the appellants were acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC but, for assessment of the conduct of the appellants relating-:- 6 -:-Criminal Appeal No.643 of 1997 to their abetment to the deceased to commit suicide, it was necessary to examine the evidence relating to dowry demand and harassment.If it is found that the witnesses Radha Bai, Ram Lal, Gopal Prasad, Munni Bai and Bhedi Lal were not trustworthy to the fact that the appellants demanded any dowry, specifically silver bangles from the deceased then, these witnesses could not show any reason so that the appellants would have assaulted the deceased.These witnesses have stated that she was being tortured because of demand of dowry and they could not show any other reason of harassment done by the appellants and if there was no other reason to assault the deceased then, the allegation made by these witnesses that she was being tortured by the appellants cannot be accepted.For offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, prima facie it is to be proved that she was harassed in such a manner that she had no option except to commit suicide or the harassment done by the appellants would have come under the purview of Sections 107 or 109 of IPC.If the facts of the case are considered then, there is no allegation that any of the appellants told her to commit suicide or they supplied kerosene and provoked her to commit suicide.The allegations are simply that she was being harassed for dowry demand and therefore, she committed suicide.-:- 7 -:-Criminal Appeal No.643 of 1997 was no demand from the side of the appellants then, certainly allegations of harassment made by the witnesses cannot be accepted.In this context, the evidence of defence witness Nathulal Mishra (D.W.1) appears to be acceptable that if the deceased was tortured for any reason and she resided for 5 years with the appellants then, in those 5 years, at least once the matter would have referred to the respectable person of the society and he would have knowledge about that fact.The various witnesses including the parents of the deceased could not show any reason other than of the dowry demand, so that the deceased would have been assaulted or tortured and therefore, such allegations of assault and torture appears to be incorrect.Possibility cannot be ruled out that since the deceased was not blessed by child after 5 years of her marriage, therefore, due to her mental agony, she would have committed suicide.Under such circumstances, where it is not proved by the witnesses that the deceased was being tortured by the appellants in the past then, nothing can be presumed about such an incident soon before her death.Naresh Saraogi in the postmortem report, Ex.P/12 did not mention any other injury except the burn injuries and therefore, in absence of the ocular evidence, it cannot be said that the deceased was beaten by-:- 8 -:-Criminal Appeal No.643 of 1997 the appellants soon before the incident.There is no ocular evidence to that fact and evidence given by Ram Lal and his family members is nothing but, hearsay evidence, which cannot be used for taking the conclusions.The witnesses Ram Lal, Gopal Prasad and Munni Bai have told that the deceased told them before her death that she was assaulted by the appellants.However, Radha Bai (P.W.1) has accepted that when the witnesses reached to the hospital, the deceased was unconscious and she could not say a single word.Radha Bai is mother of the deceased and therefore, her testimony should be believed.Hence, the oral dying declaration as stated by Ram Lal, Gopal Prasad and Munni Bai cannot be accepted.Under such circumstances, there is no evidence to show that the deceased was tortured by the appellants so that she would have committed suicide.The learned counsel for the appellants has placed his reliance upon the order passed by single Benches of this Court in cases of "Shripati @ Shriprasad and another VS.State of Madhya Pradesh" [(2011) (III) MPWN Note 76] and "Satyanarain and others Vs.-:- 9 -:-In the light of the aforesaid judgments passed by the Single Benches of this Court and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was being harassed by the appellants in any manner.The complaint Ex.P/1 is lodged by the father of the deceased on the basis of suspicion only.However, the suspicion cannot take the place of evidence and when no overt-act of the appellants is proved relating to harassment-:- 10 -:-Criminal Appeal No.643 of 1997 then, nothing can be presumed even under Section 113-A of Evidence Act against the appellants.The provisions of Section 113-A of Evidence Act may be read as under:-"113A. Presumption as to abatement of suicide by a married women -113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.- When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a women had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband has subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband."For application of presumption under Section 113-A of Evidence Act, it was for the prosecution to prove that some cruelty was done by the appellants towards the deceased.As discussed above, the prosecution failed to prove that the appellants either harassed the deceased for dowry demand or they were cruel to her due to any other reason.Under such circumstances, though presumption under Section 113-A of Evidence Act could be applicable in the present case, it was not proved by the prosecution that the appellants did any cruelty with the deceased, so that they may be held liable for offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.-:- 11 -:-Criminal Appeal No.643 of 1997When the appellants were acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC then, certainly looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, they should have been acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.It is proved that the deceased committed suicide but, reason is not known as to why she committed suicide.The cruelty of the appellants could not be proved, so that with help of presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, the appellants could be convicted for offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error of law and facts in convicting the appellants for offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants is acceptable and consequently it is accepted.The conviction as well as the sentence directed against the appellants for offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC are hereby set aside.The appellants are acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.They would be entitled to get the fine amount back, if they have deposited the same before the trial Court.-:- 12 -:-Criminal Appeal No.643 of 1997The appellants are in jail and therefore, office is directed to issue release warrants forthwith, so that the appellants may be released from the jail without any delay.A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information and compliance.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 03/3/2014

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

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

passed in connection with that case.Being aggrieved as against the order of issuance of summons, these present proceeding has been filed.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant in in custody in connection with Crime No.256/2015 registered at police station Dhamnod district Dhar, for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a young boy and permanent resident of district Dhar.He has no criminal antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in this case.The trial will take considerable time to conclude and co-accused has already been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court.Thus, on the ground of parity also the applicant is entitled for bail.On the other hand learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.Thus, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only)each with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.The applicant is directed to attend each hearing of the trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.Any default in attendance in Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.7012/2015 05/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Learned Government Advocate seeks time for producing case diary.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No.713/2014 05/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.As prayed, list after to weeks for consideration of IA No.3066/2015, an application for suspension of sentence.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6935/2015 13/08/2015 Shri Peeru Dhakad appears on behalf of Shri AK Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri RS Partmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to cure the defect.Let the matter be fixed after a week.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA No. 257/2013 05/08/2015 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.5715/2015 12/08/2015 Shri Vivek Sigh, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.This is first application under Section 438 of theCode of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.105/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B) and 498(A) of IPC, registered at Police Station Suwasra, Ratlam.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant is a house wife and permanent resident of district Mandsaur.After 15 days of the death of her daughter in law,the story came that applicant and other in laws use to harass the deceased,therefore, she committed suicide.All the family members of the applicant are detained in jail.The applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation, therefore, she may be granted anticipatory bail.Learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicants have made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.Thus, the application is allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant, she shall be released on bail upon of her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer for her appearance in investigation as and when directed and required, facility of this bail shall remain available to the applicant during trial also.Applicant shall ensure that she would not commit any such offence during currency of bail and rest of the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. Shall be binding on her.In case, the applicant commit breach of any condition, of this order,then this order shall stand automatically cancelled without reference to this Court and the concerned Court will be free to take appropriate action as per law for securing presence of the applicant.C. Stands disposed of.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA No. 257/2013 05/08/2015 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6964/2015 12/08/2015 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the Objector/complainant.This is first application under Section 438 of theCode of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.26/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Dindayal Nagar, Ratlam.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant No.1 is a lady and serving in Aanganwadi Sahayika and applicant No.2 is a Peon in Collector Office, Ratlam.They have no criminal antecedent and the dispute is of civil nature.The applicants have been falsely implicated in this case.They are ready to cooperate with the investigation.In such circumstances, the applicants be granted anticipatory bail.Learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.Learned counsel for the complainant has also opposed the prayer.He submits that in case the applicants are enlarged on bail, the investigation will hamper.Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicants have made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.Thus, the application is allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest of applicants, they shall be released on bail upon each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer for their appearance in investigation as and when directed and required, and also made available for their specimen signature.Facility of this bail shall remain available to the applicants during trial also.In case, final report is filed, then the applicants shall furnish fresh bail bond as per this order before the concerned Court.Applicants shall ensure that they would not commit any such offence during currency of bail and rest of the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. shall be binding on them.In case, the applicants commit breach of any condition, of this order,then this order shall stand automatically cancelled without reference to this Court and the concerned Court will be free to take appropriate action as per law for securing presence of the applicants.C. Stands disposed of.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6964/2015 12/08/2015 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the Objector/complainant.This is first application under Section 438 of theCode of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.26/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Dindayal Nagar, Ratlam.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant No.1 is a lady and serving in Aanganwadi Sahayika and applicant No.2 is a Peon in Collector Office, Ratlam.They have no criminal antecedent and the dispute is of civil nature.The applicants have been falsely implicated in this case.They are ready to cooperate with the investigation.In such circumstances, the applicants be granted anticipatory bail.Learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.Learned counsel for the complainant has also opposed the prayer.He submits that in case the applicants are enlarged on bail, the investigation will hamper.Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicants have made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.Thus, the application is allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest of applicants, they shall be released on bail upon each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer for their appearance in investigation as and when directed and required, and also made available for their speciman signature.Facility of this bail shall remain available to the applicants during trial also.In case, final report is filed, then the applicants shall furnish fresh bail bond as per this order before the concerned Court.Applicants shall ensure that they would not commit any such offence during currency of bail and rest of the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. shall be binding on them.In case, the applicants commit breach of any condition, of this order,then this order shall stand automatically cancelled without reference to this Court and the concerned Court will be free to take appropriate action as per law for securing presence of the applicants.It is made clear that in case signatures of the applicants are required, they shall be made available to the Police.C. Stands disposed of.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6495/2015 12/08/2015 Shri M. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that arguing counsel Shri V.Jain, is sick, therefor e, he prays for adjournment.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6980/2015 12/08/2015 Shri P. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6248/2015 12/08/2015 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this repeat application.Thus, the application is dismissed as withdrawn.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi `MCRC No.6831/2015 12/08/2015 Shri Vikas Yadav , learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.107/2015 registered at police station Bajna district Ratlam, for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is permanent resident of district Ratlam.There is no material to connect the applicant with the crime.The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.The trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicant be enlarged on bail.On the other hand learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.Considering over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for granting bail.Thus, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.The applicant is directed to attend each hearing of the trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.Any default in attendance in Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6949/2015 12/08/2015 Shri Vivek, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.193/2015 registered at police station Talen district Rajgarh(Biora), for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 456, 511 of IPC and 3(1)(11) of SC/ST Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an agriculturist and permanent resident of district Rajgarh.The prosecutrix is a married lady aged about 25 years.No mark of resistance found on her body.The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.The trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicant be enlarged on bail.On the other hand learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.Considering over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for granting bail.Thus, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.The applicant is directed to attend each hearing of the trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.Any default in attendance in Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.833/2010 12/08/2015 Shri P. Soni, learned counsel for the appellant.Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri Soni seeks one week's time to produce some documents.Let the matter be fixed after one week.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.980/2013 12/08/2015 Shri I. Ansari, appears on behalf of Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks adjournment.List after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.980/2013 12/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.As prayed, list after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.R No.1176/2013 12/08/2015 Shri Pathan, learned counsel for the applicant.None for the non applicant.Shri Pathan submits that parties have filed an application for compromise, therefore, any date may be fixed for verification of the compromise.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.1474/2013 12/08/2015 Parties through their counse.As prayed, list after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.R No.338/2014 12/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.As prayed, list after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.R No.339/2014 12/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.As prayed, list after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.R No.733/2014 12/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.In the meanwhile, Office is directed to call record from SDM Court.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.1744/2014 12/08/2015 Shri Amit Upadhayay, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.This is a repeat application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C., for suspension of jail sentence during the pendency of this appeal.The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 394 read with Section 397 of IPC and sentenced to 7 years R.I. and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default clause.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has already suffered three and half years of sentence and in near future there is no chance for final hearing of this appeal, in such circumstances, the jail sentence of the appellant be suspended during the pendency of this appeal.Government Advocate vehemently opposes the prayer.She submits that the conviction is well founded and in case the appellant is released on bail, he will not be available further.She prays for dismissal of the application.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.447/2015 12/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.As prayed, list after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.515/2015 12/08/2015 Shri Gourav Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw the application(IA No.3542/2015) for suspension of sentence.Thus, IA No.3542/2015, is dismissed as withdrawn.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.594/2015 12/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.As prayed, list after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.638/2015 12/08/2015 Shri ZA Khan, learned senior counsel with Shri Ramesh Gangare, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Government Advocate seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.705/2015 12/08/2015 Shri I. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.Trial Court record be requisitioned.No notice is necessary as Smt. Shandilya, accepts notice on behalf of respondent/State.Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in due course.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.R No.803/2015 12/08/2015 Shri Rajendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Heard on IA No.5916/2015, an application for a direction to the trial Court for depositing the fine amount.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the trial Court has convicted the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 380 and 454 of IPC and sentenced to one year R.I. and fine of Rs.2,000/-each with default clause.The applicants have filed an application for suspension of sentence, but this Court vide earlier order dated 21/07/2015, has dismissed the application for suspension of sentence.Thereafter the applicants gone to trial Court and wish to deposit the fine amount but the learned trial Court refused to accept the fine amount.Therefore, suitable direction be issued to the trial Court.Government Advocate has no objection in allowing the prayer.The application is allowed.The trial Court is directed to receive the fine amount which is deposited by the applicants as per the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar, in Cr.Let the revision be fixed for final hearing in due course.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.339/2014 12/08/2015 None for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.List after four weeks.With the consent of the parties, heard finally.Learned Government Advocate has no objection in allowed the application.Considering the aforesaid, the application is allowed and it is directed that the order passed in MCRC No.5622/2015 on 20/07/2015, applicant Ramkesh father's name be read as Ramphere instead of Ramser.Thus, the petition stands disposed of.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.3504/2015 11/08/2015 None for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumwat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.5319/2015 11/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.The status report has been called from the Special Judge, Ratlam.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.958/2001 11/08/2015 Shri Ritesh Inani, learned counsel for the appellants.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Appellant No.1 Chhagan present in person.Heard on IA No.5642/2015, an application for condonation of absence.Thus, the absence is bona fide and it be condoned.For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the absence of appellant No.1 Chhagaon on 25/02/2015 is hereby condoned.Appellant No.1, Chhagan, is directed to remain present before the Registry on 26/10/2015 and on all subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.R No.986/2015 11/08/2015 Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Heard on IA No.5979/2015, an application for exemption from filing certified copy of the trial Court judgment.After due consideration, the application is allowed.Heard on the question of admission.The revision is admitted for final hearing.Also heard on IA No.55977/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence.The applicant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 34(A) of M.P. Excise Act and sentenced to 6 six months R.I. and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default clause.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that during the trial the applicant was on bail and he has not mis-used the liberty.The applicant has a good case in revision.The disposal of the revision will take time.In such circumstances, the jail sentence of the applicant be suspended till the pendency of this revision and he be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has no objection in allowing the application.After due consideration, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.Thus, the application (IA No.5977/2015) is allowed.It is directed that subject to the applicant having deposited the fine amount and on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 27/10/2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office, the applicant be released on bail and the jail sentence under this revision shall remain suspended.Record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Let the revision be fixed for final hearing in due course.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.912/2009 11/08/2015 Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.The appellant present in person.Heard on IA No.4813/2015, an application for condonation of absence of the appellant.The absence is bonafide, therefore, it be condoned.The appellant is directed to remain present before the Registry on 27/10/2015 and on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in due course.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.775/2009 11/08/2015 List along with Cr.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.643/2013 11/08/2015 Shri Mukesh Sinjoniya, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.As prayed, list after two weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.339/2014 11/08/2015 None for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.List after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.Let the matter be fixed after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.675/2015 11/08/2015 Shri V. Modiwal, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue on IA No.3723/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence.Office is directed to list the matter along with Cr.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 1017/2015 11/8/2015 Shri Amit Bhatiya, learned counsel for the appellants.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.No notice is necessary as Smt Shandilya accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State.Also heard on IA No.5774/2015/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence.The appellant have been convicted for the offence under Sections 333 and 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to 2 years R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- and one year R.I. and fine of Rs.500/0 with default clause.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the trial the appellants were on bail and they have not mis- used the liberty.The trial Court has already suspended the jail sentence of the appellants till 28/08/2015.. The disposal of the appeal will take time.In such circumstances, the jail sentence of the appellants be suspended till the pendency of this appeal and they be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has no objection in allowing the application.After due consideration, I am of the view that the appellant have made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.Thus, the application (IA No.5774/2015) is allowed.It is hereby directed that subject to the appellants having deposited the fine amount and on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand)each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for theirs appearance before this Court/Registry on 27/10/2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office, the appellants be released on bail and the jail sentence under this appeal shall remain suspended.Record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in due course.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 1033/2015 11/8/2015 Shri NJ Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.No notice is necessary as Smt Shandilya accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State.Also heard on IA No.5781/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence.The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 452 of IPC and Section 7 and 8 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offence Act and sentenced to 3 years R.I. And fine of Rs.1,000/-, 3 years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the trial the appellant was on bail and he has not mis-used the liberty.The trial Court has already suspended the jail sentence of the appellant till 14th of August, 2015.. The disposal of the appeal will take time.In such circumstances, the jail sentence of the appellant be suspended till the pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has no objection in allowing the application.After due consideration, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.Thus, the application (IA No.5781/2015) is allowed.It is hereby directed that subject to the appellant having deposited the fine amount and on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 27/10/2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office, the appellant be released on bail and the jail sentence under this appeal shall remain suspended.Record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in due course.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 1036/2015 11/8/2015 Shri Anupan Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellants.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.No notice is necessary as Smt Shandilya accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State.Also heard on IA No.5788/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence.The appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to one year RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- and 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that during the trial the appellants were on bail and they have not mis-used the liberty.The disposal of the appeal will take time.In such circumstances, the jail sentence of the appellants be suspended till the pendency of this appeal and they be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has no objection in allowing the application.After due consideration, I am of the view that the appellants have made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.Thus, the application (IA No.5788/2015) is allowed.It is hereby directed that subject to the appellant having deposited the fine amount and on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand)each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before this Court/Registry on 27/10/2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office, the appellants be released on bail and the jail sentence under this appeal shall remain suspended.Record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in due course.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 1038/2015 11/8/2015 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.No notice is necessary as Smt Shandilya accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State.Also heard on IA No.5801/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence.The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 467/34 and 471/34 of IPC and sentenced to 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs.2,000/- for each offence.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the trial the appellant was on bail and he has not mis-used the liberty.The disposal of the appeal will take time.In such circumstances, the jail sentence of the appellant be suspended till the pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has no objection in allowing the application.After due consideration, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.Thus, the application (IA No.5801/2015) is allowed.It is hereby directed that subject to the appellant having deposited the fine amount and on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 27/10/2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office, the appellant be released on bail and the jail sentence under this appeal shall remain suspended.Record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in due course.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.1122/2000 11/08/2015 Shri NJ Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw IA No.5252/2015, an application under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. and IA No.5253/2015, an application for condonation of basence.Thus, these applications are dismissed as withdrawn.Notice of surety of appellant No.3, Shankar, returned with this report that surety Bhurala, S/o Natha has been died.Non bailable warrant of appellant No.3 Shankar, returned with this report that presently he is not residing at the place shown in the warrant.In such circumstances, permanent warrant of arrest be issued against appellant No.3 Shankar.Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in due course.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.607/2002 11/08/2015 Ms. M.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is hospitalized, therefore, he could not remain present before this Court and a date may be fixed for appearance.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.966/2003 11/08/2015 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has communicated the date of appearance to the appellant, even though the appellant is not present.In such circumstances, non bailable warrant be issued against the appellant and also issue notice to his surety as to why his bail bond be not forfeited.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.1188 /2003 11/08/2015 None for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.The report is received from Jivaji Police Station,Ujjain, supported by Tasdik Panchanama and the death certificate.In such circumstances, the appeal is dismissed as abated.Trial Court record be sent back.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No.1433 /2007 11/08/2015 Shri Ramesh Gangare, learned counsel for the appellants.Smt Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No.3, Idi Bee, has been died.Government Advocate is directed to call verification report in regard to death of Idi Bee, W/o Ide Khan, R/o village Borband Tehsil Aklera, District Jhalawad, Rajasthan.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA No. 257/2013 05/08/2015 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6912/2015 10/08/2015 Shri Harish Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri M. Phadke, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.After arguing at length, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition with this liberty that he will file fresh application after recording the evidence of Chander Singh.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty, as prayed.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 1013/2015 10/8/2015 Shri JN Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.No notice is necessary as Smt Shandilya accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State.Also heard on IA No.5700/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence.The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 8 read with 20 (b) (ii) (b) of NDPS Act and sentence to one year R.I. and fine of Rs.2,000/-.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the trial the appellant was on bail and he has not mis-used the liberty.He is detained in jail since 24/07/2015.The appellant has good case in appeal.The disposal of the appeal will take time.In such circumstances, the jail sentence of the appellant be suspended till the pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has no objection in allowing the application.After due consideration, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.Thus, the application (IA No.5700/2015) is allowed.It is directed that on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 26/10/2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office, the appellant be released on bail and the jail sentence under this appeal shall remain suspended.Record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in due course.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 4339/2015 10/08/2015 Smt. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Application of Mohan and Charan has been decided by Cooordinate Bench, Hon'ble Justice Smt. S.R.Wagmare, therefore, this application should have been heard by the same Bench.Office is directed to list the matter before the appropriate Bench.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No.825/2015 10/08/2015 Shri I. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be fixed after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No.1441/2007 10/08/2015 Ku.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA No.281/2011 10/08/2015 Smt. Jyoti Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants.That application has already been decided by the aforesaid order.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRA No.207/2012 10/08/2015 Shri NJ Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Service report of non bailable warrant issued against appellant Suraj, is awaited.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CR.A No.778/2012 10/08/2015 Shri V. Modiwal, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Meanwhile, Government Advocate is directed to verify the fact of death of appellant Bhanupratap, @ Kalu, S/o Mohan Singh Rathore, R/o Abhapuri, police station Chainpur district Khargone.Copy of this order be supplied to Government Advocate.List after three weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRA No.894/2012 10/08/2015 List along with Cr.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRA No.1229/2012 10/08/2015 None for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.As per letter received from IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, the appellant has already suffered jail sentence and he has been released by the Central Jail, Bherugarh.In such circumstance, non bailable warrant issued against appellant returned unserved.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 1259/2012 10/08/2015 Shri KK Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he has no information about his whereabout.In such circumstances, non bailable warrant be issued against applicant No.2, Subhash, and also issue notice to his surety as to why his bail bond be not forfeited.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No. 1609/2012 10/08/2015 Shri Jafar Qureshi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri B. Parera, learned counsel appears on behalf of Shri S.Patwar, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 andLearned counsel for the appellant further seeks one week's time to verify whether 23/06/2015, has been complied with or not.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No. 1314/2013 10/08/2015 Shri CP Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant.Notice of respondents No.1 and 2 received unserved as notices were received after the date of hearing.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No.1925/2013 10/08/2015 None for the appellant.None for respondents No.3 and 4, though served.Notice of respondent No.5 returned unserved.Trial Court record be requisitioned.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No.2635/2013 10/08/2015 Shri Jafar Qureshi, learned counsel for the appellant.Notice of respondents No.6 and 7 returned unserved for want of correct address.Appellant's counsel is directed to pay fresh PF with correct address within a week.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CR No. 88/2014 10/08/2015 Shri B.S.Gandhi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri KC Yadav, learned counsel for the non applicant.Learned counsel for the non applicant is pressing that he has filed the application for vacating stay IA No.7354/2014, which may be decided first.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRA No. 112/2014 10/08/2015 Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he could not communicate the date of appearance before this Court, to the appellant.He submits that bailable warrant be issued against the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA No. 257/2013 10/08/2015 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA No. 257/2013 05/08/2015 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No.417/2011 07/08/2015 Shri Mukesh Sinjoniya, learned counsel for the applicant.With the consent of the parties, heard finally.Reserved for order.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No.286/2012 07/08/2015 None for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.It seems that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting this revision.The First Appellate Court in Cr.A.No.241/2011 on 27/02/2014 has affirmed the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 379 of IPC and maintained the conviction up to 2 years and fine of Rs.100/-The trial Court shall take necessary steps for compliance of this order of conviction.The records of the Courts below be sent back immediately with this order.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 7975/2013 07/08/2015 Shri I. Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No.23/2014 07/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Non applicant's counsel is directed to supply copy to applicant's counsel positively within two days.With the consent of the parties, heard finally.Reserved for order.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA No. 257/2013 07/08/2015 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 257/2013 06/08/2015 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 6533/2015 06/08/2015 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.98/2015 registered at police station Nagalwadi district Barwani, for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.As per prosecution case, 60 bulk liter liquor has been seized from the possession of the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is permanent resident of district Barwani.He has no criminal antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in this case.The trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicant be enlarged on bail.On the other hand learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.Thus, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.The applicants is directed to attend each hearing of their trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.Any default in attendance in Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 6543/2015 06/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Case diary is available.Learned Government Advocate further seeks time for producing the criminal antecedent of the applicant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 6545/2015 06/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 6558/2015 06/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Learned Government Advocate seeks time for producing the Test Identification Report as such report is not attached with the case diary.By way of last indulgence, time is granted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 6553/2015 06/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6561/2015 06/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Learned Government Advocate seeks time for producing the case diary.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 4400/2015 06/08/2015 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.After arguing at length, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the petition.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 4527/2015 06/08/2015 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.72/2015 registered at police station Alirajpur district Alirajpur, for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2), 36 and 46 of the Excise Act.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants is permanent resident of district Alirajpur.He has no criminal antecedent and he has been falsely implicated on the basis of memorandum of co-accused.No recovery has been made from his possession.The trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicant be enlarged on bail.On the other hand learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.Thus, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.The applicants is directed to attend each hearing of their trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.Any default in attendance in Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 4497/2015 06/08/2015 Shri V.K.Sitole, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.Government Advocate is directed to call the complete case diary.He is further directed to produce test identification memo and seizure report of the items seized from the possession of the applicant.After granting so many opportunities, the prosecution is not able to produce the requisite papers.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 4866/2015 06/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Learned Government Advocate seeks time for producing the case diary.He is also directed to call report of criminal antecedent of the applicant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 5028/2015 06/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Learned Government Advocate further seeks 3 days time for producing the case diary.He is also directed to call explanation from the concerned Superintendent of Police as to why case diary has not been sent to this Court after granting so many opportunities.Copy of the order be supplied to the Government Advocate.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.5332/2015 06/08/2015 Shri Gagan Parashar, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.44/2015 registered at police station Azad Nagar, Indore, for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 324, 323, 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is a young person and he is permanent resident of district Indore.He has no criminal antecedent.There was some altercation between the applicant and the victim.The victim was in the state of intoxication.Co-accused has already been granted bail.The trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicant be enlarged on bail.On the other hand learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.Considering over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for granting bail.Thus, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.The applicants is directed to attend each hearing of their trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.Any default in attendance in Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.5676/2015 06/08/2015 Shri NJ Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.8/2014 registered at police station Badwaha district Khargone, for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 398, 450, 452, 455 and 457 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that earlier the applicant was granted bail by the trial Court, subsequently he has jumped the bail on two occasions and ultimately permanent warrant has been issued against him and in compliance of the warrant he was produced before the Additional Sessions Judge on 23/01/2015 and since then he is detained in jail.Learned counsel for the applicant assures that now the applicant will attend the court proceedings regularly, therefore, he be granted bail.On the other hand learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.The applicant is directed to attend each hearing of their trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.5683/2015 06/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Learned Government Advocate seeks time for producing the case diary.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.5689/2015 06/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.5976/2015 06/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 5741/2015 06/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Application of co-accused Ramesh has been disposed of by coordinate Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice T.K.Kaushal, therefore, this application should have been heard by the same Bench.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to produce the evidence recorded during the trial.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 5922/2015 06/08/2015 Shri NJ Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.Accordingly the application is dismissed as having become infructuous.In such circumstances, this application should have been heard by the same Bench.Office is directed to list this petition before the appropriate Bench (Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6248/2015 06/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 6354/2015 06/08/2015 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.242/2014 registered at police station Nagalwadi district Barwani, for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of Excise Act.As per prosecution case 72 bulk litre liquor has been seized from the possession of co-accused Rajesh.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is permanent resident of district Barwani.He has no criminal antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in this case.The trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicant be enlarged on bail.On the other hand learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.Thus, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with tone surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.The applicant is directed to attend each hearing of their trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.Any default in attendance in Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 6458/2015 06/08/2015 Shri Nitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.After arguing at length, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to repeat the application for bail after recording the evidence of Murtja.The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.5306/2015 05/08/2015 Shri Anupan Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri MA Mansoori, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been transferred from Alirajpur to Central Jail, Indore.Government Advocate is directed to call health report and the medical papers of the applicant.Let the matter be fixed in the next week.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.5887/2015 05/08/2015 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri MA Mansoori, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in earlier copy of the impugned order bail application number was not mentioned, therefore, he has filed second certified copy of the impugned order in which bail application No.175/2015 has been mentioned.Thus, he has cured the defect.This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are permanent resident of district Rajgarh.They have no criminal antecedent and they have been falsely implicated in this case.The trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicants be enlarged on bail.On the other hand learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.The applicants are directed to attend each hearing of their trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 5914/2015 05/08/2015 Shri Neelesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to place the same on record.In the meanwhile, trial Court record be requisitioned.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has already cured the defect pointed out by the Office.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time on the ground that he has to file some documents.Let the matter be fixed after two weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 6199/2015 05/08/2015 Shri Lokesh Mehta, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for one week's time for curing the defect.List after a week.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6457/2015 05/08/2015 Shri P.Choubey, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has already cured the defect.Office to verify and proceed.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 6475/2015 05/08/2015 Shri Abhijeet Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri MA Mansoori, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.After arguing the application at length, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition with this liberty that the applicant shall surrender before the competent Court.The petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter on the ground that his brief has been mis placed.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for an adjournment.On earlier occasion, last opportunity was granted to the counsel to argue the matter, even though the counsel is again seeking adjournment.Let the matter be fixed after four weeks.Notice of non applicant No.1 returned with this report that the applicant is not residing at the place shown in the notice.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 3/2015 05/08/2015 Shri S. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No. 228/2015 05/08/2015 None for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 541/2015 05/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No.634/2015 05/08/2015 Shri P. Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA No. 257/2013 03/08/2015 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA No. 257/2013 04/08/2015 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 676/2014 04/08/2015 Shri VP Saraf, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant No.1/State.None for respondents No. 3 to 7, though served.With the consent of the parties, heard finally.Reserved for order.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 1116/2014 04/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to verify the contents of the affidavit which is supplied by the non applicant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 1191/2014 04/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to verify the contents of the affidavit which is supplied by the non applicant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.5298/2014 04/08/2015 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant No.1/State.Learned counsel for the parties seek time to produce the status report of the case.In the meanwhile, Office is directed to call status report from the trial Court.Government Advocate is directed to call the case diary.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 6085/2014 04/08/2015 Shri Navneet Kishore, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that till date final report has not been filed by the concerned police station.Learned Government Advocate seeks time to verify whether final report has been filed or not.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks adjournment on the ground that his senior Shri Z.A.Khan, is not available today.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No.18/2015 04/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the non applicant further seeks time to file reply of application for condonation of delay.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 559/2015 04/08/2015 Shri S. Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.Ms. Seema Maheshwari, learned counsel for the non applicant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 312/2015 04/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRA No. 582/2015 04/08/2015 Shri A.Solanki, learned counsel for the appellants.Respondent present in person.Respondent submits that he has also filed an appeal, but inadvertently appeal No.740/2015, has been dismissed in non compliance of the order, therefore, he will file an application for restoring the appeal, during the course of the day.In such circumstances, the appeal is adjourned.Interim relief to continue till the next date of hearing.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 885/2015 04/08/2015 Shri Vinay Zelawat, learned senior counsel with Shri AS Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Interim relief to continue till the next date of hearing.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No.913/2015 04/08/2015 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of impugned order along with copy of final report.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 5854/2015 04/08/2015 Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri MA Mansoori, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.After arguing at length, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this second bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C..The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6566/2015 04/08/2015 None for the applicant.Shri MA Mansoori, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Case diary is available.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 4106/2014 04/08/2015 Shri Jafar Qureshi, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant No.2/State.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is possibility of compromise, therefore, he prays for adjournment.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.7496/2014 04/08/2015 Shri S.Jain, learned counsel for the applicants.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant No.2/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks adjournment on the ground that his senior Shri AS Garg shall argue the matter and today he is not available.In the meanwhile ,Government Advocate is directed to call the case diary.Interim relief to continue till the next date of hearing.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 260/2015 04/08/2015 None for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 338/2015 04/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 484/2015 04/08/2015 Shri AK Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicants.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission to withdraw the petition with this liberty that the applicants shall raise all the defence before the trial Court.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC.No. 6478/2015 03/08/2015 Shri I.A.Ansari learned counsel for the applicant.Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard with the aid of case diary.This is first application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.232/2013 registered at police station Biora district Rajgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 382, 460 and 412 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is permanent resident of district Guna.He has no criminal antecedents.He has been implicated in this case on the basis of memorandum of co-accused.The recovery itself is suspicious as after more than 2 years, iron rod has been recovered from the possession of the applicant.The trial will take time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicant be granted bail.Government Advocate opposes the prayer.After due consideration, I am of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for granting the bail.Thus, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.The applicant is directed to attend each hearing of his trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.Any default in attendance in Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 655/2003 03/08/2015 Shri Ravi Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.As per report of police station Mahakal, Ujjain, appellant Dharmendra has been died and in support of this report photocopy of death certificate is attached.Considering this fact, the appeal against appellant No.1 is abated.Appellant's counsel is directed to delete the name of appellant No.1 from the cause title of the memo of appeal.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 963/2003 03/08/2015 Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Counsel for the appellant prays for time for producing the appellant.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 362/2010 03/08/2015 None for the appellant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Service report of non bailable warrant and notice to surety is awaited.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 103/2011 03/08/2015 Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant prays for 10 days time for producing the appellant.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 1248/2010 03/08/2015 Shri I. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant prays for 15 days time for producing the appellant.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRA No.648/2012 03/08/2015 Shri I. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Now the appellant is directed to furnish the bail in compliance of the earlier order.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 12/2012 03/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.It is submitted by the parties that they have entered into compromise but, they seek time for depositing the compounding fees before the Legal Service Authority.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 1266/2012 03/08/2015 Shri P. Newalkar, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that any date may be fixed for the appearance of the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No.50/2013 03/08/2015 Shri Mehta, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.Applicant Mohan Singh is produced by G.S.Tiwari, Head Constable from police station Shujalpur.He be sent back to jail to suffer remaining part of jail sentence.Let the revision be fixed for final hearing in due course.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 804/2013 03/08/2015 Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State.Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.Respondent/Shyamlal present in person.Heard on IA No.5746/2015, an application for condonation of absence.After due consideration, the application is allowed.The respondent is directed to appear before the Registry on 08/09/2015 and on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.1663/2013 03/08/2015 None for the appellants.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as per report of police station Vijay Nagar, Indore, appellant No.1 Rakesh @ Shankarlal, S/o Ramnarayan Sisodiya, has committed suicide and Merg No.27/2014, has been registered.Learned counsel for the respondent is directed to file this report during the course of the day.In such circumstances, the appeal against appellant No.1 is abated.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRA No. 449/2014 03/08/2015 Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant.None for the respondent.As per office report bailable warrant of the respondent has been served.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 604/2014 03/08/2015 None for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.His counsel is also absent.Non bailable warrant be issued against the applicant and also issue notice to his surety as to why his bail bond be not forfeited.Notice be made returnable within four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No. 698/2014 03/08/2015 Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State.This report is supported by the photocopy of the death certificate.Considering this fact, as the respondent No.2, has been died, therefore, his appeal abates.Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in due course.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 921/2014 03/08/2015 Shri S. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri RP Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent.Respondent/Aabid Khan, present in person.Aabind Khan is directed to furnish bail bond of Rs.25,000/- for securing his presence before this Court/Registry.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant shall positively furnish the bail bond before the trial Court.The respondent is directed to appear before this Court/Registry on 3rd of September, 2015, and on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in due course.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No. 1815/2014 03/08/2015 None for the appellant.Learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent has already furnished the bail bond for appearance before the trial Court.The respondent is directed to mark his presence before the Registry on 7th of September, 2015, and on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to supply copy of memo of appeal to the respondent's counsel.Let the matter be fixed for final hearing in due course.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 547/2015 03/08/2015 Shri SS Garg, learned counsel for the applicants.None for the non applicant.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that counsel of the non applicant is absent therefore no adjournment shall be allowed and the trial may be stayed.Considering the facts of this case, the case is adjourned with this direction that in case nobody will represent the non applicant on the next date, the Court will pass the appropriate order.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 4339/2015 03/08/2015 None for the applicants.Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Learned Government Advocate further seeks time for producing the criminal record of the applicants.The State has also not complied the direction of this Court for keeping the Investigating Officer present before this Court.Government Advocate is directed to keep present Investigating Officer on the next date along with the record.No further adjournment shall be allowed.A copy of the order be supplied to the Government Advocate.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6167/2015 03/08/2015 None for the applicants.Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Case diary is available.This is second bail application and the counsel for the applicants is absent, therefore, the case is adjourned.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6734/2015 03/08/2015 Shri Ritesh Inani, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that non applicant No.2 has filed a private complaint 156(3) of the Cr.P.C and on this basis the Magistrate has registered a complaint and directed for investigation to police station Rajendra Nagar, Indore.In this case the coordinate Bench of this Court has stayed the execution of the order for other co- accused.Appellant No.2 Keru present in person.He is directed to mark his presence before the Registry today and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA No. 257/2013 03/08/2015 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 127/2015 22/07/2015 Parties through their counsel.As prayed, list after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 585/2015 22/07/2015 Parties through their counsel.As prayed, list after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 395/2015 22/07/2015 Parties through their counsel.As prayed, list after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6299/2015 22/07/2015 Parties through their counsel.Learned Government Advocate seeks time to verify the marriage certificate and Ossification Test report filed along with the application by the applicant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 422/2013 22/07/2015 Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for the respondent.Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in due course.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.R. No.1358/2014 22/07/2015 Parties through their counsel.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No.744/2015 22/07/2015 Shri Harshwardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant.Government Advocate further seeks two weeks time to file Probation Officer's report.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.R. No.798/2015 22/07/2015 Shri Kunal Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri A.S.Sisodiya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.No notice is necessary as Shri Sisodiya accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State.Also heard on IA No.4959/2015, an application for suspension of sentence.The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 354 and 324 of the IPC and sentence to one year R.I. and fine of Rs.500/- and six months R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- with default clause.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the trial the appellant was on bail and he has not mis-used the liberty.The disposal of the appeal will take time.In such circumstances, the jail sentence of the appellant be suspended till the pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has no objection in allowing the application.After due consideration, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.Thus, the application (IA No.4959/2015) is allowed.It is hereby directed that subject to the appellant having deposited the fine amount and furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 07/10/2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office, the appellant be released on bail and the jail sentence under this appeal shall remain suspended.Record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in due course.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.R. No. 860/2015 22/07/2015 Shri N.J.Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri A.S.Sisodiya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.The revision is admitted for final hearing.No notice is necessary as Shri Sisodiya accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State.Also heard on IA No.5243/2015, an application for suspension of sentence.The applicant has been convicted for the offence under Section 498(A) of the IPC and sentence to one year R.I. and fine of Rs.300/- with default clause.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that during the trial the applicant was on bail and he has not mis-used the liberty.The disposal of the revision will take time.In such circumstances, the jail sentence of the applicant be suspended till the pendency of this revision and he be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has no objection in allowing the application.After due consideration, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.Thus, the application (IA No.5243/2015) is allowed.It is hereby directed that subject to the applicant having deposited the fine amount and furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 07/10/2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office, the applicant be released on bail and the jail sentence under this revision shall remain suspended.Record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Let the revision be fixed for final hearing in due course.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.R. No. 871/2015 22/07/2015 Shri R.R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri A.S.Sisodiya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.The revision is admitted for final hearing.No notice is necessary as Shri Sisodiya accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State.Also heard on IA No.5276/2015, an application for suspension of sentence.The applicants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 325/34 of the IPC and sentence to six month's R.I.. and fine of Rs.500/- each/- with default clause.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that during the trial the applicants were on bail and they have not mis-used the liberty.The disposal of the revision will take time.In such circumstances, the jail sentence of the applicants be suspended till the pendency of this revision and they be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has no objection in allowing the application.After due consideration, I am of the view that the applicants have made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.Thus, the application (IA No.5276/2015) is allowed.It is directed that subject to the applicants having deposited the fine amount and furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before this Court/Registry on 07/10/2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office, the applicants be released on bail and the jail sentence under this revision shall remain suspended.Record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Let the revision be fixed for final hearing in due course.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.R. No. 874/2015 22/07/2015 Shri T.C.Jain, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri A.S.Sisodiya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.The revision is admitted for final hearing.No notice is necessary as Shri Sisodiya accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State.Also heard on IA No.5283/2015, an application for suspension of sentence.The applicants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC and sentence to one year R.I. and fine of Rs.2,000/- and one year R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default clause.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that during the trial the applicants were on bail and they have not mis-used the liberty.The applicants have already deposited the fine amount.The disposal of the revision will take time.In such circumstances, the jail sentence of the applicants be suspended till the pendency of this revision and they be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has no objection in allowing the application.After due consideration, I am of the view that the applicants have made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.Thus, the application (IA No.5283/2015) is allowed.It is directed that on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before this Court/Registry on 07/10/2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office, the applicants be released on bail and the jail sentence under this revision shall remain suspended.Record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Let the revision be fixed for final hearing in due course.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.892/2015 22/07/2015 Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri A.S.Sisodiya, learned Government for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No.896/2015 22/07/2015 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri A.S.Sisodiya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.No notice is necessary as Shri Sisodiya accepts notice on behalf of respondent/State.Trial Court record be requisitioned and immediately thereafter list the matter for orders on IA No.5131/2015, an application for suspension of sentence.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No.728/2002 22/07/2015 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on IA No.4305/2015, an application for condonation of absence of appellant No.2, Pawan.Considering the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed.Absence of appellant No.2, Pawan, is hereby condoned.Registry is directed to issue production warrant of appellant No.2, Pawan, S/o Chunnilal, who is detained in Khargone jail.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No.1128/2007 22/07/2015 None for the appellant.Shri A.S.Sisodiya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Again two weeks time is granted for carrying out the correction.Let the matter be fixed after three weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No.512/2011 22/07/2015 Smt. Poornima Kanoongo, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri A.S.Sisodiya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to heavy rains the appellant is not present today.She submits that other date may be fixed for his appearance.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No.1297/2011 22/07/2015 Shri A.S.Sisodiya, learned Government Advocate for the applicant/State.Bailable warrants of non applicants returned unserved with a note that they have not been resided at the place shown in the warrant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No.709/2012 22/07/2015 Shri H. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri A.S.Sisodiya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Applicant Tejram present in person.Heard on IA No.2124/2015, an application for condonation of absence of the applicant.The applicant is directed to mark his presence before the Registry on 11/08/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.Let the matter be fixed for final hearing in due course.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6349/2013 22/07/2015 Petitioner in person.A copy of the order be sent immediately to the trial Court.Let the matter be fixed on 12/08/2015 (Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRA No. 583/2014 22/07/2015 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the respondents submits that due to heavy rains the respondents could not present today.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRA No.1018/2014 22/07/2015 None for the appellant.Shri A.S.Sisodiya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.The case is listed for the presence of the appellant, but appellant's counsel is absent, in such circumstances non bailable warrant be issued against the appellant and also sent a notice to his surety as to why bail bond be not forfeited.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No.1021/2014 22/07/2015 Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue fresh non bailable warrant against the applicant and also sent a notice to his surety as to why bail bond be not forfeited.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No.1466/2014 22/07/2015 Shri Vinay Puranik, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the record of the Courts below be requisitioned and thereafter list the matter for admission.Learned counsel for the non applicant further seeks three months time to pay remaining amount.At this juncture learned counsel for the applicant vehemently opposes the prayer.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No. 5341/2013 15/04/2015 Shri A. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant.None for respondent No.2, though served.Heard on IA No.1390/2015, an application under Order XLI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure.Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that respondent No.1 has filed written statement and subsequently he proceeded ex-parte before the Tribunal, therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed.After due consideration, the application is allowed and the service of notice of this appeal on respondent No.1 is dispensed with at the risk of the appellant.Office to verify and proceed.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No. 669/2013 15/04/2015 Shri JM Punegar, learned counsel for the appellant.On payment of PF within a week, issue notice to the respondents on IA No.2115/2014, an application for condonation of delay.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No. 776/2013 15/04/2015 None for the appellant.None for respondent No.6 though served.Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant has not deposited the requisite amount, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No. 933/2013 15/04/2015 Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant.None for the respondents No.2 and 3 though served.Notice of respondents No.1 and 2 not returned served or unserved.Let the matter be fixed on 29/04/2015, for consideration of application for condonation of delay.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No. 1087/2013 15/04/2015 Shri None for the appellant.None for respondents No.1 and 2 though served.Office to verify whether the appellant has paid requisite court fee, if so then the matter be listed for consideration of IA No.3310/2013, application for condonation of delay.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi FA No. 1145/2013 15/04/2015 Shri MK Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.Service report is awaited.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No. 1434/2013 15/04/2015 Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.Today the case is listed for consideration of IA No.9306/2014, an application under Section 149 of CPC.Learned counsel for the appellant further seeks time to pay deficit court fee.Ten days' time is granted to pay the deficit court fee.Failing which, this appeal shall be dismissed without reference to the Court.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No. 1983/2013 15/04/2015 Shri Atul Jaiswal,, learned counsel for the appellant.Notices of respondents No.1 to 5 returned unserved.On payment of fresh PF within a week, issue notice to the respondents.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CR No. 88/2014 15/04/2015 Shri BS Gandhi, learned counsel for the applicant.None for the non applicant.The case is adjourned.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCC No. 317/2014 15/04/2015 Shri VS Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.None for non applicant No.1 though served.Notice on non applicant No.2 not received served or unserved.Service report awaited.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No. 349/2014 15/04/2015 Shri I. Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant.He prays one week's time to file an application for reducing the valuation of appeal.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCC No. 407/2014 15/04/2015 Shri SS Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Notices sent to non applicants returned unserved.On payment of fresh PF within a week, issue notice to the non applicants.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No. 440/2014 15/04/2015 Shri Jafar Qureshi, learned counsel for the appellant.None for the respondents No.2 and 3 though served.Notice of respondent No.1 returned unserved for want of correct address.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the service on respondent No.1 cannot be effected by ordinary mode, therefore, substituted service by way of affixture may be permitted.After duce consideration, the application is allowed.On payment of PF within a week, issue notice to the respondent No.1 with a direction that if service by ordinary mode is not possible then it be effected by affixture.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No. 19/2014 15/04/2015 Shri Sunil Jain, learned senior counsel with Shri Manipriya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.NO.7442/2014 08/04/2015 Shri Kamal Aeran, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, PL for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time.Prayer is accepted.List after two weeks.This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail by the petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Crime No.27/2014, registered at Police Station Kasravad District Khargone for offence punishable under Section 302, 307, 324, 323, 506/34, 294, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC.According to prosecution on 17/08/2014, petitioner and co-accused assaulted Parubai and cause head injury.Learned counsel submits that co-accused persona have been released on bail by this Court and present petitioner is in custody since more than six months and all material witnesses have been examined.Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner submitting that the petitioner is responsible for causing head injury to the deceased.Considering the material available on record and in view of the fact that the petitioner is sole accused who is responsible for causing injury on vital part.No case is made out to release the petitioner on bail.The petition is dismissed.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 2413/2015 09/04/2015 Shri G. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri R.S.Bais, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.This is an application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.44/2015 registered by Police Station Petlawad District Jhabua for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) 36 and 46 of M.P. Excise Act.According to prosecution case on 09/02/2015 police Petlawad arrested three persons with 216 liters of liquor.Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of information furnished by co accused persons.He was not present in the seen of occurrence.He has no link and relation with the liquor in question.Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by the petitioner stating that sufficient evidence is available to show the involvement of the petitioner with the liquor.In response learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is a regular shop keeper in Village Sarangi and he has been implicated on the basis of information furnished by co- accused persons that too without any independent evidence.Considering overall facts and totality of the circumstances, the application is allowed and direct that the petitioner shall join the investigation/trial immediately and in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.This order shall be governed by the conditions No.1 to 3 of Sub section (2) of Section 438 Cr.P.C.C.C.on payment of usual charges.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi Election Petition No. 19/2014 01/04/2015 Shri Sunil Jain, learned senior counsel with Shri Manipriya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri A.K.Sethi, learned senior counsel with Shri Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 2763/2015 09/04/2015 Shri Mukesh Sinjoniya, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri R.S.Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of of bail has been filed by the petitioner.He is implicated in Crime No.725/2015 registered at Excise Department Bambai Bazar Circle, Indore, for offence punishable under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.Officials of Excise Department seized 90 bulk liters of country made liquor from the house of the petitioner.Conclusion of trial is likely to take time.However, prays for grant of bail to the petitiner.Learned counsel for the state opposed the prayer made by the petitioner stating that sufficient evidence is available to show the involvement of the petitioner in the matter.Considering the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, it is a fit case for grant of bail.Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rs.Thirty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned JMFC/CJM for his appearance before him or trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed in this behalf by the Court concerning during trial.CC as per rules.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 2766/2015 09/04/2015 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri R.S.Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.This is the first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail by the petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Crime No.1/2015 registered by Police Station Malawar District Rajgarh for offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C..The petitioner has been arrested in this case on 13/02/2015 for having possession of stolen bike.Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since last about more than one and half months.Hence prayed for bail.Learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer made by the petitioner stating that petitioner is habitual offender and the case of Mobile Phone and electric motor are also pending against him.In response learned counsel submits that all the cases have been prepared in one row and in none of the cases the petitioner has been convicted.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, it is a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-( Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties in the amount of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the JMFC/CJM for his appearance before the concerned trial Court and on all dates of hearing as may be fixed in this regard during the pendency of trial.It is also directed that the petitioner shall abide by all the conditions as enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.CC as per rules.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 2769/2015 09/04/2015 Shri R.S.Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri R.S.Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.This is the first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail by the petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Crime No.34/2015 registered by Police Station Malawar District Rajgarh for offence punishable under Section 376 and 457 of the IPC.According to prosecution on 24/02/2015, petitioner entered in the house of the prosecutrix aged 30 years, a married lay having children and her husband was not present in the house.In response learned counsel submits that it has come on record that children were present in the house and shouted and brother in law of the prosecutrix also came in the room.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, it is a fit case to enlgare the petitioner on bail.Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the JMFC/CJM for his appearance before the concerned trial Court and on all dates of hearing as may be fixed in this regard during the pendency of trial.It is also directed that the petitioner shall abide by all the conditions as enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.CC as per rules.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 2772/2015 09/04/2015 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri R.S.Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Case diary is awaited.List in the next week.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi CRR NO. 767/2013 09/04/2015 Shri K.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.Heard on IA No.2340/2015, which is repeat application for suspension of sentence.The petitioner has been convicted under Section 31 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and sentenced to six months S.I. with fine Execution of jail sentence was suspended on 25/07/2013, but petitioner has been taken into custody again on 30/03/2015, because he failed to make appearance in the Registry.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for about 10 days and he undertakes to remain vigilant, sincere and punctual for periodical appearances.Considering the fact and circumstances of this case, this is a fit case for suspension of jail sentence of the petitioner.Accordingly, IA No.2340/2015, is allowed and it stands closed.The custodial sentence awarded to the petitioner shall remain suspended during pendency of this revision.Petitioner shall be released from custody subject to furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 15/09/2015 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.CC as per rules.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi CRA NO.299/2015 09/04/2015 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri RS Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.As prayed, list in the next week.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi CRR NO. 394/2015 09/04/2015 Shri Neelesh Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner.Heard on IA No.2453/2015, application for condonation of delay.Against the judgment dated 22/07/2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Susner, in Cr.A. No.262/2013, this revision has been filed on 30/03/2015 (with a delay of 159 days).Cause of delay is shown to be communication gap between counsel and the party and petitioner could know about the judgment only after receiving the notice and after his arrest.Considering that the petitioner is in custody since about more than one month and has challenged the conviction and jail sentence of , the application is allowed and delay is condoned.IA No.2453/2015 is allowed and closed.Heard on admission.Issue notice to the respondent on payment of PF within a week by registered as well as ordinary mode.In the meanwhile, record be called.List for suspension of sentence, in the next week.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi CRR NO. 407/2015 09/04/2015 None for the petitioner.Let default be removed within two weeks.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi CRR NO. 413/2015 09/04/2015 Shri S. Abhyankar, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri R.S.Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Let complete set of order sheet from the date of statement of accused till date may be brought to the notice of this Court.As prayed, list in the next week.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi CR.A. NO. 487/2015 09/04/2015 Shri M.S.Chandel, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri R.S.Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on admission.List in the next week.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 27//2015 09/04/2015 Shri Rajesh Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri S.D.Bohra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi CR NO.206/2014 01/04/2015 Shri SL Gwaliory, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA NO. 423/2013 01/04/2015 Shri SD Lalwani, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the respondents.Interim order to continue till the next date of hearing.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 955/2014 01/04/2015 Shri Ravindra Singh Chhabra, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Ranjeet Sen, learned counsel for the respondents.With the consent of the parties, heard finally.Reserved for orders.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO.1026/2014 01/04/2015 Shri A. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant.As per office report, PF has been paid but notice could not be issued.Office is directed to issue notice positively on PF which has already been paid.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 1119/2014 01/04/2015 Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant.None for respondents No.1 and 3, though served.Notice of respondent No.2 returned unserved for want of incomplete address.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 1277/2014 01/04/2015 Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant.On payment of PF within a week, issue notice to the respondents.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 1754/2014 01/04/2015 None for the appellant.None for the respondent No.3, though served.Notice of respondent No.1 returned unserved for want of correct address whereas notice of respondent No.2 not received served or unserved.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 27//2015 01/04/2015 Shri Rajesh Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri S.D.Bohra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO.2428 /2014 31/03/2015 Shri Manish Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO.2493/2014 31/03/2015 Shri Hemant Vaishnav, learned counsel for the appellant.None for the respondent No.3, though served.Notice of respondents No.1 and 2 returned unserved for want of correct address.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi FA NO.234/2015 31/03/2015 Shri RB Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri LL Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.Shri RB Singh, learned counsel for the appellant prays time to file an appropriate application.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO.647/2015 31/03/2015 Shri Tej Kumar Khichi, learned counsel for the appellant.On payment of PF within a week, issued notice to the respondents on IA No. 2665/2015, an application for condonation of delay.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA NO.553 /2001 31/03/2015 Shri Rakesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.None for the respondent, though served.Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that counsel for the respondent comes from Ujjain, therefore, the case may be listed on any Wednesday.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO.2352 /2011 31/03/2015 Shri Nilesh Joshi learned counsel for the appellant.He submits that he has filed an application on 14/08/2014 for substituted service on respondent No.1 through his local counsel, but the same is not on record.Office is directed to place the same on record.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO.141/2013 31/03/2015 Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of this appeal with liberty to file a fresh appeal after paying the requisite court fee.Prayer is accepted.The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO.1757 /2014 31/03/2015 Shri A. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.Service report of respondent No.1 and 2 is awaited.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO.2355/2014 31/03/2015 Shri BS Patel, learned counsel for the appellant.None for the respondents No.1 and 2, though served.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA NO.449/2013 31/03/2015 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri R. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.Learned counsel for the respondent prays time for arguing the appeal.Appellant's counsel is directed to supply copy of memo of appeal and application(IA No.6549/2013) to the respondent's counsel.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA NO.163/2014 31/03/2015 Shri Vaibhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Ravi Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA NO.392 /2014 31/03/2015 Shri Vibhash Khedkar, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri LL Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.3/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Shri S. Mukati, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri LL Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Government Advocate seeks time to argue the matter.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 27//2015 31/03/2015 Shri Rajesh Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri S.D.Bohra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi matter.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA NO. 474/2014 31/03/2015 Shri DD Vayas, learned senior counsel with Shri A. Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri LL Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.5/State.None for the other respondents.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue on admission.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi ConC NO.950/2014 31/03/2015 Ms. Riya Ansari, appears on behalf of Shri Kamlesh Mandloi, learned counsel for the applicant.As per office report, PF has been paid, but notice could not have issued.Office is directed to issue notice positively on payment of PF which has already been paid.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO.1571/2014 31/03/2015 Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.Trial Court's record be requisitioned.On payment of PF within a week, issue notice to the respondents.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 1720/2014 31/03/2015 Shri PR Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant.He submits that he has already paid requisite court fee.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.Trial Court's record be requisitioned.On payment of PF within a week, issue notice to the respondents.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 2020/2014 31/03/2015 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri LL Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO.2452/2014 31/03/2015 Shri V.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.Trial Court's record be requisitioned.On payment of process fee within a week, issued notice to the respondents.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi RP NO. 33/2015 31/03/2015 None for the applicant.Shri LL Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.11/State.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA NO. 94/2015 31/03/2015 Smt. Ritu Bhargav, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on IA No.1855/2015, an application for amendment of memorandum of appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that she wants to add some more grounds in memo of appeal.After due consideration, the application is allowed.Appellant's counsel is directed to carry out the amendment in the memo of appeal within a week.Office is directed to call the records of the Courts below positively and list the matter for admission along with the records.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 27//2015 26/03/2015 Shri Rajesh Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri S.D.Bohra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 1477/2014 26/03/2015 None for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 77/2015 26/03/2015 Shri C.P.Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant.On payment of PF within a week issue notice to the respondents on IA No.127/2015, which is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 9358/2014 26/03/2015 Shri S. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri L.L.Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 2463/2006 26/03/2015 Shri V.P.Khare, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.On payment of PF within a week notice be issued to the respondents.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 1811/2009 26/03/2015 Shri Nitesh Patidar, learned counsel appears on behalf of Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the appellant.As per office report, PF has been paid, but notice could not be issued.on payment of PF which has already been paid.In the meanwhile, trial Court's record be requisitioned.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 27//2015 26/03/2015 Shri Rajesh Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri S.D.Bohra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA NO. 235/2011 26/03/2015 Shri G.P.Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.The names of respondents No.2 and 3 has already been deleted.None for respondents No.1,5,6,7 and 8, though served.Learned counsel for respondent No.4 pleads no instructions.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA NO.259/2011 26/03/2015 Shri Shailendra Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant.Counsel for the appellant is directed to send a registered letter to the appellant and thereafter file copy thereof within a period of 15 days.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 1605/2011 26/03/2015 Shri N.K.Khokar, learned counsel for the appellant.None for respondents No.1 and 1-a, though served.On payment of PF within a week, issue notice to the respondent No.3, Mohd. Juber.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 381/2014 26/03/2015 Shri Mayank Upadhayay, learned counsel for the appellant.None for respondent No.4, though served.Service report of respondents No.1 and 2 is awaited.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 379/2014 26/03/2015 Shri Mayank Upadhayay, learned counsel for the appellant.None for the respondents, though served.Heard on IA No.1594/2014, which is an application for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has filed certified copy in connected appeals therefore he may be exempted from filing certified copy of the impugned order.After due consideration, the application is allowed.On payment of P.F., within a week issue notice to the respondents on IA No.3589/2014 and 3667/2014, an application for condonation of delay and exemption.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi C.R. NO.141/2013 26/03/2015 Shri R. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 483/2015 09/03/2015 None for the applicant.Trial Court's record be requisitioned.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 1296/2015 09/03/2015 Shri Santosh Khoware, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri R.S.Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Heard on the question of admission.The petition is admitted for final hearing.No notice is necessary as Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.Trial Court's record be requisitioned.Meanwhile, Government Advocate is directed to apprise the Court whether any appeal against the order of acquittal has been filed before this Court.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 1639/2015 09/03/2015 Ms. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Heard with the aid of case diary.This is first application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The accused/applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.912/2013, registered at Police Station Aerodrome District Indore, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is brother in law of the prosecutrix.He is permanent resident of Dhar.During the trial prosecutrix and her sister Pramita have been examined and they have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile.Dr. Pushplata Ajad examined the prosecutrix, but she has not found any injury on the person of the prosecutrix.The trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicant may be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/ State opposes the prayer.Thus, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.The applicant is directed to attend each hearing of his trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.Any default in attendance in Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.Certified copy as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 1812/2015 09/03/2015 Shri N.S.Karada,.learned counsel for the applicant.This is first application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The accused/applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.1351/2014, registered at Police Station Kotwali District Dewas, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323 and 147 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a young boy, aged about 18 years.The name of the applicant does not find place in the FIR.There is no motive of the crime.The injuries found on the person of the deceased are simple in nature.There is no identification parade during the investigation.The applicant has been arrested after 12 days of the incident.There is no legal evidence to connect the applicant with the crime.The trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicant may be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/ State opposes the prayer.After due consideration, I am of the view that this is a fit case for granting the bail.Thus, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.The applicant is directed to attend each hearing of his trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.Any default in attendance in Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.Certified copy as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 1868/2015 09/03/2015 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Heard with the aid of case diary.This is first application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The accused/applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.12/2015, registered at Police Station Ambuja District Alirajpur, for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) and 36 of M.P.Excise Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is labourer and permanent resident of Alirajpur.He has no criminal antecedent.He has been falsely implicated in the case.The trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicant may be released on bail.The applicant is directed to attend each hearing of his trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.Certified copy as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 1631/2015 09/03/2015 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Shri Rawal seeks time to produce the case diary.After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty that he will file fresh application for bail after recording evidence of the prosecutrix.The prayer is accepted.The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to argue the matter.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 1836/2015 09/03/2015 Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to argue the matter.Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the petition.The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 1864/2015 09/03/2015 Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 1874/2015 09/03/2015 Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks adjournment.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 1883/2015 09/03/2015 Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the applicant seeks ten days time to file documents.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

He was the author of the FIR.According to him on the intervening night of 20th and 21st May, 93 while he was on duty at the Railway Station, Main Hall, Pahar Ganj between 9.00p.m.JUDGMENT Usha Mehra, J.1. Ram Preet and Nirmal @ Suresh @ Toni have assailed the order of their conviction and sentence dated 30.7.96 and 31.7.96 respectively, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of fine further six months rigorous imprisonment.The conviction has been assailed by Ram Preet inter alia, on the grounds that he had no common intention with co-accused Nirmal, therefore, could not have been convicted by invoking Section 34, IPC.Finally the role assigned to him was of catching hold of the deceased and exhortation.So far as Nirmal@ Suresh @ Toni appellant No. 2 is concerned, he has assailed the order of his conviction primarily on the grounds that he has been falsely implicated.His identity had not been established.He was arrested three days after the incident.In order to appreciate the challenge raised we may have a quick glance to the facts of thie cse.to 9.00am., he heard a cry at about 11.00p.m.or 11.30p.m.near passenger main hall.He saw the accused Ram Preet holding the hands of the deceased Raju @ Thakur and accused Suresh @ Toni and one Pahari (who has not been arrested) having open knife in their hands.Ram Preet accused instigated the co-accused by exhorting to kill the deceased.On seeing this, Ajay Bir Singh (PW 9) rushed towards the place of occurrence but before he could reach the scene of occurrence, Suresh @ Toni and Pahari individually gave knife blow to the deceased.Ajay Bir Singh by the use of his "danda" which he was carrying he tried to catch the three accused persons.Ajay Bir Singh PW with the help of his "danda" caught hold of accused Ram Preet at the spot.Accused Ram Preet tried to avoid his arrest as a result Ajay Bir Singh PW 9 had to use force.Resultantly accused Ram Preet sustained some minor injuries.He shouted for help from passer-by in order to nab the other two accused persons.But no one came forward to help him.As a result Suresh @ Toni and Pahari made good their escape.They were carrying open knife in their hands.However, on hearing his shouts PW Head Constable Devender of Delhi Home Guard reached the spot.Head Constable, Devender was asked to take the deceased Thakur to the hospital, whereas Ajay Bir took the accused Ram Preet to the police station and produced him before SI Desh bandhu.On the basis of his report Ext. PW 9/A FIR was registered.Information was received from the JPN Hospital that the injured Raju @ Thakur was declared brought dead by the doctor.After the registration of the case, PW 9 along with the accused Ram Preet went to the spot to complete the proceedings.Accused Ram Preet made a disclosure statement which was recorded as Ex. PW 9/C. On the basis of disclosure statement of Ram Preet, accused Toni @ Suresh was arrested.Accused Pahari however could not be traced nor could be arrested.It is in this backdrop that the charge was framed against the accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC.Contention of Mr. Rohit Sharma, Counsel for Ram Preet was that no case of common intention has been culled out from the facts of this case.There was in fact no pre-meditation or prior meeting of mind.Moreover, no weapon of offence was recovered.The identity of Suresh @ Toni was doubtful, hence benefit of doubt would go in favor of Suresh, the co-accused.There is no charge under Section 302, IPC simpliciter against he accused persons.Once the charge is conjoined and if the benefit of doubt is given to one accused the co-accused cannot be convicted under Section 302, IPC.We find no substance in this argument of Mr. Rohit Sharma in the facts of this case.So far as Suresh @ Toni si concerned, there is sufficient material available on record to show that neither his identity was doubtful nor the non-recovery of weapon of offence entitles him any benefit of doubt.Ajay Bir Singh PW 9 in no uncertain words stated that he had seen Suresh @ Toni as well as Pahari having open knife in their hands.Each one of them inflicted a knife blow on the person of the deceased.This part of the testimony of PW 9 was never questioned nor he was subjected to cross-examination on this part of his testimony.Only question put to him was that there was no electricity at the place of occurrence.This suggestion PW 9 denied categorically, rather he testified that the occurrence took place at a instance of 15-20 yards from where he was standing and that there was electric light at the place of occurrence.It being a Railway Station near the passenger main hall there was electricity.The distance from the place where he was standing was hardly 15-20 yards, therefore, he could clearly see the occurrence and the accused persons.Moreover, when he tried to apprehend Toni and Pahari they made their escape good.He had thus full opportunity to see them.Out of the three accused he could only apprehend accused Ram Preet.it, therefore, cannot be said that identity of accused Toni @ Suresh @ Nirmal was in doubt.There was no motive on the part of Ajay Bir Singh PW 9 to falsely implicate the accused persons.He was a Beat Constable performing his duties patrolling the railway station main hall.It is only when he heard the cries he looked towards the place of occurrence.He saw all the three accused persons and the role played by them.He, however, could catch hold of Ram Preet.Event he accused persons in their statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C. have admitted their presence at the place of occurrence at that time when deceased Raju @ Thakur sustained knife injuries.In their reply to the questions put to accused Suresh @ Toni, he said ""Answer : We are taxi drivers.At about 10.30 p.m., I was in search of passengers.I saw a person lying on patri.I along with Ram Preet went to police station to inform about the same.They asked Ram Preet to sit in police station and one police official rushed towards the spot along with me.on the way he freed me and after two days police came to my house at about 11 a.m. and arrested me falsely in this case."This reply in a way supports the case of the prosecution, that both the accused were present at the spot when the deceased Raju sustained knife injuries.Therefore, ti cannot be said that accused Toni @ Suresh was not at the spot or Ajay Bir Singh (PW 9) had not seen him inflicting the knife blow to the deceased.Out of them some accused were acquitted.As regard the identity of accused Suresh @ Toni there is substantial evidence available on record to indicate that he was the person who inflicted the knife blow to the deceased.For that reference can be made to the evidence of PW 9 Ajay Bir Singh.He saw Suresh @ Toni and Pahari inflicting knife blow to the deceased.He had no motive to falsely implicate the accused persons.The accused Ram Preet only wanted the accused Toni @ Suresh to inflict grievous injury and not to murder him.This argument has no substance in view of the fact that accused Ram preet not only exhorted to kill him but he caught hold of the deceased till such time accused Toni @ Suresh and Pahari gave respective knife blows to the deceased.Carrying upon knife in hand and other accused saying kill him shows the intention.Otherwise there was no question of their carrying open knife unless they had the intention to kill the deceased.As already mentioned above the Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Govind Patil (supra), observed that common intention can develop at the spot during the course of commission of offence and that is precisely what has happened because the co-accused of Ram Preet were carrying open knife in their hands and Ram Preet exhorted them to do away with the deceased.Therefore, common intention could have developed at the spot.PW14 stated that he arrested the co-accused Suresh @ Toni whereas PW 5 said that the accused Suresh @ Toni was arrested at the pointing out of accused Ram Preet.We have perused the statement of PW 5, PW 10, PW 14 but find that there are no material contradictions in their testimony.PW 14 said that on the identification of Head Constable Ajay Bir Singh PW 9, accused Suresh @ Toni was arrested.This is precisely what Ajay Bir Singh PW 9 said.Ajay Bir Singh PW 9 and PW 14 also stated that accused Ram Preet was with them when co-accused Suresh @ Toni was arrested.And it was at his pointing out and identification of PW 9 that Suresh @ Toni was arrested.in fact the statement of Ajay Bir Singh PW 9 inspires confidence.It remained uncontroverter and unrebutted on the record.he had no motive to falsely implicate the appellants.No enmity alleged between PW 9 and the appellants.We find no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Ajay Bir Singh rather his testimony is worthy of credence.Appeal dismissed.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT H.L. Gokhale, J.The three appellants are hereinafter referred to as "accused Nos.1, 2 and 4" for the sake of convenience.(i).All these three accused have been convicted under Section 364 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and Section 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.For these three offences, they have been sentenced to suffer RI for seven years, imprisonment for life and RI for two years respectively.They have also been fined for each of the three offences and have been directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.7,000/-and Rs.1,000/-and in default, have been directed to undergo SI for six months, three months and further three months.(ii).Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 (as well as accused No.3) were additionally found guilty under Section 386 read with Section 34 of IPC and were sentenced to suffer RI for five years.They were directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- additionally and in default, they had to suffer SI for three months.The short facts leading to the filing of both these Appeals are as follows:-It is the case of the prosecution that on 9th May 1996, accused No.4 came to the residence of one Mohammed Hasan Immam Shabbir Siddiqui, the complainant (P.W.1) residing on 2nd floor of Shama Apartment, Rashid Compound at Kousa, a crowded locality near Mumbra when P.W.1 was away to his place of work.P.W.1 runs a factory manufacturing caps and on that day he had gone to Pune.His wife Shahajan Mohammed Hasan Siddiqui (P.W.2) and his mother Zubheda Khatun Mohammed Siddiqui (P.W.5) were then at home.Accused No.4 introduced himself as a person coming from their native village in Bihar.He was received in the house and was given a cup of tea.Subsequently he took the daughter of P.W.1 Nargis and son Shahatab, aged about 9 years for buying chocolates.Nargis returned back after sometime but Shahatab did not.Accused Nos.4, 1 and 2 are charged to have taken the child from Mumbra to Kalyan and then to the Haji Malang hill and to have killed him by throwing down the hill leaving no trace whatsoever except his chappals which were recovered later on.They have, therefore, been charged for kidnapping the minor, murdering him and destroying the evidence.Early morning of the next day onwards, a ransom amount has been demanded from the complainant to the tune of Rs. Five Lakhs for bringing back the child.On receiving the complaint, the Police led the trap and accused No.2 was arrested on 16.5.1996 while making the phone call to the complainant and demanding the ransom.She asked him to visit the factory of her husband since he was not at home.The accused sat on the chair but while sitting he fell down and minor injury was caused to his right elbow joint.At that time her son was taking meal.So the accused took her daughter Nargis to a Chemist to bring bandage which P.W.2 applied.At about 6 p.m. he took the daughter and son for bringing some chocolates.He fell down from the chair while sitting and so the daughter Nargis went with him to buy bandage.The person running the General Stores who sold the bandage i.e. P.W.6, has confirmed having seen this person along with the daughter when he came to buy bandage.P.W.14-Mohamad Aktar Abdul Razak Pathan has deposed to that effect.He is a person running the business of arranging decoration (Mandap Contractor).On that date he had gone to the Mumbra Police Station along with one Iqbal Ismile, when Police told them that one boy was kidnapped by some persons and they were demanding Rs. Five Lakhs as ransom.This phone call was made from the Govandi area.The Police transferred that phone number 5355469 to mobile.This witness went to Shivaji Nagar area, Govandi where the Police party was kept at different points.At about 6.40 p.m. a call was received on that mobile number from the person demanding money.The phone call was received by the father of the child.The Police asked the complainant to go on talking with the person on mobile.So they got sufficient time to locate him.One of the Constables from the Shivaji Nagar area, informed that the said number viz. 5575250 was installed in a booth behind the Rafique Nagar Police Chowky.Thereafter it appears that according to the prosecution these accused with the child had travelled from Mumbra to Kalyan by train.At Kalyan, it is claimed that they hired the rickshaw of one Sunder Badkanne Gupta, P.W.9 to go to Haji Malang.He has stated that these three persons hired his rickshaw on that date at about 6.45 p.m. and one small boy was with them.He was shown the photograph of the child in Court which he identified.He has stated that on 9th May 1996 he had gone to Haji Malang and on return to Kalyan, accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 had hired his taxi.In the cross-examination, he has stated that he left Kalyan for Haji Malang at about 10 p.m. and the three persons boarded his taxi at Haji Malang at about 11.30 in the night.The taxi driver had deposed that only three persons had come with him when he returned from Haji Malang indicating thereby that the child was not there on the return journey, they having killed him at Haji Malang.The prosecution has of course led the evidence with respect to the efforts made to search the child at the top of Haji Malang as well as the bottom of the hill and as to how the pair of chappals of the child was found in the jungle below the Haji Malang hill.The pair of chappals has been identified by the father of the child as that of the child.The two witnesses for the aforesaid search are P.W.16-Chandrakant Balkishan Nair who has stated that he resides at Haji Malang hill.On 17th May 1996, he had seen the crowd near Lambi Bavadi i.e. at top of the hill.(iii).These substantive sentences were to run concurrently.(iv).Accused No.3 was acquitted of offences under Sections 364, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.All the four accused were, therefore, charged for extortion also under Section 386 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.The questions which arise for our determination are as follows:-(i) Whether the prosecution had proved the charge of kidnapping for ransom, murder and destroying the evidence under Sections 364, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against all the three accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 ?(ii) Whether the prosecution had established the charge of extortion under Section 386 read with Section 34 of IPC against all the four accused ?(iii) If the charges are so proved, what should be the punishment ? Alternatively, whether the learned Sessions Judge had erred on any of these points and if so, what should be the order ?Although P.W.1 i.e. the father of the kidnapped child is the complainant, his testimony is relevant to the extent of the phone calls for ransom received by him.P.W.14 is another relevant witness since he is the witness to accused No.2 being nabbed on 16.5.1996 along with accused No.3 when he was making the phone calls to demand the ransom.Thus, as far as the charges of kidnapping and extortion are concerned, there is evidence on record which could be said to be direct evidence.As far as the murder of the child is concerned, however, the charge is sought to be proved entirely on the basis of circumstantial evidence and the depositions of various witnesses leading to the discovery of the chappals of the child at the foot of the Haji Malang hill.It is in this background that we have to examine as to whether the prosecution had successfully established the charges against the accused.As far as the mother of the child, P.W.2-Shahajan Mohd. Hasan Siddiqui, is concerned, she had identified the accused in Test Identification parade ("TI parade" for short) held on 26th July 1996 which was after about two and half months from the date of kidnapping.She deposed that on 9.5.1996 when her husband had gone out for work to Pune she was alone at home along with her mother-in-law and three children, one of them being a child in arm.At about 4 p.m. accused No.4 had come to her residence and he stated that he had come in connection with taking advance from her husband who was running a factory of manufacturing caps.He stated that he had come from their native village in District Madhubani in State of Bihar.He had brought a box of sweet.After sometime the daughter came back but not the son.The daughter informed that accused No.4 had taken the son with him.She searched for him but could not find him.She then made a phone call to her brother-in-law Aaftab in the factory.Thereafter he came over as also her husband and then a complaint was lodged to the Police.7. P.W.2 further deposed to the fact that on the next day morning there was a phone call demanding Rs. Five Lakhs for release of the child.She identified accused No.4 in Court also.Nothing is brought out in her cross-examination to disturb her evidence in chief.It is relevant to note that as far as this accused No.1 is concerned, P.W.2 has failed to identify him in the identification parade.She stated that on that day accused No.4 had come to her residence at about 5 p.m. She also stated that he had informed that he was coming from the native village.He had carried one box of sweet.He was given a cup of tea.Thereafter he sat on the chair and had fallen down.Thereafter accused No.4 had taken the child Shahatab and the grand-daughter Nargis with him.After sometime Nargis had come back alone.This witness stated that the boy who visited to her house was about 18/19 years old.He was fair and having black hair.She identified him in Court.She stated that she had identified him in TI parade also.As far as this testimony is concerned, also there is nothing to disturb it in the cross-examination.The evidence of both these witnesses is supported by that of P.W.4-Zahir Ahmed Ali Hasan Siddiqui who is having a bakery and general stores opposite to Shama Manzil in Rashid compound wherein the complainant stays.He stated in his deposition that accused No.4 had come to his shop between 5 and 6 p.m. on 9.5.1996 with the son and daughter of P.W.1 and had purchased two cadbury chocolates which were given to the two children.Inasmuch as the shop of this witness is situated in front of the residence of the complainant, it is natural for him to know the children of the complainant who would be buying various articles from his shop from time to time.He was accompanied by a small girl when he came to buy bandage.His shop is situated in Rashid compound.He identified the accused on 9th August 1996 in TI parade and also in Court.It is relevant to note in this connection that when accused No.4 received an injury on his elbow while sitting on the chair, his blood had spilled over on to the chair.The evidence was led to that effect in Court.P.W.2 and P.W.5 were with him for more than two hours.He was given a cup of tea.Similarly, when he went to buy the chocolates with two kids, P.W.4, who sold the chocolates, has also identified him.They have both identified him in TI parade.Inasmuch as accused No.4 was accompanied by the children of the complainant to the shop from where he bought the chocolates and the bandage and since the children were from the same locality, the concerned storekeeper could remember the person who accompanied them.Besides, the blood group of accused No.4 matched with the blood which was found spilled over on to the chair.On receiving this information, the Police and the complainant went near that Police chowky when accused Nos.2 and 3 were seen talking on the phone and were then apprehended.When search of these persons was taken, a chit was found with accused No.2 on which the telephone No.5355469 was written.A railway ticket dated 9.5.1996 was also found.Another paper was found on which the words "Nasik-Bhusawal and Itarsi and S-3" were written.On the same paper, the words "Imam Husain, Karkhana" and one telephone number were also written.The person had asked him to send his younger brother with money to Mahanagari Express and had asked to tell his brother to meet them either at Nasik, Itarsi or Jabalpur.This witness, P.W.14, further stated that the Police had asked the two persons as to where was the kidnapped boy.They told the Police that there were two other persons who were involved.They took Police to the Rafique Nagar Zopadpatti where accused Nos.1 and 4 were found and were arrested.As far as the testimony of this P.W.14 and the arrest of accused Nos.2 and 3 while making phone calls is concerned, nothing has come in the cross-examination to disturb the same.Hence, as far as the charge of extortion is concerned, the same would get proved against accused Nos.2 and 3 as well as accused No.4 who had kidnapped the child and in connection with that the ransom was being demanded.However, as far as the murder of the child and destroying the evidence is concerned, they have relied upon a chain of witnesses.They have thus relied upon the evidence of one Ahmed Sharif Rehmatulla Shaikh, P.W.8, a Richshaw driver.He has stated for the first time in Court on 3rd April 1998 that on 9.5.1996 accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 had hired his rickshaw at Rashid compound and asked him to take to Mumbra Railway station.One small boy was with them who was weeping.His photograph was shown to this witness in Court who had identified that child as the one who was with them.There were persons of fire brigade and the Police.He had gone down the valley along with the Police where he found pair of the chappals.P.W.17 is one Ragho Kalu Shinde who stays at the bottom of the Haji Malang hill.He had participated in the search on 23rd May 1996 for the child but could not find anything.He said that he saw jackal running in the valley and the forest was very thick, and consisted of tigers, taras and wild pigs.The boy was not traced in the valley.As far as the visit of the accused to the Haji Malang is concerned, the prosecution has examined one Indirabai Narayan Kharkar, P.W.20, who is supposed to be having her shop opposite the bus stop at Haji Malang.One Abdul Ahmed Shaikh Kadir, P.W.18, having his shop at the top of Haji Malang is also examined who said that on 9.5.1996, three persons had come with the boy to his shop at about 7/8 p.m. and purchased some chocolates and Manikchand Ghutaka.He has identified the boy on showing the photograph.It is material to note that these two rickshaw drivers, one taxi driver i.e. P.W.Nos.8, 9 and 10, Indirabai, P.W.20 and Abdul Kadir, P.W.18 were not even called for TI parade.They have appeared directly in the Court after a period of two years to make statements with respect to their having seen the three accused and the child.The two rickshaw drivers and one taxi driver would be having so many customers in the meanwhile.Only the first rickshaw driver has stated that the child was crying.Indirabai, P.W.20 has deposed that the particular day was a Thursday and on that day there is lot of crowd.There was no special reason for her to remember the three persons with the child coming to buy channa and sticks.Similarly there was no such special reason for Abdul Kadir, P.W.18 to remember them from whom they bought the chocolates and Gutkha.There would be so many customers buying on that date and more than two years have gone thereafter.Besides, there is nothing independently available to link these persons with the particular incident except their own depositions which are led obviously when they were approached by the Police with the help of the accused.In the circumstances, it can safely be said that the child was kidnapped by accused No.4 and accused Nos.2 and 3 did attempt to extort money.As far as the murder of the child is concerned, the only available evidence is the discovery of the chappals of the child at the bottom of the Haji Malang hill which had the blood stains thereon.The blood stains are of 'O' group which is the group of accused Nos.1 and 4 as well as that of the child.As far as involvement of accused No.4 is concerned, there should be no difficulty.However, as far as accused No.1 is concerned, the evidence with respect to him is little doubtful.He is supposed to be related to P.W.2 but she did not identify him in the TI parade.He is not identified by P.W.5 either in the TI parade or in Court.Besides, he is supposed to have had some nail injuries on his neck but the medical evidence does not show any such injuries.P.W.14 has stated that there were scratches on his throat and had injury to his right elbow joint.The medical evidence does not support the same.It does not speak of any such injuries on the throat.There are only a few abrasions on the wrist joint, little left finger and right index finger.The evidence of a hotelier one Yasin Imbrahim Patel, P.W.13, is to the effect that his cousin is having a pan stall in Rashid compound and that accused No.1 had come over there on 9th May 1996 and was seated in an adjoining hotel for half an hour.Not much benefit can be drawn by the prosecution from this evidence.Certain pieces of papers were found with accused No.1 when he was arrested.They were sent for examination by handwriting expert who gave an opinion that they were in their own handwriting.However, the chit with accused No.1 was not sent for examination.Thus, as far as accused No.1 is concerned, there does not appear to be much evidence against him except the chit found on his person with similar contents written thereon.However, the contents of the chit found with him have a bearing to the deposition of P.W.1 that the person making phone call had asked him to send his brother to Mahanagari Express with money either at Nasik, Itarsi or Bhusawal.In his statement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, he has not given any explanation with respect thereto.The charge under Section 386 read with Section 34 will, therefore, get established against him.It is however clear that accused No.4 did visit the residence of the complainant on 9.5.1996 and took the child with him to buy chocolates whereafter the child did not return.As far as accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are concerned, they are said to have taken the child to the Haji Malang and killed him over there and the chappals of the child were found at the bottom of the hill after the trace.Hence, the following order on question No.(iii):-

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

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

The prosecution story in brief is that houses of the appellant and the deceased are adjacent.There was some ill will between them.On the date of incident i.e. 11.2.2001 in the morning Bhaw Singh was in his courtyard.His wife Dashoda Bai was in the house.The appellant came there, he was armed with an Axe.He abused Dashoda Bai and Dashoda Bai also instigated the appellant in that moment, the appellant had pushed Dashoda Bai and then Dashoda Bai abused the appellant.The appellant had inflicted a blow of Axe on the head of deceased Dashoda Bai.Other persons came on the spot.Dashoda Bai became unconscious.Dashoda Bai was admitted in Primary Health Center, Devri.She was referred to Sagar and admitted at Sagar Hospital.She was died in the evening on 11.2.2001 at about 05:30 P.M. The police conducted investigation and filed charge sheet.He deposed that the residence of the appellant and his is adjacent side by side.My wife had taken out a Jareta from the boundary (Bade) and in that event, the appellant abused him.The incident had happened at around 7 to 8 in the morning.At that time the appellant was armed with an Axe.He ran towards my wife and entered my house.He had inflicted injury by Axe on her head.The appellant had pushed my wife and then he inflicted injury on her head by Axe.My wife deceased had also abused him.Thereafter, other persons came on the spot.The appellant ran away from the spot.We had taken the deceased to police station, Devri, where report of the incident Exh. P-2 was lodged, I signed the same.The deceased was sent to Hospital Devri, where she was referred to District Hospital, Sagar.She was died at District Hospital, Sagar.(25.11.2017) This Appeal is of the year 2002 and the appellant is in jail.Since no one appeared on behalf of the appellant.Shri H.S. Verma, Advocate who is Panel Lawyer of Legal Services Committee is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the court.This appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellant against the judgment dated 14.5.2002 passed in Sessions Trial No.155/2001 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Sagar (M.P.) whereby the present appellant has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 450 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of 2 Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for three months and Section 302 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for three months.During trial the appellant abjured his guilt.The trial court held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 450 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for three months, under Section 302 of IPC sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for three months.3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that even if the prosecution evidence be taken into consideration as a whole, the offence committed by the appellant would be 304 Part I of IPC.The appellant has already undergone jail sentence of 13 years, hence the sentence of the appellant be modified as already undergone.P.W.-3, an independent eye witness, deposed that I was present nearby a hotel, which is near the residence of the appellant and there was quarrel between the wife of Bhaw Singh and the appellant and at that time the appellant had inflicted injury on the head of the deceased due to which 4 deceased fell down.P.W.-4 also deposed that there was a quarrel and I had seen that deceased was laying on the earth.P.W.-5 deposed that Bhaw Singh told him that Jhumman Gond- appellant killed the deceased.P.W.-8 Bhagwati Singh deposed that I had seen that the appellant had inflicted blow of lathi on the head of the deceased at that time I was standing at the hotel.P.W.-10 is the witness of seizure of Axe, he deposed that on the memorandum of appellant, the Axe was seized vide seizure memo Exh. P-13 from the house of the appellant.Appellant was arrested vide Exh. P-14, and I signed the same.P.W.-1, Doctor Rajendra Kumar Jain deposed that on 12.12.2001, I was posted at District Hospital, Sagar as Medical Officer and I had performed post-mortem of the deceased.I noticed following injuries on her body :-One incised wound 5 x 1 x cm on the head.One injury on right eye.There was blood clotting on the head and there was injury on the brain.Deceased was died due to injury suffered by her on head.The injury was caused by hard and sharp edged weapon.P.W.-15, is the Investigating Officer.He deposed that he was posted at Devri Sagar on 11.2.2001 and report was lodged, which is Exh. P-2 by Bhaw Singh and I signed the report.Thereafter, I conducted the investigation.Recovered blood mud from the spot.I recorded statements of Lakhan, Rajju, Guddu, Chhabu and Bhaw Singh.P.W.-17 deposed that he was posted at Police Station 5 Devri as Station House Officer, Incharge and he arrested the appellant.From the evidence of P.W.-2, 3 and 8, this fact has been proved that there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased.In that event, the appellant had inflicted a blow by Axe on the head of the deceased.The deceased had also abused the appellant.P.W.-2, who is the husband of the deceased deposed that deceased had taken Jareta from the boundary of the house of the appellant.Thereafter, the quarrel had taken place.This fact is established that there was a quarrel and sudden provocation in that event the appellant had inflicted a blow on the head of the deceased.From the evidence of doctor, who had performed the post-mortem, it is clear that there was only one incised injury on the head of the deceased due to which the deceased was died.The appellant entered the house of the deceased.Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is 9 partly allowed.

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ad Heard on admission.The revision is admitted for hearing.M Record of the Trial Court be called for.of Also heard on I.A.No.15773/2017, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicant.rt Applicant stands convicted for offence punishable under Section ou 279 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for six months and fine of C Rs.300/-, under Section 337 of IPC and sentenced to fine of h Rs.500/-, under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI ig for one year and fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 3/181 of M.V. Act H and sentenced to fine of Rs.200/-, under Section 146/196 of M.V. Act and sentenced to fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 39/192 of M.V. Act and sentenced to fine of Rs.2000/-, with default stipulation.After hearing rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail and suspend the sentence awarded to him subject to deposit the fine amount if not already deposited.The jail sentence sh awarded to the applicant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this Revision.Applicant Sunil be enlarged on bail e ad subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with one surety Pr in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 01/03/2018 and a hy shall continue to do so on all such future dates as may be given in this behalf, during pendency of the matter.ad List the Revision for final hearing in due course of time at its own M turn.of Certified copy as per rules.rt (H.P. SINGH) ou JUDGE C h ig sp H SAVITRI PATEL 2017.10.13 17:45:37 +05'30'

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

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

Learned Advocate appearing for the State contended that on 11.1.03, 1.3.03, 26.3.03 and 5.5.03 Ratan Das deposited Rs. 10,000/- each on those 4 (four) days.The said Ratan Das in connivance with the ledger keeper and the present petitioner, i.e., Manager of the said bank interpolated the amount and digit T was mentioned on the left side of the deposited amount of each day.During investigation the police officer seized all the relevant documents of the bank including ledger book and it has been detected that the Bank Manager used to check ledger book daily and has also put signatures on the ledger book after verification.The Bank Manager has overall responsibility and duty to check the ledger books and he cannot absolve himself from his duty and responsibility.This petitioner has not only the direct participation behind the incident but, he was also the conspirator in the incident.During investigation, the Investigating Officer seized the ledger book and other relevant papers from the bank and the ledger book indicates that this petitioner used to check the ledger books off and on and used to put his signatures also.This petitioner who was the Bank Manager has overall responsibility and duty to check the ledger book and he cannot absolve himself from this responsibility.This revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the criminal proceeding being G. R. Case No. 255/03 which arose out of Chakdaha Police Station Case No. 87 dated 13.6.2003 and the chargesheet No. 64 dated 30.6.2003 under sections 465/468/471/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called the IPC) now pending in the Court of the learned SDJM, Kalyani, Nadia.2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was the Manager of Chakdaha Branch of Nadia District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. One Ratan Das deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each in the said bank on 11.1.03, 1.3.03, 26.3.03 and 5.5.03 but, said Ratan Das surreptitiously inserted digit '1' on left side of credit amounts of said Rs. 10,000/- each and subsequently withdraw Rs. 4,40,000/- from the bank.Immediately after the petitioner became aware of the offences committed by Ratan Das, he lodged the FIR on 12.6.03 and on the basis of it Chakdaha P. S. Case No. 87 dated 13.6.03 was started.The petitioner being a Bank Manager at the relevant time cannot look into entire documents of a bank.The main responsibility of maintaining the accounts is with the ledger keeper and it is clear, therefore, that the alleged offence was committed by Ratan Das in connivance with the ledger keeper.

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

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

There is no dispute that Sri Tambreshwar Prasad (P.W. 17) was the Minister for Irrigation and Power of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and Sri Varmeshwar Pandey (P.W. 19) was the Minister for Local Self Government (L.S.G.) at that time.There is also no dispute that Sri Gopal Krishna Ram Verma (since deceased) was the Deputy Chief Engineer, Obra Project, and Sri R. K. Sanyal (P.W. 7) and Shri V. M. Monglik (P.W. 8) were the Superintending Engineers and Sri B. P. Singh (P.W. 9) and Shri D. N. Mittal were the Executive Engineers at Obra during the relevant period.It is alleged that the real name of the respondent is Ram Dhani Pandey but he posed himself as Dharnidhar Pandey, brother of Sri Varmeshwar Pandey, who was Minister LS.G. at that time.The charges against the respondent related to appointments in the Obra Project which the respondent is alleged to have obtained fraudulently by introducing himself as the younger brother of Varmeshwar Pandey, the then Minister LS.G. Three letters dt. 28-9-67 (Ex.Ka-30), 3-10-67 (Ex.Ka-26) and 13-10-67 (Ex.Ka-29) are alleged to have been forged by the respondent showing that they have been written by Sri Tambreshwar Prasad, the then Minister of Irrigation and Power.These letters were handed over by the respondent to Sri G. K. R. Verma, the Deputy Chief Engineer, Obra Project, V. M. Monglik (P.W. 8), Superintending Engineer of the said project and Sri B. P. Singh (P.W. 9), Executive Engineer of the said project respectively, thereby inducing the said officers to pass orders on the applications of certain candidates appointing them in the said project.The aforesaid letters contained recommendations purporting to have been made by the Minister Irrigation and Power for giving appointment to the candidates.Sri V. M. Monglik, Superintending Engineer, was induced to make appointment of Sughriv Singh, Banarasi Tiwari.Ram Murti Pandey and Parmatma Tiwari.Shri B. P. Singh, Executive Engineer, on the basis of the aforesaid recommendatory letter dt. 19-10-67 (Exs.Ka-28) of the Minister was induced to pass orders on the application of Ram Murti Pandey giving him appointment as Work Supervisor on Work charge Establishment.Sri R. K. Sanyal (P.W. 7) was the Superintending Engineer at Obra at that time.In the first week of Oct. 1967, he was told by Sri G. K. R. Verma, Deputy.Chief Engineer that he had received telephonic call and a letter from Irrigation and Power Minister for making some appointments and that the same may be done.Two applications of Amar Nath Singh and Jwala Prasad (Ex.Ka-9 and Ka-10) were given to him by the respondent under his direction to Sri D. N. Mittal, Executive Engineer (P.W. 10) to pass on the applications to Sri B. P. Singh, Executive Engineer (P.W. 9).On the direction of Shri R. K. Sanyal, Superintending Engineer, Sri D. N. Mittal (P.W. 10) endorsed orders on the applications of Jwala Prasad and Amar Nath Singh Ex.Ka-9 and Ex.Ka-10 to Executive Engineer, Electrical (Div) forwarding the applications with the remark "that the candidate may be appointed as Helper in R. P. Division on the salary of Rs. 100/- p.m. in the Work Charge Establishment."On the basis of the Minister's letter (Ex.Ka-30) the candidates were given appointments to the post of Helper which was equivalent to the rank of Chaukidar, for which no qualification was required.On 5-10-1967, at about 5 p.m. the respondent met Shri V. M. Monglik (P.W. 8) in his office and introducing himself as Dharnidhar Pandey, brother of Minister Shri Varmeshwar Pandey, gave him the forged letter dt. 3-10-1967 (Ex.Ka-26) in the envelop (Ex.Ka-37) saying that it had been written by Sri Tambreshwar Prasad, Minister Irrigation and Power.Shri Monglik instructed the Executive Engineers to absorb the candidates in the work charge staff if there were vacancies.At 7.30 the same day, the respondent telephoned him that the candidates had come to Obra and they should be given appointments without waiting.He was told that he should contact the Executive Engineers Shri B. P. Singh and Shri S. P. Garg.However, as four persons named in the letter dt. 3-10-1967 (Ex.Ka-26) did not appear before Shri B. P. Singh, he did not take any action on that letter.Subsequently on 17-1(M%7, the respondent approached Sri B. P. Singh (P.W. 9) along with letter dt. 13-10-1967 (Ex.Ka-29) purporting to have been written by the same Minister for Irrigation and Power along with candidate Ram Murti Pandey whereupon Shri B. P. Singh passed an order on the application of Ram Murti (Ex.Ka-31) approving his appointment as work charge supervisor.On the basis of that order formal order of appointment was issued on 19-10-67 (Ex.Ka-28).When Shri V. M. Monglik (P.W. 8) went to Lucknow in connection with some official work, he took letters Ex.Ka-26 and Ka-29 along with envelop Ex.Ka-27 with him and handed them over to the Executive Engineer attached to the Minister at his residence.On 25-10-1967 the respondent again contacted Sri Monglik on telephone and thanked him for giving appointments and further requested him for some more appointments.Shri Monglik requested the respondent to disclose from where he was speaking whereupon the respondent got confused and gave the name of Shri R. C. Singh and immediately disconnected the line.Sri Monglik then telephoned to the Deputy Chief Engineer and the respondent was available on the line there.Sri Monglik told the respondent that he had spoken to him on telephone just now whereupon the respondent denied and feeling sorry stated that he had gone to bath room and it might be that his friend had talked to him in his name.At that time, the Deputy Chief Engineer was not present at his residence.Shortly afterwards, he again contacted the Deputy Chief Engineer at his residence and enquired from him that one Dharnidhar Pandey had telephoned from his residence and whether he was known to him.Thereupon the Deputy Chief Engineer told Sri Monglik that Sri Dharnidhar Pandey had come with the letter of Minister Irrigation and Power for giving appointments to certain candidates and that is how he knew him.Sri Monglik then went to the residence of Deputy Chief Engineer Sri G. K. R. Verma who called the Vigilance Officer and told him about the features of respondent and directed to arrest him.On 26-10-1967 at 9. 30 or 10 a.m. Shri Chauhari Singh Section 9(P.W. 1) who was posted as S. I. Security Obra Thermal Power House, referred to as the Vigilance Officer, arrested the respondent from Roadways Bus Stand.The respondent first gave his name as Ramdhani Pandey but when the Vigilance Officer told that his name was Dharnidhar Pandey, he became nervous.The Vigilance Officer produced the respondent before Sri G. K. R. Verma, who called Shri V. M. Monglik also in his office.The respondent was very nervous but on enquiry, he insisted that he was brother of Varmeshwar Pandey, .Ka-32).On the same day viz, 1-11-1967 Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch directed investigation of this case whereupon Sri Mansab Ullah, Dy.S. P., Crime Branch (P.W. 4) deputed Inspector S. U. Zubedi (P.W. 8) to investigate the case.The respondent was arrested by Station Officer H. N. Singh (P.W. 18) on 24-11-1967 and was kept Bapurdah at Police Station Chetganj, Varanasi.On the next day viz. 25-11-1967, Dy. S. P. Mansab Ullah (P.W. 4) took specimen hand writing (Ex.Ka-11 to Ka-24) of the respondent at Police Station Chetganj where he was kept Bapurdah.On the same day the respondent was taken from Hawalat of Police Station Chetganj by constable Sarvajeet Ram (P.W. 5) and was lodged in District Jail, Varanasi.The test identification of the respondent was conducted by Sri N. B. Singh, Magistrate First Class (P.W. 16) in District Jail Varanasi on 27-12-1967 in which he was correctly identified by almost all the witnesses including S.I. Chauhari Singh, Security Officer (P.W. 1), Lalta Prasad Singh vP.W. 2), Shri D. M. Mittal, Executive Engineer (P.W. 10), Shri R P. Singh Executive Engineer (P.W. 9), Shri V. M. Manglik, Superintending Engineer (P.W. 8) and Shri G. K. R. Verma, Deputy Chief Engineer (not examined as he had died in the meanwhile).Besides the specimen handwriting and signatures ol"lhe respondent, specimen handwriting and signatures o! certain other persons were also taken and certain other writings and signatures alleged to have been made by the respondent were collected and were sent to Scientific Section C.I.D. U.P. Lucknow where they were examined, by Shri Shivram Singh, Hand Writing Expert (P. W. 13).After examining the documents, he came to the conclusion that the person who had written the specimen writing and signatures had also written the disputed writings on Exs.Ka-9, Ka-10 (applications of Jwala Prasad and Amar Nath Singh) Ex.Ka-35 application of Basant as well as the body writing and signatures on the disputed letters Exts.Ka-26, Ka-29 and Ka-30) purporting to have been written by Shri Tambreshwar Prasad, the then Minister for Irrigation and Power as also the address on the envelop Ex.The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet against the respondent.In support of its case, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses.P.W. 1S. I. Chauhari Singh was the Security Officer at the Obra Thermal Power House at the relevant time, who had arrested the respondent from near the Roadways Bus Stand on 26-10-1967 at about 10 a.m. on the basis of his features as disclosed to him by Sri G. K. R. Verma, Deputy Chief Engineer and produced him before Sri Verma, who interrogated him and thereafter permitted him to go.He further stated that on previous occasions also, the respondent used to come to him for obtaining permits to enter the office saying that he was Dharnidhar Pandey and was brother of Sri Varmeshwar Pandey, Minister L.S.G.D. P.W. 2 Lalta Prasad Singh clerk proved certain permits prepared by him and certain other clerks of his office in favour of the respondent and stated that the respondent had given out that he was younger brother of Sri Varmeshwar Pandey Minister.ORDER O.P. Mehrotra, J.This is a government appeal against an order dt. 29-5-1974 passed by Shri D. N. Shukla llnd Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur convicting respondent Ramdhani Pandey alias Dharnidhar Pandey for the offence Under Section 471, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.However, as he had already been in custody for a longer period than three months, it was ordered that he will not be taken into custody for the purpose of serving out the sentence imposed on him,Besides Section 471, I.P.C, the respondent was also charged and prosecuted for the offences Under Sections 419, 420, 466, 467 and 468 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, however, found that the said charges had not been proved and, accordingly, acquitted him of the said charges.This government appeal is directed against the acquittal of the respondent for the aforesaid offences in respect of which he was acquitted by the lower court.He too supported the prosecution case and stated that the respondent had himself prepared the body writing of applications Exs.Ka-9 and Ka-10 on his behalf and on behalf of Amar Nath Singh and had obtained employment for them.P.W. 4 Dy.S. P. Mansab Ullah had taken specimen writings of the respondent.P.W. 5 constable Sarvajeet Ram had proved that the respondent remained Bapurdah at Police Station Chetganj Varanasi and had been taken by him to District Jail, Varanasi.P.W. 7 Shri R. K. Sanyal, P.W. 8 Shri V. M. Manglik, P.W. 9 Shri B. P. Singh and P.W. 10 Shri D. N. Mittal are engineers posted at Obra Thermal Power House and who have fully supported the prosecution case as detailed above.All of them had also identified the respondent in jail as the person who had approached them saying that he was Dharnidhar Pandey and was brother of Shri Varmeshwar Pandey Minister L.S.G.D. and who had also produced three disputed letters Exs.Ka-26, Ka-29 and Ka-30 purporting to have been written by Shri Tambreshwar Prasad, Minister for Irrigation and Power and had also produced applications of the candidates whereupon orders for appointment in their favour had been passed.The judgment of that case is on the record as Ex.Ka-85 and it shows that the respondent was sentenced to undergo R, I, for one year and ten months respectively for the offences Under Sections 170/420 I.P.C. The appellate judgment dt. 13-3-1967 (Ex.Ka-86) shows that the convictions were maintained but the sentences for the two offences were reduced to four months and three months respectively.P.W. 13 Sri Shivram Singh is the Hand Writing Expert.P.W. 16 N. B. Singh is the Magistrate who conducted the identification parade.P.W. 17 Shri Tambreshwar Prasad was the Minister for Irrigation and Power and he stated that the disputed letters Exs.Ka-26, Ka-29 and Ka-30 and envelop Ex.Ka-27 were neither written nor signed by him.He further stated that the respondent was not known to him.P.W. 19 Shri Varmeshwar Pandey, the then Minister L.S.G.D. stated that the respondent was not his brother.Lastly P.W. 18 Inspector S. U. Zubedi of Crime Branch C.I.D. was the Investigating Officer of this case.The accused pleaded not guilty.He denied that he ever gave out his name as Dharnidhar Pandey or represented to any one that he was brother of Sri Varmeshwar Pandey, Minister.He admitted that he had gone to Obra and met officers there several times but he did not remember their names.He also did not remember when and for whom he arranged the jobs.About previous conviction, he admitted that he was convicted Under Sections 170 and 420 I.P.C. and had also filed an appeal in the High Court but did not know its result and in the meanwhile he had served out the full sentence.He alleged false implication by the police with a view to character assassination.He did not adduce any defence evidence.It is noteworthy that there was nothing in the cross-examination of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution to show that the witnesses were not reliable or that they were not speaking the truth.On the other hand, all the prosecution witnesses were entirely independent and reliable and they had no ill will or cause for grievance to implicate the respondent in this case.There was no reason why they should not be believed.The learned Sessions Judge believed them and he was perfectly justified in doing so.It has not been disputed before us that the respondent is really Ramdhani Pandey and he is not Dharnidhar Pandey nor he is brother of Shri Varmeshwar Pandey, the then Minister LS.G.D. It has also been established beyond reasonable doubt by the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that the respondent, pretending to be the brother of Shri Varmeshwar Pandey Minister, approached various Engineers mentioned above with forged letters (Exs.Ka-26, Ka-29 and Ka-30) purporting to have been written by Shri Tambreshwar Prasad, Minister for Irrigation and Power, and thereby induced those engineers to give employment to certain candidates.One of those candidates, viz., Jwala Prasad has been examined as P.W. 3 and he supported the prosecution case and stated that the respondent got him employed in the Obra Thermal Power House on the post of Helper on which post he was still working.P.W. 7 Shri R. K. Sanyal, Superintending Engineer also stated that letters of appointment of Jwala Prasad and Amar Nath Singh were issued by Sri B. K. Bansal, Executive Engineer, who was working under him and that those persons were still working and even after it was brought to their notice that these appointments had been obtained fraudulently on the basis of forged letters, yet they have not been removed on account of certain legal difficulties.The evidence of the prosecution in this respect has been believed by the learned Sessions Judge.The learned Counsel for the respondent has not challenged that finding and did not make any attempt to show that it was not the respondent who had approached the above mentioned engineers along with the disputed letters for getting employment for certain candidates.As a matter of fact, the learned Sessions Judge held that the charge against the accused respondent Under Section 471 I.P.C. had been proved inasmuch as there was the uncontroverted evidence of the Minister concerned that the disputed letters had not been written by him.The said letters were, therefore, made by forgery.He further held that the accused had used those letters as genuine and hence the charge Under Section 471 I.P.C. was proved beyond reasonable doubt.The accused respondent was convicted for the said offence and he did not prefer any appeal against that conviction.The learned Sessions Judge, however, held that the other charges Under Sections 419, 420, 466, 467 and 468 I.P.C. had not been established against the accused respondent and, accordingly, acquitted him of the said charges; hence this government appeal.The main question for consideration before us, therefore, is as to whether any of the said offences Under Sections 419, 420, 466, 467 and 468 I.P.C. of which the respondent had been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge had been established against him.We are surprised how this incorrect thing has been mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge.He appears to have fallen into error because he omitted to note the fact that the three disputed letters alleged to have been forged by the accused were originally marked Exts.He was sentenced to undergo R. I. for one year and ten months respectively for the two offences but in appeal the sentences were reduced to four months and three months respectively.The respondent admitted that he was convicted Under Sections 170 and 420, l.P.C. and further stated that he had undergone the sentence.P.C, for two years Under Section 420 l.P.C. and for two years Under Section 468 l.In the result, this government appeal succeeds to this extent that the acquittal of respondent Ram Dhani Pandey alias Dharnidhar Pandey for the offences Under Sections 419, 420 and 468 l.P.C. is set aside and he is convicted for these offences.He is sentenced to undergo R. I. for one year for the offence Under Section 419 l.P.C, for two years Under Section 420 l.P.C. and for two years for the offence Under Section 468 l.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ORDER M. Thanikachalam, J.The petitioner/complainant in Cr.No.260/2002 on the file of Kannivadi Police Station, now pending with the 4th respondent, not satisfied with the investigation, filed this application, for transfer of the case to C.B.C.I.D., Chennai, for further investigation.Thus, having noticed a forged document, in respect of his properties, he preferred a complaint to the police and after persuasion or direction, a case was registered in Cr.No.260/2002 by Kannivadi Police Station, under Sections 363, 384, 419, 420, 465 and 471 I.P.C., which is being investigated by the fourth respondent.The accused in the said crime number are influential persons and the petitioner may not get proper justice, if the investigation is conducted by the 4th respondent.Thus apprehending, this petition is filed for transfer of investigation from 4th respondent to C.B.C.I.D, Chennai, for the purpose of impartial investigation and to file a final report.The petition for transferring the investigation is opposed on various grounds.When the criminal original petition came up for hearing on 4.10.2002, on behalf of the police, it was reported that a case has been registered in Cr.However, considering the accusation made by the petitioner and in order to erase the apprehension in the mind of the petitioner, this Court had directed the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District to monitor the investigation to be done by the Station House Officer, Kannivadi Police Station.Thereafter alone, this petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.From the proceedings initiated by the petitioner, as narrated above, it could be seen, that the petitioner had approached this Court, for relief under wider jurisdiction, viz., invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in that writ petition, a finding is given, that the grounds alleged are not sufficient enough to transfer the investigation.The case was registered in Cr.No.260/2002 at Kannivadi Police Station.

['Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

It may be pertinent to mention here that by the impugned order, the Crl.M.C.1764/2011 Page 1 of 31 Designated Court had rejected the request of the petitioner seeking withdrawal of charges against the respondent/accused in respect of the aforesaid offences.M.C.1764/2011 Page 1 of 31Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, on 4.4.2002, a case under Section 506 of the IPC was registered at PS:Greater Kailash, New Delhi by the Special Cell of Police at the instance of one Ashok, who stated that he had received threats on telephone.After the registration of the FIR No.88/2002 under Section 387/506/507/201/120-B IPC, the investigations of the case were handed over to the Special Cell, Delhi Police.In pursuance to the investigations, two persons, namely, Pawan Mittal and Sajjan Soni were arrested on 6.5.2002 and subsequent thereto, Mohd. Ashraf @ Babloo, Mazid Khan @ Raju Bhai and Chanchal Mehta were also arrested.During the course of the investigation, as there were allegations of extortion against the respondent/accused, Sections 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOCA and Section 120-B IPC were added.On 31.7.2002, a Chargesheet under Sections 387/506/507/201/120-B of the IPC read with Sections 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOCA was filed before the Designated Court.The respondent/accused herein, Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari was shown to be an absconder in the Chargesheet.The Crl.Presently, the said case is stated to be at the stage of arguments.M.C.1764/2011 Page 2 of 31On 18.9.2002, the respondent, Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari was detained at Lisbon in Portugal, as he was found in possession of false identity/travel documents.It may also be pertinent to mention here since there was no Extradition Treaty between Crl.On 17.12.2002, the Hon'ble Deputy Prime Minister of India had written a letter to the then Hon'ble Minister of Foreign Affairs of Portuguese, giving assurance that in case the respondent/accused is extradited by the Government of Portugal for his trial to India, then he would not be visited by death penalty or imprisonment for a term beyond 25 years.On 28.3.2003, the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of Portugal, on the solemn assurance of the Government of India coming from the highest quarters, decided to grant his extradition in respect of 8 cases, and that too only in respect of specific offences mentioned in the Extradition Order.It may be pertinent to mention here that at the time when a request for extradition of the respondent/accused was made to the Government of Portugal, giving the details of 9 cases, including the case in hand, the various sections in respect of which the involvement of the respondent/accused was found, were specifically mentioned therein.He was produced before a Delhi Court on 22.5.2007 in respect of FIR No.39/2002 registered by PS: Special Cell, Delhi and the Production Warrants in the case in hand were also issued.This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 28.8.2009 passed by Ms. Pinki, the Designated Court MCOCA/POTA/TADA (hereinafter referred to as Designated Court'), dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. seeking withdrawal of charges under Sections 3(2) and 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (hereinafter referred to as MCOCA) read with Section 120-B of the IPC.It has also been prayed that a consequential order quashing the framing of the charges by the Designated Court be also passed.M.C.1764/2011 Page 2 of 31 Designated Court took cognizance of the aforesaid offences on 1.8.2002 against the aforesaid five accused persons and proceeded ahead with the Trial.There was an existing Interpol Notice and a Red Corner Notice was issued against him by the Interpol on the request of the Government of India in 1993 for his involvement in Bombay Bomb Blast case.The extradition proceedings against the respondent/accused were initiated on the basis of the requests of the Investigating Agencies.Meaning thereby that in respect of FIR Crl.M.C.1764/2011 Page 4 of 31 No.88/2002 registered by PS:Greater Kailash, New Delhi not only the offence under Sections 387/506/507/120-B IPC was mentioned, but also a mention was made of Sections 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOCA.Obviously, this meant that he could not be tried for the offences under Sections 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOCA and Section 120-B of the IPC because these offences carried punishment, which was prohibited in the Extradition Order.M.C.1764/2011 Page 3 of 31M.C.1764/2011 Page 4 of 31On 27.1.2005, the respondent/accused, not being satisfied with the Order of Extradition passed by the High Court at Lisbon, challenged the said order before the Supreme Court of Justice, Portugal.It may also be pertinent to mention here that despite the specific request of the Government of the India to the Government of Portugal to extradite the respondent/accused under the provisions of MCOCA and Section 120-B of the IPC also, the said request Crl.M.C.1764/2011 Page 5 of 31 was not acceded to and the respondent/accused was permitted to be tried, after extradition, only for the offences under Section 506/507/387 IPC.M.C.1764/2011 Page 5 of 31The respondent/accused was brought to India on 11.11.2005 by the Mumbai Police.On 20.8.2007, a Supplementary Chargesheet against the respondent/accused was filed before the Designated Court in the present case.After filing of the Chargesheet itself, the Government of NCT of Delhi considered the case of the respondent and it took a decision that as the respondent/accused was extradited by a sovereign foreign country on solemn assurance of the Government of India from the highest quarters to the effect that he would not be tried and visited with a punishment of death or imprisonment of more than 25 years, therefore, he could not Crl.M.C.1764/2011 Page 6 of 31 be tried for the offence under Sections 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOCA and Section 120-B of the IPC, as both these offences were not in line with the conditions imposed in the Extradition Order.Accordingly, the Government was of the view that it is a fit case wherein an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. should be filed, seeking permission of the Designated Court to withdraw the prosecution of the respondent/accused for the said offences.M.C.1764/2011 Page 6 of 31On 26.2.2008, the Government of NCT of Delhi forwarded a proposal in this regard to the Director of Prosecution, so that the concerned Special Public Prosecutor could examine the matter and take appropriate action independently seeking withdrawal of the prosecution of the respondent/accused for the said offences after due application of his mind.The Special Public Prosecutor, after considering the entire gamut of the facts and the background in the light of Extradition Order, took an independent and informed decision after subjective satisfaction that it was a fit case where an application seeking permission of the Designated Court for the withdrawal of the offences under Sections 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOCA and Section 120-B IPC should be filed.It may be pertinent to mention here that this application was filed when Crl.M.C.1764/2011 Page 7 of 31 the charges against the respondent/accused were yet to be framed.This application u/S 321 Cr.P.C. seeking withdrawal of prosecution for the aforesaid offences was filed in Court on 27.2.2008 and the arguments were heard by the Designated Court.After hearing the arguments, the Designated Court passed a detailed order on 28.8.2009, rejecting the application of the Special Public Prosecutor by observing that the application seeking permission of the withdrawal was not bonafide.It was held that the said decision was not taken independently by the Special Public Prosecutor and that the withdrawal was not in the larger public interest.M.C.1764/2011 Page 7 of 31It may also be pertinent to mention here that in the meantime new developments had taken place in respect of not only this case, but some of the other cases also in which the respondent/accused was facing the trial.So far as the present case is concerned, the Designated Court framed the charges against the respondent/accused not only in respect of offences under Sections 387/506/507/201/120-B IPC, but also the offences for which the prosecution was sought to be withdrawn, i.e. Sections 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOCA.M.C.1764/2011 Page 8 of 31M.C.1764/2011 Page 8 of 31On 10.9.2010, Crl.A.990/2006 filed by the respondent before the Hon'ble Supreme Court along with Crl.A.1142-43/2007 and WP(Crl.) 171/2006 came to be decided.By the said proceedings, the respondent/accused, who was the petitioner /appellant in the appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, had canvassed that he could be tried by a Designated Court (of Mumbai) only in respect of offences for which the Extradition Decree was passed and no other.The aforesaid petition mainly related to the cases registered in Mumbai.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the respondent/accused could be tried for the offences for which his extradition was permitted.In addition to this, he could also be tried for a lesser offence made-out from the same facts which were considered for his extradition.The present petition was filed on 25.5.2011, assailing the order dated 28.8.2009 passed by the Designated Court.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Bhonda @ Gotar 6 months R.I.Fine Rs. 5,00/-In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of one month 5 years R.I.Fine Rs. 5,000/-In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of one year 5 years R.I.Fine Rs. 2,000/-In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of three months 1 year R.I.Fine Rs. 2,000/-In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of three months To be hanged by neck till death, Fine Rs. 5,000/-In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of three years which shall be executed only after confirmation of by the High Court 2 Rohini @ Tehsildar 6 months R.I.Fine Rs. 5,00/-In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of one month 5 years R.I.Fine Rs. 5,000/-In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of one year 5 years R.I.Fine Rs. 2,000/-In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of three months 1 year R.I.Fine Rs. 2,000/-In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of three months To be hanged by neck till death, Fine Rs. 5,000/-In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of three years which shall be executed only after confirmation of by the High Court 3 Radhey 6 months R.I.Fine Rs. 5,00/-In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of one month 5 years R.I.Fine Rs. 5,000/-In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of one year 5 years R.I.Fine Rs. 2,000/-In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of three months 1 year R.I.Fine Rs. 2,000/-In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of three months To be hanged by neck till death, Fine Rs. 5,000/-In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of three years which shall be executed only after confirmation of by the High Court 4 Ramsagar 6 months R.I.Fine Rs. 5,00/-In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of one month 5 years R.I.Fine Rs. 5,000/-In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of one year 5 years R.I.Fine Rs. 2,000/-In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of three months 1 year R.I.Fine Rs. 2,000/-In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of three months Life Imprisonment with no remission, Fine of Rs. 5,000/- In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of three years 5 Munshiwa 6 months R.I.Fine Rs. 5,00/-In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of one month 5 years R.I.Fine Rs. 5,000/-In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of one year 5 years R.I.Fine Rs. 2,000/-Since all the above appeals are arising out of common judgment, they are being taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment.In brief the facts of the prosecution case are as follows.As per the first information report, which was lodged by Chunni Lal Mishra, who has not been examined in the present case by the prosecution, the facts of the case are that his brother Munni Lal Mishra S/o Dwarika Prasad Mishra along with his son Bhakku @ Harish Chandra Mishra had gone for getting diesel filled in his tractor and for its repair by their Tractor Taifi No. U.P. 96 A-1306 on 11.8.2008 from his house in village Mau-Gurdari to Manikpur within the jurisdiction of P.S. Manikpur, District Chitrakoot and when he was returning from there, just before village towards south of the Gadhva Ghat towards (Athrahaghat) Gram Sabha- Uncha Deeh at about 7:45 pm, the men of the gang of Dadua got the said tractor halted and, thereafter, his brother Munni Lal and nephew Bhakku @ Harish Chandra Mishra were shot dead by the men of the said gang and the diesel, which was kept on the cultivator in drum, was also fired at, so that diesel spread out of it and the said diesel was allowed to so spread so that it reached both the deceased who were burnt with its help and, thereafter, the rear right wheel was also burnt and 12 bore licensee gun of his brother Munni Lal was also taken away.In the light of burning of tractor and the dead bodies of the deceased, the informant and various other persons of the village had seen the dacoit Dadua and his companions fleeing towards southern pahad.The dead bodies were lying on the place of incident and also empty cartridges were lying there.Because of the said area being a jungle and because of there being fear of miscreants/dacoits he could not go in the night for lodging the report and, therefore, he gave written report (Ext. Ka-3) at the P.S. on 12.8.2006 at 6:30 a.m. which was registered as Crime No. 53 of 2006 against only Shiv Kumar @ Dadua and the men of his gang under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 201, 404 and 427 IPC.Upon a written report (Exhibit Ka 3) being given at the police station Manikpur by the informant Chunni Lal case crime no. 53 of 2006 was registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 201, 404 and 427 IPC on 12/8/2006 at 6:30 AM against Shiv Kumar alias Dadua and his gang men, chick F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka 21) was prepared and entry was made of this case in GD at report no. 6, Time 6:30 hours on 12/08/2006 (Exhibit Ka 22).It appears that investigation was handed over to S.I. S.K. Singh, S.H.O., G.R.P., Rae Bareli, who has deposed as PW-7 as follows in examination-in-chief.He was posted on 18.8.2006 as S.H.O., Manikpur and in the present matter, after the registration of the case at P.S. Manikpur, it was investigated by the then S.H.O. Rajkumar Singh and after his transfer, the investigation was handed over to him and he took up the investigation from parcha no. 4, dated 18.8.2006 onward.In parcha no. 5, dated 20.8.2006, he tried to find out the accused-appellants of this case.On 23.8.2006, he arrested the named accused Phool Chand, who confessed to have committed offence and, thereafter, his remand was obtained for getting his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On 24.8.2006, in Parcha No. 7, he recorded statement of eye-witness Aditya Narayan.In parcha no. 8, dated 29.8.2006, he arrested the accused Heera Lal and recorded his statement, who also confessed to have committed offence, hence report was sent for getting his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In parcha No. 9, dated 31.8.2006, the surrender of the accused- Hari Shankar has been mentioned.In parcha no. 10, dated 03.9.2006, he recorded statement of eye-witness Rajendra Prasad Mishra.In parcha No. 11, dated 8.9.2006, he made search of the wanted accused persons and made raids at their places.In parcha no. 12, dated 13.9.2006, he recorded technical inspection.In parcha No. 13, dated 17.9.2006, he recorded statement of HCMT Jai Prakash Mishra in which apart from the Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 210, 404 and 427 IPC, during investigation, offence of Section 14 D.A.A. Act was also added.In parcha no. 14, dated 19.9.2006, the search of the accused was made.In parcha no. 14-A dated 19.9.2006, the confessional statement of accused Hari Shankar Tiwari, who was taken on remand, was recorded and its report was separately sent to the court.In parcha no. 15, dated 25.9.2006, entry was made in respect of the wanted accused Suneel Dwivedi of P.S. Vargadh, who had appeared in some case before the court and his warrant was prepared.In parcha no. 21, dated 18.10.2006, remand of the accused was taken.In parcha No. 22, dated 19.10.2006, after taking remand from the court, statement of accused Sunil Kumar has been taken, who has confessed to have committed this offence.In parcha no. 23, dated 22.10.2006, statement of Ram Dayal Tiwari and Sant Ram Mishra, were recorded and on the basis of their statement, it transpired that Kamta Prasad was also involved in the incident and he tried to search the absconded accused persons by making raid at their place.In parcha no. 24 dated 26.10.2006, he submitted charge sheet no. 51 of 2006 against the accused Phool Chand and others and sent the same to court which was registered as S.S.T. No. 226 of 2006, which is Ext. Ka-25 and against rest of the accused, investigation was kept pending.Thereafter, in supplementary parcha no. 1, dated 30.10.2006, he obtained non bailable warrant and warrant under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against accused Dadua, Radhey, Sugreev, Bhonda @ Gotar, Natthu @ Chelwa Kol, Dadu Kol, Rohini @ Tehsildar, Ashok Kol and search was made against the absconded accused.In supplementary parcha no. 2, dated, 30.10.2006, search was made against the absconded accused Natthu, Dadua, Ashok, Aniruddh, Ram Sagar, Munshiwa Kol but could not be found and the statements were recorded of the witnesses before whom proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was executed and these witnesses were namely Raja Ram, Bhagwan Deen, Vinod Kumar, Ravi Payasi, Lalman, Nathuwa, Munn, Ram Kushal, Mukhiya and Raghuraj and apart from that of Rewati Raman, Vivek Kumar.Vide parcha no. 3, dated 1.11.2006, remand was prayed for till the production of the accused before the court.Vide supplementary parcha no. 4, dated 4.11.2006, search for absconded accused was made.This witness has stated in examination-in-chief recorded on 7.7.2007 that about one year ago in the month of ''Bhando' the incident of committing murder had taken place.The deceased Munni Lal was his younger brother and other deceased Harish Chandra @ Bhaggu was his nephew.Munni Lal (deceased) was coming from Manikpur by his tractor with a drum containing diesel on the cultivator which was being driven by Harish Chandra, when they reached near Atrahar, after getting down from Garwaghat at about 8.00 P.M., he heard 3-4 fires and thereafter, after a gap of sometime again few fires were made due to which he suspected that Dadua had murdered Munni Lal because Munni Lal had opposed him.After having heard gun shots, he reached the school which was situated in the western side of the village, where four persons (identities of these persons not mentioned) told them that his brother and nephew had been killed by Dadua gang and set them on fire and their gun had also been taken away.These persons only had given information on phone (not disclosed to whom).All these four persons had gone for nature's call before fires were made as was narrated by these four persons.Next day, in the morning at about 6.00 a.m. the said report was given at the police station.Further, he stated that these persons who had told about this incident, had apprised him that the said incident was given effect by firing upon the deceased and setting them to fire by men of Dadua gang.(Learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that this witness has not stated as to who was person out of the said gang of Dadua, who had made fires and who had burnt the deceased).This witness further stated that the Investigating Officer had made his interrogation and had stated to him that he should give an application in writing.In cross examination, this witness has stated that he had not seen the incident with his own eyes and was stating on the basis of what was told by other villagers that Dadua gang had killed his brother and nephew.Further, he stated that he could not come to know till now who else were involved in this incident other than Dadua gang.At the time when firing was being made and its sound was being heard, the persons of whole village had assembled in a school, which included Sant Das (PW1), Ram Dayal (PW4), Aditya Narain (PW2) and Arvind.From school, they had seen flames of fire, then Sant Das, Ram Dayal Tiwari, Rajendra Prasad and Aditya Narain proceeded towards the place of incident and when they all returned, they told about the incident to him and on that basis he had lodged written report.Further, this witness had stated that he had given statement to Investigating Officer to the effect that the accused present in Court had given effect to the incident with Dadua, if same has not been written, he could not tell its reason although he denied any enmity with the Investigating Officer.Further, this witness had stated that SHO had reached, with other police personnel, on the place of incident on the same night at 9.00 p.m. and from there, police went to school and made queries and also took down statements of Aditya Narain, Sant Das and Rajendra, who all also had given him the names of all the five accused and also the names of other members of the said gang.Investigating Officer stayed at the school for about two hours and then went to Manikpur.PAC also reached village and the SHO leaving other police personnel near the dead body, went to police station.In the morning, they used to go separately for the nature's call but in the evening they used to go in group.On the date of incident, all persons had come at his door without being called and thereafter they had gone at about 7.00 p.m. regarding which he had stated to the Investigating Officer and if the same was not recorded by him, he could not tell its reason.With him, there were Aditya Narain, Ram Dayal, Rajendra and none else.Rajendra was having Lathi while rest of the three were having double barrel gun but none of them was having any vessel.It is further stated by this witness that he had stated to the Investigating Officer about this fact that they were having these weapons in their hands while going for defecating and if the same was not written by him, he could not tell its reason.It is further stated that all the three had 25-25 cartridges in whole belt.They had knowledge about the fact that since morning Munni Lal had gone to Manikpur and that he would not accompany them while going for nature's call.Further, this witness has stated that his house is located in the western direction in the village at the border of the village.From there, they had gone straight for the nature's call towards west which place must have been at a distance of about 150 meters from his house.They had not stopped anywhere on the way nor did they find anyone.They had taken about five minutes only for the said purpose at the most, they had nothing else with them except gun and lathi and with him and Ram Dayal, there were torch also.He had stated to the Investigating Officer that both had taken torch which was of three cells and if the same was not recorded by him, he could not tell its reason.There was little light when they had started from their home and that they had not switched on their torch even while returning.At this place, lot of diesel of the drum was found spread on the ground and nearby were recovered 29 empty cartridges.At Sl.No. 4 is mentioned the route by double arrow by which after hearing first sound many villagers/witnesses reached the place shown by ''E & F' and in the cover of bushes they saw the incident being committed by the accused from the said place and identified them.At Sl.No.5 is mentioned that this was the route shown by single arrow with double head by which the miscreants fled from the place towards Chiraula Pahar jungle in the southern direction.At Sl.This occurrence took place about 50 paces prior to Bardaha river.From the place of incident, his village is situated towards east at a distance of about one and half kms.He had witnessed the incident from a distance of 30 paces and assailants were to the west of him, near the place of incident.He knew the miscreants since 17-18 years ago and all of them had rifle and other weapons but he did not see any of them making fire upon the deceased as by the time they had reached there, the deceased had already been shot dead.He had seen them making fire upon the drum.The miscreants remained present at the place of incident for half an hour.They had taken away double barrel gun along with cartridges of deceased Munni Lal and fled towards Chiraul Pahar.After the miscreants had left, he along with companions returned home and gave information to the family members of the deceased and other villagers and also informed Police Station Manikpur that the said miscreants had committed murder.His statement was recorded by police.He identified accused Radhey, Tehsildar, Bhonda @ Gotar who were present in court.Dadua gang was not coming to his village although it used to visit Chamroha but in whose house it used to go, he could not tell.At what time the dead bodies of the deceased were lifted from the place of incident, he had no knowledge.The burnt tractor was taken away from there on the next day i.e. 12.8.2006 as he was told about it by someone whose name he does not remember.He used to meet Rajendra almost daily prior to the incident and on the next day of incident also he had met him in the morning in the village.He had met his father Chunni Ram 3-4 days after the incident who did not enquire anything about the incident as he had already known about the occurrence.On the date of incident it was dark.He has further stated that the place where the incident happened, was situated about one k.m. away from his village.He further stated that on 2.4.2007 he had given statement before the court that this incident was given effect to by Dadua gang and he had not disclosed the names of any accused except that of Dadua.Chunni Lal had not met him when he had lodged the report and nothing was told to him by him and for the first time today he was taking the names of the accused in the court.The diesel was thrown upon both the dead bodies by way of firing the diesel drum which was placed on the cultivator and towards right side of the tractor, near it both the dead bodies were burning and even tyre was burning and due to that there was lot of light.Fire flames were rising high and in the light of these flames, he saw that the dacoit Dadua- deceased, Radhey, Tehsildar, Bhonda @ Gotar, deceased-Angad, Rajua Chelwa, Hari Shankar, Phool Chandra, Heera, Ashok, Sunil, Munshiwa, Ram Sagar and Anirudha and all were wielding guns at the place of incident and Hari Shankar had made a fire in front of him which hit body of the tractor.He does not know whether his uncle Munni Lal had any animosity with the miscreants.Munni Lal had with him his licensee gun and cartridges in a belt and he had seen the said gun and the cartridges being lifted by the Dadua.The miscreants had halted at the place of incident for about half an hour.The accused present in court namely Radhey, Tehsildar, Bhonda, Ram Sagar, Munshiwa and Ashok were seen by him firing as well as setting the deceased persons on fire and after about half an hour all the miscreants left towards Chirbal Pahad.Thereafter, they all returned home and Aditya gave information to the P.S. by mobile-phone and his father Chunni Lal gave written report at the police station.He stayed within his house for about two days subsequent to the incident because of fear and on the third day at about 12 O' clock in the day, he met his father.Police had taken his statement.He is illiterate therefore, he had stated before the Investigating Officer what he had seen.In cross-examination, this witness has stated that the informant Chunni Lal is his father while deceased Munni Lal was his uncle and other deceased Harish Chandra @ Bhakku was the son of his real uncle.At the time of incident, his father and his uncle, were living apart after partition but they had good relations with each other and belong to the same caste i.e. they were all Brahmans and at the time of incident, he had good friendship with them and all the four (eye-witnesses of this case) used to go together for nature's call about which he had stated to the Investigating Office also.They used to go for nature's call together since four to five years prior to the incident but he could not tell the reason as to why they used to go for the said purpose towards Ramghat Bardaha only.Both the Ghat were adjacent to each other and they used to go for the said purpose in the evening around 7:00 p.m. regarding which he had not spoken to the I.O., he could not tell its reason as to why he did not state so before the I.O. From his village- Mau-Gurudari, the place where they had gone for defecating, distance is the same which would be the distance of Railway Station from the court.Thereafter, he gave reply to the court on query that the place where both, his uncle and his son were killed, was away from the place of defecating equivalent to the same distance, which is the distance between the court and the station.At the time of hearing the sound of firing, how many persons had assembled in the school of his village, he could not tell.When he returned from the place of incident, a large number of villagers were assembled in the school of village, but he had not seen any of them, he had come to know about this subsequently and he could not know about this fact even today as to how many people had assembled there.At that time, pradhan of his village was Mohan.The pradhan of village Chamrauha was mother of accused Ashok and Natthu Dhaturaha was Kotedar of the said village; what was the relation of Ram Dayal with the Kotedar, he has no knowledge; Sasural (matrimonial home) of uncle of Ram Dayal is situated in village Chamrauha and the Nanihal of witness Ram Dayal was also in Chamrauha.The accused Phool Chand and Hari Shankar are maternal uncle (mama) and nephew (bhanja).He further stated that three years prior to the incident, he was having enmity with the Dadua in respect of repair of a gun.Prior to this incident, Dadua gang had taken shelter in the house of accused and had meals there or not, he has no knowledge.Further he has stated that neither he nor other witnesses namely Ram Dayal, Sant Das and Aditya Narayan had made any complaint in respect of the Dadua gang halting at the place of accused.Lastly, he has denied the suggestion that he had not seen the occurrence and was giving false statement and further asserted that all the persons had assembled near school in the village and further denied the suggestion that at the instance of police, he was taking names of Rahey, Tehsildar, Gotar.PW-4, Ram Dayal Tiwari, has stated in examination-in-chief that on 11.8.2006 at about 8:00 p.m., he along with Aditya Narayan Tiwari, Sant Das Mishra and Rajendra Mishra had gone for the nature's call at about 7:00 p.m. towards Bardaha river at Ramghat, where after becoming free from it, as they were about to leave back for the village, they heard sound of fire coming from the southern-western direction, pursuant to which concealing themselves, they headed towards that place and from at a distance of about 30-35 steps, he saw that fire was burning and lights of tractor were on (the head light and the rear side light).One dead body was being placed by the miscreants by the side of the right wheel of the tractor.The miscreants had made fire upon the drum which was kept on the cultivator, out of which, diesel was leaking and the fire was burning intensely which made a whole area well lighted and in the light of flames of fire, he saw Dadua Gang comprising Dadua, Angad, Chelwa, Ramsagar, Radhey, Tehsildar, Gotar and many persons of Chamrauha, Sakrauha namely Heera Tiwari and 16 to 18 others.The miscreants were firing.He stayed there for about quarter of an hour only and kept witnessing the incident.At that time, he was inside his house.The same inspector had also come to his village with 7-8 persons on the date of incident in the night at about 12 O' clock and stayed in the village for about four hours and also near the dead bodies, thereafter, he stated that inspector stayed in the village for about half hour and, thereafter, went near the dead bodies.Further, he stated that thousands of the people of village had gone near the dead bodies.Rajendra Das had not come near the inspector.They did not make any noise because of fear and when they went towards village they found the villagers were present there including their family members, whom they apprised that Munni Lal and Harish Chand had been killed by men of Dadua Gang and their dead bodies were burnt by diesel kept on the tractor and by the mobile, an information was given to P.S. Manikpur by Aditya Narain, He identified the accused persons in the light.This witness in cross-examination has stated that he did not recognize any miscreant at the time of incident.The incident happened in dense forest.Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.)1. Heard Sri Dilip Kumar and Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S.K. Pal, learned Government Advocate assisted by Sri J.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State.The present Criminal Capital Appeal No. 2719 of 2016 (reference no. 05 of 2016) has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 7.5.2016 passed by Special Judge, D.A.A. Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Chitrakoot in S.S.T. No. 240-A of 2006 (State of U.P. Vs.Bhonda @ Gotar, Rohini @ Tehsildar and Radhey) arising out of Crime No. 53 of 2006, under Sections 148, 302 read with 149, 201, 404, 426 IPC and Section 14 D.A.A. Act, P.S. Manikpur, District Chitrakoot, whereby the accused-appellants Radhey, Rohini @ Tehsildar and Bhonda @ Gotar are held guilty for charges under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149, 201/149, 404/149, 427/149 IPC and Section 14 D.A.A. Act and they have been sentenced as mentioned in the chart below.A separate criminal appeal no. 3252 of 2016 has been preferred by the accused-appellant- Munshiwa S/o Gulzar against the same judgment arising out of the above mentioned S.S.T. No. 240-A of 2006, (State Vs Bhonda @ Gotar and others and the appellant has been sentenced as mentioned in the chart below.A separate criminal appeal no. 5194 of 2016 has been preferred by Ram Sagar against the same judgment arising out of S.S.T. No. 240- B of 2006 (State of U.P. Vs.Ramsagar), in which the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 148, 302 read with Section 149, 201/149, 404/149, 427/149 IPC and Section 14 D.A.A. Act and sentenced as mentioned in the chart below.No. Name 148 IPC 201/149 IPC 404/ 149 IPC 429/149 IPC 302/149 IPC and 14 D.A.A.In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of three months 1 year R.I.Fine Rs. 2,000/-In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of three months Life imprisonment with no remission, Fine of Rs. 5,000/- In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of three yearsIn parcha No. 16, dated 28.9.2006, accused were taken on remand.In parcha no. 17 dated 2.10.2006, the men of wanted Dadua gang were sought to be searched.In parcha No. 18, dated 8.10.2006, there is endorsement of panchayatnama, post-mortem report and other papers of deceased Munni Lal and deceased Harish Chandra Mishra and also statement of constable Suraj Bali.In Parcha No. 19, dated 11.10.2006, the remand was taken of accused persons and in parcha no. 20, dated 14.10.2006, the statement of witness Amarnath was recorded.In supplementary parcha no. 5, dated 5.11.2006, absconded accused were searched and warrant under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was tried to be executed.The supplementary parcha no. 6, dated 7.11.2006, and parcha no. 7, dated 9.11.2006, were written and, thereafter, in supplementary parcha no. 8 dated, 10.11.2006, he recorded statement of Subhash Yadav (S.O.) Raipura and also obtained warrants against absconded accused under Section 83 Cr.P.C. In supplementary parcha No. 9, dated 13.11.2006 and supplementary parcha no. 9-A of the same day, the statement of witnesses of attachment of properties of the accused namely Raghunandan, Heera Lal, Smt. Ram Pyari, Premwati, Munshiwa, Rajman Kol, Ramsukh and Shiv Kumar were recorded.He submitted charge sheet against this accused in abscondance and against rest of the accused, investigation was kept pending.In supplementary parcha No. 11 dated 18.11.2006, making mention of the earlier attached property of accused Shiv Kumar @ Dadua, Bhonda @ Gotar and Rohini @ Tehsildar, the statement of S.I. M.P. Singh, H.C.P. Vyasmuni Mishra and Constable Shivram were recorded.In supplementary parcha no. 12, dated 20.11.2006, the memorandum of plain soil as well as blood soaked soil was sent to FSL for examination and the statement of H.C. Ram Hirday Sharma was recorded, who has taken the same to F.S.L. and, thereafter, search of the absconded accused was also made.In supplementary parcha no. 13, dated 23.11.2006, entry was made regarding attachment of the properties of absconded accused and also statements of witnesses of attachment namely Vivek Kumar Mishra, Ram Sanehi, Rewati Raman and Mohan were recorded and after finding sufficient evidence against accused, Dadua @ Shiv Kumar, Rohini @ Tehsildar, Bhonda @ Gotar, Angad, Sugreev and Aniruddh Yadav, charge sheet no. 51-B of 2006 was submitted on 22.11.2006, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 201 and 14 D.A.A. Act which was registered as S.T. No. 226 of 2006, which had been proved as Ext. Ka-27 in the said S.S.T. and the same was again verified by him.In supplementary parcha no. 14, dated, 29.11.2009, the wanted accused Aniruddh Yadav surrendered before court and permission for recording his statement was taken from court.In supplementary parcha No. 15, dated 3.12.2006, the remand of accused Anirudh Yadav was recorded in District Jail, Banda in which he admitted to having been involved in giving effect to this incident and also stated that he would get the licensed gun, which was used in commission of this offence, recovered and on the basis of that statement, separate prayer for his remand was made.As per supplementary parcha no. 17, dated 9.12.2006, his remand was allowed from 10 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.. Pursuant to that remand, police custody prayer was made before District Jail which was refused saying that no such order had been received by him and, thereafter, the court inspector personally apprised about the same.In supplementary parcha no. 19 dated 11.12.2006, the search of father of accused Anirudh Yadav was made and his uncle Ram Sanehi was enquired in respect of the licensee double barrel gun of Aniruddha, who apprised that Anirudh Yadav had gone away after placing his licensed gun at his house, which was given by him to his father Mata Badal who is his real brother as they were living together.Therefore, he recorded statement of Mata Badal also.In supplementary parcha no. 20 dated 15.12.2006, after showing a copy of the order of the court to the S.D.M., the order was obtained for receiving the gun from Rajpoot Gun House but the same could not be found because of the parts of the said gun being dismantled.In parcha no. 21 dated, 18.12.2006, the remand of accused was prayed for.In parcha No. 22, dated 23.12.2006 also remand was prayed.On 28.11.2006, the concerned case property which were sent to F.S.L. for examination, S.I. Noor Mohammad was directed to collect the double barrel gun from Rajpoot Gun House, which was received from there and its memorandum was prepared which is Ext. Ka-28 in S.T. No. 226 of 2006 and its copies filed in the present case as paper no. 9-Ka.In cross-examination, this witness has stated that first charge sheet no. 51 of 2006 was filed by him on 26.10.2006 against Phool Chand, Suneel Dwivedi, Hari Shankar Tiwari, Heera Lal Tiwari.Whether any other investigating officer, other than him, has submitted charge sheet or not, he has no knowledge.He could not file charge sheet against rest of the accused till 26.10.2006, because of non-completion of the proceedings of attachment.Till then, he had full knowledge that Dadua and other accused had absconded.Till 26.10.2006, he had not sent charge sheet in abscondance against the remaining accused.He has not submitted any list of members of Dadua gang and does not recollect as to how many active members were there in Dadua gang till date nor could he tell their names even today.He also could not tell as to prior to this case, how many cases were there against accused Ashok Kol.At the house of Ashok Kol, during investigation, he made raids several times but he could not tell the boundary of his house as he does not recollect the same nor could he tell that in which direction in the village, his house is located.He admitted that there is no entry made in the case diary about house of Ashok Kol being raided, however, it is mentioned that raid was made against above accused persons.He remained posted at P.S. Manikpur from 15.8.2006 to 21.1.2007 and that prior to this incident, there was a complaint and information with respect to Dadua gang staying at the house of Ashok Kol but he does not recollect whether there was any record to that effect in writing at the police station or not, although many informers had made oral complaint about this.Further he stated that on which dates, this accused Ashok Kol accompanied the said gang and cooperated with it, he does not recollect but there was general complaint that he used to help the said gang.He denied that he had implicated falsely the accused on the basis of false complaint and he had concocted a false story in this regard.He further stated in cross-examination that he did not know Anirudh Yadav prior to the incident, although he knew Ramsagar and Munshiwa Kol from before and also knew Radhey since prior to the incident, but he could not tell whether Ramsagar, Munshiwa and Anirudha Yadav were listed members of the Dadua gang as he does not recollect about the same.He further stated that he had not filed any listed members, therefore, he could not tell as to who else were the members of the Dadua gang.During investigation, he came to know that Anirudh Yadav was having license of gun.Earlier investigating officer had not made any investigation in respect of Anirudh Yadav having any licensed gun since the name of Anirudh Yadav came into light in the statement of eye-witnesses, as they had told about the said licensee gun having been used in this incident, hence legal action was taken in respect to the said gun.Witness Rajendra Prasad Mishra has stated that Anirudh Yadav and other accused had guns and rifles in their hand but he had not stated that Anirudh Yadav had licensed gun in his hand or not.On the basis of evidence on record in SST No. 240-A of 2006 (State vs. Bhonda and others), charges were framed against appellants (1) Bhonda @ Gotar, (2) Rohni @ Tehsildar, (3)) Radhey, Raju (non-appellant), Ashok Kol (non-appellant) under sections 147, 148, 302/149, 201, 404, 427 IPC and section 14 Dacoity Affected Area on 24.7.2008 to which accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Against accused Munshiwa charges were framed under the aforementioned sections on 13.08.2010 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Against accused Ram Sagar in connected SST No. 240-B of 2006, charges were framed on 31.3.2011 under the same sections to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.It would be appropriate for us to go through the evidence, which has been produced from the side of the prosecution to form an opinion as to whether the learned trial court has drawn conclusion of conviction rightly or does it deserve to be interfered with in the light of the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned G.A.Learned counsel for the appellants has at the very outset argued that in the present case the first informant Chunni Lal, who is the brother of the deceased Munni Lal, has not been examined by the prosecution, although he has been examined in SST No.226 of 2006 (State vs. Phool Chand and others) as PW4 in which co-accused were tried separately as their trial was separated from the present trial.However, he drew our attention towards section 367 Cr.P.C. which provides that the duty of High Court in dealing with the reference, is not only to see whether order passed by the Session Judge is correct, but to examine the case itself and even to direct for further enquiry or taking of additional evidence, if the Court feels it desirable in order to ascertain guilt or innocence of the convicted persons.Next day, at about 8.00 a.m. the SHO again reached the village and thereafter, after having taken him and others, went to the place of incident near the dead bodies and after having completed the writing work, dead bodies were despatched to police station.When he reached the place of incident, there were many people of the village but no outsider was there.He stayed there for about 1 ½ hours.The written report was prepared by him outside the police station although within the boundary wall of the same.He is illiterate, therefore, he dictated the said report and person who was writing the same had reduced it into writing.The village was about two furlongs away from the place of incident.(Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out, according to site plan, it is 1 ½ kms.) Bardaha river was about one furlong away from village towards west.On the said date he along with Ram Dayal, Aditya Narain and Rajendra Prasad had gone for nature's call towards river together because of fear of dacoit and had also taken with them a gun, lathi and torch etc. on the bank of river Bardaha at about 7.00 p.m. After the nature's call was over, they were preparing to return village, soon they had heard sound of fire which was coming from south western direction and by the time they reached the place of incident about 36 fires had already been made.From a distance of about 25-30 steps, from the cover of bushes, he had seen that the whole gang was there comprising Dadua, Radhey, Tehsildar, Bhonda, Nathuwa, Chelwa, Raju, Phool Chand, Sunil, Ashok, Hari Shankar and many other who were all armed with weapons.(This witness has not taken the names of co-accused Hira Lal, Munshiwa, Ram Sagar and Aniruddha).He further stated that these dacoits were known to him from before because they used to come there often.Further, he stated that Tehsildar and Bhonda were not present in court today and that they had once abducted him also, hence he knew them.Further he stated that when he reached there, the rear wheel of the tractor was burning and lights of the tractors were on and the drum full of diesel was kept on cultivator which had a hole in it made by fire and in the light of burning of the said wheel, he had identified the accused persons.The deceased Munshi Lal fell down after getting hit by bullet behind the tractor while the body of Harish Chandra @ Bhaggu was burning.Munshi Lal was groaning, he was fired upon by four persons namely Phool Chandra, Hari Shanakar, Sunil and Ashok after coming near him and thereafter his body was placed on the dead body of nephew and diesel was spraying out of the said drum because of which both the deceased got burnt.He does not know as to what enmity was there of the deceased with the dacoits/ miscreants who had put fire to the tractor.They stayed at the place of incident for about 45 minutes and the miscreants went away towards south ''Pahar'.He further stated that all of them were assembled at school and it was told that the police station was informed by telephone.His statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer.While reading out the abovementioned statement, it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that names of the four accused appellants namely Heera Lal, Munshiwa, Ram Sagar, Anirurudha ought to have been taken by this witness to be the persons who were giving effect to the incident but their names have not been taken and with respect to reaching the place of incident, the version given by witness Chunni Lal is divergent from the account given by this witness which makes the statement of this witness to be suspect.In cross-examination, this witness has stated that around village Maugurdari there are bushes and on one side is Hillock (Pahar).In this region, bushes are mostly found on ''Medh' which clearly are of the height of a man and these bushes are very dense.On the date of incident, it was pitch dark.When they were about to return home after nature's call, they heard gun fires.All of them had defecated near Bardaha river which is close to the north of the place of the incident.The place of incident is located in the north eastern corner of the village at a distance of about one k.m.Munshi Lal and his son had gone to Manikpur for taking diesel.All of them have licence of gun and used to go with their guns but on the date of incident they had not taken the gun with them.Further in cross-examination, it is stated by this witness that he had gone for the nature's call in the evening together with a double barrel licensee gun without any vessel.He used to go for nature's call almost every day together with Ram Dayal, Aditya Narain, Munni Lal (deceased), Rajendra with gun.He used to go for nature's call in the same manner every day but he does not remember whether this fact was told by him to the Investigating Officer or not.Further, he stated that they used to go for nature's call at about 7.00 p.m. or sometimes after the sunset.The place where they were defecating, from that place, the place from where they took water, was about 10-20 paces away.All the four were sitting at a distance of 10-10, 15-15 paces away from each other in the cover of bushes, about which the Investigating Officer was told but he had not taken the Investigation Officer to show those places.Water for cleaning themselves was taken by them from different places from Chakdalti Ghat.(Pointing out this statement, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that in the site plan, the places where these witnesses had gone for defecating, have not been shown).It would be pertinent to refer here to the details of the site plan also, towards which our attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the appellants before reading out the statement of PW1 so that the same could be appreciated in a better way in the light of the places shown in the said site plan.In the site plan (Exhibit Ka-6), Abadi of village Maugurdari is shown in the east; abadi of village Payasipur is shown in the south-west about 1 ½ k.ms.away from the place of incident which has been shown by 'A', by which the place is shown as the place where miscreants had shot dead the deceased.From the said place, abadi of village Maugurdari is shown 1 ½ k.ms.and abadi of village Gorwah is shown in the north from where Bardaha Ghat is shown at one k.m. distance which is on the bank of Bardaha river.By single arrow at Sl.No. 1 in the index of this site plan is shown route by which the deceased Munni Lal and Harish Chand were coming from Manikpur through tractor with cultivator and drum along with licensee 12 bore gun.At Sl.No. 2 is mentioned that at the place shown by ''A' is place on the said route from which the deceased was coming with tractor.At about 20 paces away to the north of this place, there was lot of blood spread there, where assailants were stated to have made fire upon the deceased persons.At Sl.No. 3 it is mentioned that at place shown by ''B' is shown that place where the tractor Taffi 30 DI No. UP 96 A-1306 was found, the direction of engine was towards south and the tyre of the rear wheel of the said tractor was wholly burnt and towards right side of the said wheel and cultivator, the place is shown by ''C & D', where the dead bodies of Munni Lal and Harish Chand were lying with face up which were lying in burnt condition.No. 6 is shown the distance of village Gorache from Bardaha river to be one k.m.in the south and at Sl.No. 7 is shown the distance of Bardaha river from the place of incident to be 100 meters towards south.Now we resume further statement of PW1 in cross examination which would now be easier to understand in the light of the above-mentioned site plan.It is stated by this witness that the river from which water was taken by them flows south to north (wrong direction as it flows from west to east as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants).When they were sitting for defecating, from there they had taken water from a distance of about 6-7 feets down towards the river for cleaning themselves.The water in the said river was in the width of about 100-125 feets and at around 7.15 p.m. when they had ascended the Ghat after having defecated and all of them had assembled at one place at the Ghat, the said place was not shown by him to the Investigating Officer.Further, he stated that even before, till the time they could not come at the Ghat, after having defecated, they had not heard any sound of fire nor had they seen any light.At the place where they were defecating, there were 6-7 feet high bushes which are known as ''Medh'.When all of them came at the Ghat and assembled there, they heard 25-30 fires which were made within 2-3 minutes by which they had guessed the direction from which they were being made and further he stated when they got up after defecating, the fires were being made in southern direction and that the distance of place of incident was about one k.m.from the said Ghat and they had heard sound of fire from there only and about this he had stated to Investigating Officer also but if he had not recorded the same, he could not tell its reason.Further, he has stated that the place from where they had heard sound of fire, the place of incident was not visible.However, from, the place where they were standing at the Ghat, they had seen the light of tractor and other light regarding which he had stated to the Investigating Officer also and if the same was not written by him, he could not tell its reason.Further, he stated that only light was visible but the place of incident was not visible and it was right to say that at the time when they heard fire and saw the burning of tractor and its light, till then they could not guess as to what was happening there.At the time when fire was being made and the light was there, they had full doubt that Dadua gang was giving effect to the incident.He was abducted in the year 1997 and there was deadly enmity with Dadua gang, therefore, they had apprehension that the Dadua could kill them.It was also right to say that whenever they received information about coming of Dadua gang, they used to take steps for their security and never would go before the said gang.At the time of incident, none of them could summon up courage to go before the said gang.However, in the day, they would dare to go there.Learned counsel for the appellants while reading this portion of the statement of the witness, pointed out the conduct of the witness to be not upto the mark and argued that this would make his statement to be unbelievable.This witness stated that even though they harboured the doubt that it could be Dadua gang giving effect to the incident, they did not make any fire.When they heard fire from there, the village must have been at the distance of about 100-150 meters but they did not go to the village nor did they make any effort to apprise the villagers about the said incident nor they shouted to call any villager to show them that fire was being made.They were trying to be convinced as to whether it was police or the miscreants who were firing or some one else.Had they been convinced that it was miscreants who were firing, then they certainly would have fired.The Investigating Officer did not ask him about it as to why they did not fire, rather they themselves had told him that because of doubt being there that it could be miscreants and the police who could be firing, they had not made fire, and if the Investigating Officer had not recorded the same in his statement, he could not tell its reason.When they had started from the place of incident it must have been around 7.15 p.m.; there was a route for reaching the place of incident from the Ghat but they did not go by that route rather they went there concealing themselves in the bushes.They all were consulting each other and thought that it would be proper to go to the spot and see whether the said incident happened with one of their companions who had gone to the market, regarding this he had stated to the Investigating Officer and if the same was not mentioned, he could not tell its reason.They had stated to the Investigating Officer the route by which they had gone to the place of incident orally but had not shown him the said passage nor the Investigating Officer had seen that route after taking them along.At the place of incident, they were hiding in the bushes.They had not removed the bushes rather followed the way where there were no bushes.They had taken about 10-15 minutes time in reaching from Ghat to the place of incident.When they had proceeded for the place of incident, the place of incident became visible from a distance of about 21-25 paces away.He could not know as to which miscreants were giving effect to the incident.During the time when they heard fire sound and till they reached the place which was 25-30 steps away from the place of incident and before reaching there, they had not talked to each other in this regard.The route for the place of occurrence goes from west to east while they were to the north of the route at a distance of about 20-25 steps.The place where incident had happened, Kachchi road was about 15 ft wide and it was right to say that the place where they were standing, there was jungle and bushes.They could hear from that place screaming and other talks which was going on at the place of incident.After leaving the Ghat till they reached the place of incident, they did not hear any fire arm sound.The place from where they had seen the incident, they had heard 5-6 rounds of fire regarding which he had stated to the Investigating Officer and if the same was not written, he could not tell its reason.(Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that this statement of the witness is contradictory to his earlier statement in this regard).Further, this witness has stated that the place where they were concealing themselves near the place of incident, these were different bushes and not one single bush and had also stated to the Investigating Officer that they had seen the incident from four different bushes which were situated at a distance of 5-5 hands from each other and at that time the miscreants had not made any fire.Further, he stated that he had seen the incident concealing his identity in standing position but he could not tell about others in this regard and if the same has not been written by Investigating Officer, he could not tell its reason.Further, he stated that he was in standing position while witnessing the incident and was not in sitting position and he stayed for about ½ hours along with his companions regarding which he had told the Investigating Officer also but if he has not recorded the same, he could not tell its reason.Further, he stated that as soon as they had reached at the place where they had concealed himself to witness the incident, they had come to know that it was Dadua gang which was firing and regarding this he had told the Investigating Officer also, if he has not recorded the same, he could not tell its reason.Further, he stated that when he reached the place where he concealed himself, 2 to 4 minutes prior to that he had heard 5-6 fires and after hearing these fires till he reached home, he did not hear any other fires.At the time when he reached the place of incident, tractor was burning and its lights were also on.From the place where they were standing, light of the tractor was on towards south and both lights were on of the said tractor.They were concealing themselves in the eastern side of the place of incident at a distance of 25-30 steps away where there were lot of bushes.The rear portion of the tractor was towards north side.Towards north of the tractor, the dead body of Munni Lal was lying while towards west of the said tractor, the dead body of Harish Chand was lying which was burning.At the time when he reached there, the dead body of the Munni Lal had not burnt rather he was lying on the ground groaning which was heard 2-4 times by them.Harish Chand was burning.Further, it was stated that it was right to say that before their reaching there both the deceased had already received fire arm injuries; 10-15 minutes after his reaching, the miscreants had thrown the dead bodies into fire regarding which he had told the Investigating Officer but if the same had not been written, he could not tell its reason.Further, he stated that he does not recollect as to whether the fires made by the dacoits/miscreants had already hit the deceased before their reaching or not and further stated that Phool Chand, Hari Shankar, Sunil and Ashok had dragged the dead body of Munni Lal into fire.This witness has further stated that due to enmity with Dadua Gang, the District Magistrate had given licence to him along with Ram Dayal, Aditya Narain, Pancham Lal and deceased Munni Lal because they were having persistent threat from the said Gang.Further, he stated that the accused Ashok was resident of adjoining village Chowroha and that prior to this incident, he had full knowledge that Dadua Gang used to visit the house of Ashok and because of this reason, he was having enmity towards Ashok.(Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that there was no enmity of this witness with the said accused).This witness has further stated that he does not recollect the time when they reached the place of incident and that in the night of incident, police had reached his village at about 12-1.00 p.m. in the night and he had met the police at that time and Chunni Lal (informant) had also met the police and thereafter police along with them had gone to the place of occurrence at about 1.30 a.m. It is further stated that prior to the police reaching the place of incident, he also had gone there at about 8.00 p.m. and at that time there it was not pitch-dark rather there was light there.(It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that this statement is false because the occurrence is of the month of August, generally it becomes quite dark in the said month at about 7.30 p.m.).This witness has further stated that with him there were four persons and none of them had objected to any accused nor had they talked to them, simply they had seen the occurrence and came back from there.This witness has further stated that he had fear from Dadua Gang, earlier he did not know that the said incident was done by Dadua Gang; after having seen he came to know that it was same Gang in which there were 30-35 persons, all of whom were armed with guns setting the tractor on fire.Further, this witness has stated that towards eastern side of the said tractor, he was standing and towards west and south, miscreants were standing.The height of the tractor was six feet.There were bushes between the tractor and him, may be 2-4 bushes, through these bushes, they were seeing the occurrence and all of them were seeing from different bushes.Rajendra was at a little distance from him towards south and Ram Dayal also was at a distance of 10-12 paces away from him while 4th person was towards north.When all the miscreants left the place, thereafter they did not go to the place of incident rather villagers had come there.He had visited the place of incident for the first time with the police.He further stated that in 1997 prior to the said incident, he had been abducted by Dadua Gang but he does not know as to who was behind that and he was got abducted by accused Ashok.He was set free on the same day by the Gang.Till he remained with the said Gang, the accused Ashok, Phool Chand and Hari Shankar Tiwari were not there.Ashok is a poor person of Kol caste and in his knowledge there was no separate gang of Ashok and as and when it was needed, he used to join the said gang but he does not have any proof of the same as to when Ashok became member of the said gang.Further, he stated that in the said area, it was being discussed that Ashok had gone to help the said gang and regarding this the four witnesses of the occurrence including him, used to tell him and although he does not have any personal knowledge in this regard.Further, he stated that he does not have any enmity with Phool Chand, Hira Lal, Hari Shankar Tiwari.Phool Chand is about 55 years of age, who along with Hari Shankar Tiwari and Hira Lal Tiwari does agriculture work and that Hira Lal Tiwari was not at the place of incident.He denied that he had falsely implicated Ashok and that no such incident had taken place.This witness has further stated that he was witnessing the said incident from a distance of 8-10 paces from the place of incident.(Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the said distance is now being reduced by this witness in his statement from his own part statement wherein he had stated bigger distance, which suggests that he was telling lie).Further this witness has stated that the accused were not in a position to see him because of his being concealed in bushes which were about 4-5 feet high and the same was their width also.All these bushes in which he and other witness were concealing themselves were lying towards east of the place of incident.They had come from the north-eastern corner and to the south of the bushes in which he was concealed himself, Rajendra Mishra and Ram Dayal had concealed themselves in a bush situated towards north at 6-7 paces.Aditya had also concealed himself towards north in a bush and he had concealed himself 4-5 steps away from bush in which Ram Dayal had concealed himself, towards north.One passage goes towards the river and place of incident is situated towards the side where both the passages meet.There was another passage, from that towards north was located, the place of concealment which was at a distance of 10-15 paces and that the place of incident was situated towards north-west of the place of their concealment.When they had reached the place of incident, flames of fire were visible in which tractor and drum were burning and in the light of the said fire flames, the person could be seen even if he was 400 to 500 meters away and that when they had reached the said place they could see the accused persons from the place where they had concealed themselves and there were clearly 3 to 4 bushes between the place of incident and place where they were hiding.These bushes were 3-4 feets in height.When they had left from the river they could see the flames.The distance from the river to the place of occurrence would have been about 300-400 meters.From the river, they had heard about 20-30 fires together, which happened within 2-3 seconds and thereafter no other fire was heard and in his understanding these appeared to have been made by rifle.In reaching the place of incident from river that might have taken 10-12 minutes and they had left the river at about 7.15 p.m. and from the place of incident they had started back at about 8.00 p.m. Further, it is stated that between 8.00 p.m. to 8.15 p.m. they had reached home and he gave information about this incident to the family members of the deceased after going through the school at 8.30 p.m. that Munni Lal and Harish Chand had been killed.When he was asked, he told that they were killed by the gang and it was also told that four persons had made fire upon them and it was also told that the dead body of Munshi Lal was placed on the burning dead body of Harish Chand.(In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that this is missing in the first information report or previous statement of this witness, which is nothing but subsequent modification made by this witness who after having found dead bodies, has developed this story and therefore his statement is not believable).He further stated that about the above statement made by him, he had told the Investigating Officer also but if the same was not written by him, he could not tell its reason and he had also told the wife of Munni Lal about this incident and to none else.It is further stated that the Investigating Officer was informed about this incident by Aditya on phone and the police had reached there after having visited the place of incident and the police thereafter had taken them to place of incident.SHO had taken along 10-12 persons of village with him to the place of incident and had seen the pace of incident in the light as to how and where it happened and also made questions in this regard.This witness has further stated that he had disclosed to the police as to what all had happened regarding the whole incident and it was also told that they were witnessing the occurrence from near the place of incident and that about 30-35 persons were there armed with weapons and out of them four were making fires upon Munni Lal and his dead body was dragged and was placed on the burning dead body of Harish Chand.Nothing else was stated by him.(It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the light of the above statement of this witness, it was clear that he did not disclose the name of any person of the gang of Dadua, and that in earlier part of his statement he did not tell that four persons of the said gang had made fire upon the deceased Munni Lal nor had it been mentioned in the FIR, therefore the statement of this witness seems to be not trustworthy).He further stated that he was carrying a double barrel licensee gun with him and when Investigating Officer asked him as to whether he was having gun at the place of incident, he had told him that due to fear, he did not make fire from the said gun.Further, he stated that out of these 35 men on the spot, some were in dress and some were without dress and some were in Kurta Paijama but could not tell their names.He denied that he had not seen the incident and that he was making false statement at the instance of police under pressure and has also stated that the FIR of this case was lodged by Chunni Lal.Munni Lal and Chuuni Lal belonged to same family being real brothers although they lived in separate houses.Further this witness has stated that he has not given any statement against the accused in any other case.He does not know as to whether prior to this incident accused were arrested or not but out of these accused, one accused namely Hari Shankar Tiwari belongs to his village and none else, all belong to distant villages.It is further stated that there is no dearth of gang in the jungle as there may have been around 15-20 gangs.(Learned counsel for the appellants stated that it is admission on the part of this witness that there were many other gangs and any of such gangs could have been instrumental in eliminating the two deceased.Further, this witness has stated that which gang belongs to which place, he has no knowledge.The date on which the incident happened, it was pitch-dark.He used to accompany Munni Lal and Harish Chand whenever they would go out but he could not accompany them on the date of incident because of some obstruction and denied not to have seen the incident.Aditya Narain (PW2) has stated in examination in chief that on 11.8.2006 at about 7.45 P.M. this incident happened near Garwaghat, Bardaha river.On the said date at about 7.00 p.m. he along with Sant Das, Ram Dayal Tiwari, Rajendra Prasad Mishra had gone for nature's call from their village to Bardaha river and heard sound of fire, where-after they took cover of bushes and proceeded towards place where fires were being made and there, from at a distance of about 25-30 paces saw Harish Chand son of Munni Lal and Munni Lal son of Dwarika Prasad, who were sitting upon the tractor who were shot dead by members of Dadua gang and both these persons were lying by the side of the tractor.Behind the tractor there was cultivator upon which drum full of diesel was kept, which was also fired upon and from out of it diesel flowed towards the dead bodies of Munni Lal and Harish Chand and thereafter the miscreants set them on fire.There was lot of light as the lights of tractors were on.In the said light, he and the other persons who were accompanying him had seen Dadua, Angad, Radhey, Tehsildar @ Rohni, Chhota Patel, Munshi Kol, Raju Kol, Aniruddha Yadav, Bhonda @ Gotar, Ashok Kol, Ram Sagar and Sunil, who all were known to him from before and they were also known to his companions, these persons used to come with Dadua gang.In cross examination, this witness has stated that he knew abovenamed accused since last 10 to 12 years as he used to hear their names in jungle but he could not tell as to who were members of Dadua gang.He had identified Radhey, Tehsildar, Bhonda @ Gotar because they were in jail for last three years.About 3-4 days after the incident he had visited the place of incident and not before that.Further he has stated that the persons of village who had informed him about this incident having taken place, he does not recollect their names and that on their having told about this incident, he was stating before the Court.Learned counsel for the appellant after drawing attention of the above statement, argued that the above statement of the witness is based on hearsay because according to him, he had not seen the incident and was stating on the basis of what was told to him by other persons and hence his testimony should be discarded.Further, it was argued that even he did not tell the names of the accused when FIR was being lodged despite the fact that he knew the accused from before and had identified them in the light, hence it is unbelievable that he would not have stated their names to the police and further he has admitted to have identified these accused mentioned above on the basis that he had seen them earlier in jail which also makes his statement suspect and he has falsely implicated the accused persons.Further, this witness has stated that this incident had happened at a distance of 500 meters from his village and also at the same distance from the place where he had gone for defecating, which was located in dense jungle full of 'Medhaki' trees.He had gone for nature's call around 5.00 p.m. without any gun, all were empty handed and had sat at different places for defecating.He must have taken about half hour where they were defecating and the same time must have been taken by him in coming home from the place of incident and also same time must have been taken in reaching the place of incident from the place where they were defecating.Further, he had stated that after hearing sound of fires, they had proceeded together from village Maugurdari for the place of incident.He had heard about 50 rounds of fire and thereafter all had assembled in the village and together they proceeded towards place of incident and thereafter he again stated that four persons including him i.e. Ram Dayal, Sant Das and Rajendra Prasad Mishra had gone there and when they had returned from the place of incident, by that time whole villagers had assembled in the school of the village and there were wife of Munni Lal, wife of Chunni Lal, Chunni Lal himself, Bhullar and other villagers and all of them were told about the incident but Sant Das who had accompanied him to the pace of incident had told entire details about the occurrence to Chunni Lal and other villagers and also told the names of persons who were involved in the said incident.He had telephoned S.O. Manikpur and told him about the incident and also disclosed the names of the accused persons.Police had come to the place of incident in the night itself where villagers were already present.He had not gone to the place of incident, hence he could not have told about the incident.He had not gone with the police.What actions were taken, he could not tell.Attention was drawn towards abovementioned statement of this witness by the learned counsel for the appellants and it was argued that his above statement is self contradictory as well as in contravention with other witnesses who have stated to have accompanied him at the time when he had gone for defecating and thereafter having heard sound of fire, had proceeded towards near the place of incident because this witness, on one hand has stated that he proceeded from the village towards place of incident after hearing fire shots while the other witnesses have stated that they proceeded towards the place of incident from the place where they were defecating.It is an important contraction and would make the presence of this witness at the place of occurrence to be doubtful.Subsequently, this witness has stated that he had not gone to the place of incident, hence could not tell anything about the incident and also stated that he had told the names of the accused to the Inspector, Manikpur which appears to be false statement because had that been correct, there could be no possibility of the Inspector not having entered the names of all the accused in the FIR.Further he stated that at the place where he was defecating, he had reached at 6.00 p.m. On either side of the river, there is bank of the river.The width of river must be around 200 meters where they were defecating and from there the place of incident was not visible.For defecating, they remained seated for about 15-20 minutes, separately and after having become free from it, all of them had not assembled together.At the time when they had become free it must have been 7.30 p.m. and rest of his companions had also become free by then and thereafter they had gone to take water and there they had heard 7-8 rounds of fire and thereafter they had reached near the place of incident and then again he heard 2-4 fires.Apart from these fires, he also heard about 50 fires within 10-15 minutes thereafter.He had neither enmity nor friendship with Dadua gang and the said gang had never come to him nor had he participated in any 'Bhandara' or other programme conducted by the said gang because he used to fear the miscreants.His statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer 4-5 days after the incident in village.He further stated that he had not told about the incident to the family members of the deceased because their nephew had accompanied him.Further, he had stated that when he had proceeded from the place where they had gone for nature's call towards the place of incident, by that time it had become dark.He had no torch with him nor anyone of his companions had any torch.The attention was drawn by learned counsel for the appellants that this was also in contradiction with the statement of other eye witnesses because they had stated that they were having torches and one fire arm with them.Further, he had stated that the place of incident was not visible from the place where they had gone for defecating.When they had reached there, tractor was not burning.There was light of torches and not from the burning of tractor or diesel.The place where tractor was standing, a little away from there, all the four including him, had concealed themselves in bushes and had seen the incident from there although there were bushes between the tractor and the place where they had concealed themselves.Further, he had stated that when they had concealed themselves in bushes nothing was visible only light was visible and after having concealed themselves, 4-5 fires were also made, who had made them, he could tell.He further stated that which miscreant was having which weapon he could not tell although there were 10-11 miscreants.The dead bodies of the deceased were near the rear wheel of the tractor and the dead bodies were not visible prior to their being set on fire and they had not heard any sound of groaning at the said place.Learned counsel for the appellants had argued stating the above evidence that this witness has admitted that nothing was visible from the place where they concealed themselves in bushes except some light and it is admitted by him that he could not tell as to who was making fire and there were 10-12 miscreant which shows that his statement is not in conformity with the statement of other eye witnesses who clearly stated that they could see from the said place the accused and their number was also stated by them to be about 30-40 persons, therefore, it was argued that the testimony of this witness cannot be held to be believable in respect of having seen the deceased having been murdered and having been set on fire by the accused and it was merely on the basis of conjecture that he had stated that there were 10-11 miscreants who had given effect to this incident.Further this witness has stated that he remained concealed for about 15 minutes in the bushes and thereafter he saw that after giving effect to the incident, the miscreants fled towards southern direction and due to it being dark, some weapons of miscreants could not be seen.He denied that all the four witnesses were concealing themselves in one bush while he had reiterated that none of them had any weapon.He further stated that Sant Das and Ram Dayal had not taken their licensee guns to the place of incident and if the Investigating Officer has recorded in his statement that they had taken the same, he could not tell as to how the same was written.All the four accused had returned home at about 7.45 p.m. from there.He has further stated that he did not tell about the incident to informant Munni Lal or his family members because Rajendra Mishra was present on the spot who is son of Chunni Lal.Further he had stated that the police had arrived in the night of the occurrence but he was not called for his statement and his statement was recorded about 3-4 days after the incident, when the Investigating Officer called him in village itself and prior that he had not made any discussion about this incident with any one.He has stated it to be correct that when all the four witnesses were returning from the place of incident, the family members of the deceased and other villagers were assembled in school and there were around 50-60 persons all included.He had not told about the incident to any one there nor does he know whether his three companions had told about it or not.He further denied the suggestion that he had not seen the incident and because of being of the same village and due to enmity he had given statement against the accused.He had stated that Sant Das, Ram Dayal and Rajendra Mishra had earlier not gone together for the nature's call, it was only sometimes they used to go together for defecating.He denied to know parentage of the accused and stated that he does not know the reason how in his statement, Investigating Officer has recorded the parentage of the accused.He had informed the police at about 8.30 p.m. Further, he has started that when he was returning from the nature's call, on way he had given information to police.Further he has stated that he had mobile number of the Inspector from before because he used to go to Manikpur and the same was written on the wall of the police station.He had informed the Investigating Officer that Dadua gang had given effect to the incident but had not told names of the accused.Further he has stated that in the statement to Investigating Officer he had given names of some members of the said gang, roughly names of 10-11 members were told which were Dadua, Angad, Radhey, Tehsildar, Bhonda @ Gotar, Ram Sagar, Naththu (Raju) Chhota, Aniruddha, Munsi and none else was known to him, who were at the place of incident.Accused Ashok Kol is resident of adjacent village Chamroha whom he did not know since prior to the incident but his companion Ram Dayal had enmity towards him.Now he knows Ashok Kol.At the time of incident, he was away, hence he did not known him and also did not know where he used to live.Further, he had stated that at time of incident, mother of Ashok Kol was Pradhan of village Chamroha.He knew Sunil, Phool Chand and Hira Lal all residents of village Cherulu since prior to the occurrence and also knows Hari Shankar Tiwari of his village.He has no knowledge whether the gang had given effect to this incident all of sudden or was there any prior enmity between the deceased and the gang.The accused who were in jail, their identification was not got done from him.Learned counsel for the appellant argued that stating the names of the accused before the court for the first time is an improvement by this witness and if he knew the names of the accused, he would have certainly given those names to the informant as well as Investigating Officer at the time of lodging the FIR and again it was emphasized that his testimony is unbelievable and should be discarded.66. PW-3, Rajendra Mishra has stated on 13.10.2011 that the incident took place about five years back.On the date of incident, at about 7 p.m., he had gone for nature's call with Ram Dayal Tiwari, Aditya Tiwari and Sant Das Mishra towards Bardaha river at Ramghat, he immediately after being free from nature's call heard shots of fire from the southern-western direction of Akahra Har, hearing which they reached the place of incident taking cover of bushes and just before reaching 20-25 steps prior to the place of incident, he again heard 20-30 fires and saw that the dead body of Harish Chnadra was burning and the dead body of the Munshi Lal was being dragged by the miscreants and was thrown upon the dead body of Harish Chandra.After the incident, all the four had returned together.Ram Dayal, Aditya and Santdas had stayed in the school while he had returned home directly.He had not seen these two persons as to where they had remained during night.At about 8:00 p.m., they had reached the school.He could not tell the reason why he did not go with them (the other three) to school.Thereafter, he stated that because of fear he did not stay in school.When he was going for defecating, after becoming free, he had heard 20-25 fires from the side of place of incident, but he was not feeling scared and had reached near the place of incident.When he reached there he saw that the miscreants were standing but had not seen them firing; just after four to five minutes after the fire, he had reached the place of incident.When he had gone for defecating, he had hardly taken two to three minutes for the said purpose and they might have taken two to three minutes in becoming free from the nature's call and soon after it they again heard the sound of fire and soon after that they proceeded towards the place of incident.He had gone for nature's call at about 7:00 p.m. and had come back home by 8:00 p.m. and also had stayed at the place of incident for about half an hour.They had not gone to the place of incident running rather had gone at leisurely pace and were proceeding in that direction in crouching position and sometimes they used to be straight also and they could see ahead for about 30 paces.When they were proceeding towards the place of incident, from the place where they were defecating, it must have been four minutes to 8:00 p.m. From the place where they were defecating and from where they proceeded towards the place of incident, throughout the passage, there were small bushes and at some place, there was open field.The bushes were at a distance of one to two paces.Further, he has stated that Dadua, Angad, Radhey, Tehsildar, Bhonda @ Gotar, Ramsagar, Munshiwa, Phool chand, Ashok, Sunil, Heera, Aniruddh and Hari Shankar used to live with gang all along, but he had not seen them giving effect to any incident till now except the present incident.In his knowledge, no litigation was contested against these persons nor does he have any knowledge of the fact that all these persons were resident of Chamrauha, Sakrauha and Gauraiya villages.They live in their respective villages even today.After having witnessed the incident, he did not go to lodge any FIR at police station- Manikpur nor anyone had lodged the same till three days nor he disclosed about this incident to his father till three days, although the informant of this case is his father Chunni Lal and the deceased was his real uncle and his uncle's son.When he returned home after the incident, his father had not gone out in his relation, rather was present at home.After the incident, when he returned home, his father had gone for lodging the report same night in which he had mentioned the name of Dadua gang but had not mentioned the name of any accused.The S.H.O. of Manikpur had come to his house after the incident and had met all the villagers there including him and his father.He had told everything about the incident.He was also inquiring from everyone there but he does not know as to what others had told him.About three days after this incident, the police had taken him, Aditya, Sant Das, Ram Dayal to P.S. where it had taken his statement but he does not know where the statement of other witness were recorded, although they belong to the same village and caste.He denied the suggestion that the other three witnesses belong to his family and he was concealing this fact deliberately.Aditya Narayan was married in Chamrauha in the house of Zamahil Paroha.The aunt of Ram Dayal was also resident of Chamrauha and they also have relations in Gauraiya village; accused Ramsagar is resident of village Gurdaru and was living at present in Sakrauha and these are Majras of Chamrauha village.Accused Munshiwa, Radhey, Ashok Kol, whether they work as labour at the place of Phool Chand, he could not say and further denied that they used to do work of labour there or were his servant and that because of old enmity with Phool Chand, he has falsely implicated them.He further denied the suggestion that Phool Chand, Ramsagar and others were involved in this incident nor were they ever member of the said gang and further denied the suggestion that on the date of incident he had not gone for the defecation with others, who are named above nor had seen any incident and was giving false statement under pressure of police as well as due to enmity.He further denied the suggestion that he had not seen the incident and that is why the names of the accused were not mentioned in the F.I.R. because had he seen the incident, he would certainly have then mentioned the names of accused in the F.I.R. and further denied the suggestion that his father had also not seen the incident because of which he mentioned in the F.I.R. the name of Dadua gang only.He has further stated that on making complaint in respect of Dadua, he, Ram Dayal, Ram Sushil, Munshiwa, Munni Lal Mishra, Santdas and Panchanan were issued license by the District Magistrate, he has no official information with regard to the number of members of gang of Dadua and that apart from Dadua gang, there were other gang also who used to roam in the jungle.His village is situated in jungle area.On the date of incident, at what time Munni Lal (deceased) and his son (deceased) had gone to take diesel to Manikpur, he does not know but he was stating about this fact because he had seen that the diesel was kept on the cultivator/tractor.How many days after the incident, the tractor was taken away from the place of incident, he has no knowledge.The miscreants after having given effect to the incident, went towards Chiraul Pahad, he along with others did not make any noise because of fear and when they were returning towards village, all the people of the village were present including family members whom they told that Munni Lal Mishra and Harish Chandra were killed by Dadua gang by fire arm and, thereafter, they were burnt with the help of diesel which was kept on the cultivator of the tractor.Aditya Narayan Tiwari gave information to the police of police station Manikpur.His statement was recorded by the investigating officer, whom he had told all the facts which he was narrating before the court today.He further stated that the accused, who were present in court, he knows them and that they had committed the said offence.In cross-examination, this witness has stated that at that time, there was gang of Munni Lal @ Khadag Singh in the said jungle and also there were gang of Chukki Yadav, Thokiya Gang, Rampa Yadav Gang and there was no dearth of these gangs in the said jungle because he used to hear names of all these gangs but he did not have any connection with them nor had he visited them nor any person of these gangs had come to him ever.Mau-Gurdari village is surrounded by dense jungle by the side of river Bardaha, which has very dense bushes.He possess a double barrel licensee gun.At the time of incident, he could not identify any miscreant.The name of his village is Mau-Gurdari and the place of incident was 1.5 km away from his village and the place of incident was located towards south-west of his village.The river Bardaha does not flow through the said village, rather the same flows towards the west of the village at a distance of about 500-600 metres.The place of incident is about 75-80 metres away from the said river and the place of incident is situated towards east of the said river and towards south-east of the said river is a wall which was meant for carrying water.In the eastern direction also, there is eight feet high wall.On the date of incident i.e. on 11.8.2006, from about 7:00 p.m. till 8:00 p.m., he was between the Bardaha river and the place of incident.From that mid point, the river was at a distance of about 50-55 metres then he stated that the place where they were defecating, from there the place of incident is about 250 metres away.They were four men and all of them were sitting for defecating and had not taken any vessel (Lota) with them, they were namely, he himself, Sant Das, Aditya Nrayan, Rajendra Prasad Mishra and all of them were having their own licensee guns also.They were defecating around 6:30 p.m. and had left for the said purpose at about 5:00 p.m.. It was right to say that in the entire process of the nature's call being over including the time that they had taken in sitting there and talking to each other etc., it must have taken about 1:30 hours time.Further he has stated that all the four persons used to go there only for the purposes of nature's call.This witness has further stated that the Investigating Officer has recorded his statement next date of the incident at about 2:30 p.m., whom he had told that Dadua gang had murdered Munni Lal and Harish Chand and had not told anything else nor the I.O. had made any other query from him.Rajendra was called by the Inspector through someone but he had not gone there.He and other villagers had told the inspector that the said incident was given effect to by Dadua Gang and none else.When the inspector came in the night at about 12:30 a.m., all of them had gone on foot to the place of incident, where they reached in 10 to 15 minutes.Thereafter, he stated that all of them including police personnel had reached the place of incident running and when they reached there, they found burnt tractor and two dead bodies.When for the first time, they reached the place of incident, they found that both the dead bodies were lying there and a burnt tractor was parked nearby, then only they could know that the Munni Lal and Harish Chandra were murdered and not prior to that.This was told by inspector to him that Dadua gang had killed Harish Chandra and Munni Lal, thereafter, he stated that he and others had told the inspector about this that the said incident was given effect to by Dadua gang only.Further he stated that they had reached the place of incident even prior to the inspector reaching there and Rajendra, Sant Das and Aditya Narayan had also accompanied with the Inspector to the place of incident, prior to that they had not gone there.Further he stated that when they were hearing fire from the village, at that time, only Aditya Narayan had telephoned the inspector informing him that the miscreants were firing in the jungle and that Harish Chandra and Munni Lal had been murdered.Four hours after making phone call, police reached the school where all the villagers had assembled; when police reached the place of incident, Chunni Lal, real brohter of Munni Lal and four sons of Chunni Lal were also present.He did not see whether Chunni Lal or his sons had given anything in writing to the inspector.When they had reached the place of incident, it had become dark and without torch nothing could have been seen.The inspector and many others had switched on their torches, in the light which they all had seen that Munni Lal and Harish Chandra were lying in burnt condition.It was right to say that at the place of incident, there was only a passage for bullock cart, it being very dense forest and that eight years prior to this occurrence, he had seen Dadua gang and not in the meantime.He knew Dadua, Nakua, Angad, Rajua but Radhey was not there.Teshildar was there.He knew these persons because they used to come in the village for canvassing.In his village, they had come twice for the canvassing, during which they had told that they belong to the said gang.He did not know them personally.On 12.8.2006, at about 4:00 am, both the dead bodies were sealed by the inspector and by jeep were taken to police station Manikpur along with Chunni Lal.Further this witness has stated that it was being talked in his village that Dadua gang had only given effect to this occurrence and no other gang.Further this witness has stated that the deceased persons had no enmity with Dadua gang, although it could be possible because they were having license for guns, the said gang might have felt annoyance with them.We people used to remain cautious.Eight years before the incident, when parliamentary election had taken place, Dadua had come to the field and had beaten up his uncle but by that time, vote had already been cast and he had also tried to snatch his gun.All the persons, who were having licenses, the said gang was having enmity with.Thereafter, this witness has again stated that in the nature's call, they might have taken about 15 minutes time.Further this witness has stated that Phool Singh Vs.State, case was pending in which he had come for giving statement.In his earlier statement, he had stated that at the time of incident, there was enough light, in which people could be seen moving about and could be identified by their face.Further he stated that it was right to say that no body could be identified by his face and denied that he was giving false statement and that he had seen the incident and denied to have given statement against the accused under police pressure and also stated that the police had not got any identification made by him of the accused persons.Dr. Mani Ram Ambedkar (PW 5) stated on oath in examination in chief that on 12/08/2006 he was posted at District hospital, Chitrakoot as medical officer, on that day constable no. 225 Amarnath and constable no. 146 Suraj Bali of PS Manikpur had brought a sealed dead body for post-mortem along with relevant papers and after verifying the papers it was found that the dead body was of Munni Lal son Dwarika Prasad resident of Maugurdari, PS Manikpur District Chitrakoot, aged about 16 years, whose post-mortem was conducted by him on 12/08/2006 at 2:30 PM and found that he had died about one day ago; the dead body had shrunken and following ante- mortem injuries were found on his person: -Badly charred whole body with a pugilistic attitude.Lacerated wound 3 cm.× bone deep put on right side of face, margins are inverted, 3 cm.lateral to right angle of mouth.Half of the left side of skull absent, brain material protruding out.Lacerated wound 4 cm.×4 cm.but on left side of neck 2 cm.on lateral to medial end of the left clavicle, margins are inverted.Lacerated wound 5 cm.×5 cm.× chest cavity deep put on left side of chest, margins are inverted, 7 cm.below the left axilla.Lacerated wound 4 cm.×4 cm.× abdominal cavity deep but on left side of skull 14 cm.below the interior angle of left scapula, margins are inverted.Lacerated wound 9 cm.×6 cm.× abdominal cavity deep, but on the left side of the abdomin vertical.Intestine protruding out just above iliac bone.The cause of death was found to be shock as a result of ante- mortem burn and fire arm injuries.These injuries were possible to be received on 11/08/2006 at 7:45 PM.On the same day constable Amar Nath and constable Suraj Bali had also brought deceased Harish Chandra alias Mukkhu son of Munni Lal Mishra aged about 26 years, resident of Maugurdari in sealed condition along with relevant papers and his post-mortem was conducted the same day at about 3 PM by him and he was found to have died one day before the post-mortem.He found following ante- mortem injuries on his person: -Badly charred whole body with a pugilistic attitude.Upper limb and lower limbs badly burned skin superficial facial muscles and bones burnt, line of redness present.Lacerated wound 4 cms ×4 cms × chest cavity deep, below right side of chest, just below right axilla, margins everted.Lacerated wound 10 cms ×9 cm × abdominal cavity deep on right side of abdomen, 7 cm below to the right intestine protruded out.The cause of death was found to be shock as a result of ante-mortem burn and fire arm injuries.The post-mortem report was proved as Exhibit Ka 2 by this witness and also stated that his death could have been done on 11/08/2006 at 7:45 PM by firearm injuries as well as the burning in fire.This witness in cross examination has stated that the condition of both the dead bodies was such that they could not be recognised.On the body of deceased Munni Lal there were 3 entry wounds and injury no. 1 and 2 could have come due to burning and he had 3 firearm injuries.He further stated that the direction of injury no. 3 could be from downward to upward, the said injury could also be parallel.From how much distance the said injury would have been caused, was difficult to state, however it could have been caused from a distance of around 15 - 20 feet.Further, he stated that he had not mentioned the direction of injuries.The direction of injury no. 5 and 6 could have been from higher to lower side and these injuries could have been caused by the assailants upon the deceased from a height but could not have been caused if he was standing parallel to him.Further, he stated that if the assailant was in standing position while the deceased was in lying position, these injuries could not be received.Further he stated that if the assailant makes a fire in crouching position and the accused would have been in a standing position, these injuries could have been caused.Further he stated that if the deceased was lying with his stomach down and the assailant was in standing position, these injuries could have been caused from a distance of 10 - 15 feet.There was only one entry wound and one exit wound of firearm, the direction of which was from higher side to lower side and that the said injury could have been caused to him had he been in lying condition while the assailant would have been in standing position or in sitting position.Further he stated that these injuries were possible to have been caused from a distance of about 15 - 20 - 25 feet.Further, he stated that in wind-pipe of the deceased there were found carbon particles, therefore he could not have stated with exactness as to whether at the time of being burnt the deceased were alive or not.He further stated that both the deaths might have been caused within 24 hours of the conducting of post-mortem, but he could not ascertain exactly as to whether both the deceased had died of firearm injuries or due to burn injuries.Upon the dead body of both the deceased only one cloth each was found, hence it could not have been said as to on which part of the body the said cloth was worn.Suraj Mishra son of Geeta Prasad has stated as PW 6 that the incident had occurred 7 - 8 years ago when his grandfather, Munni Lal had been murdered.He further stated that his grandfather Chunni Lal (first informant) was present in house with him.The information in respect of the incident after reducing it into writing was given by him at police station in accordance with his knowledge, whatever he had written in the report was written as was told by his great-grandfather.In cross-examination this witness has stated that he had written only the report but he does not have any knowledge about the incident.His grandfather Chunni Lal had told him only about enmity with Dadua because of which FIR was lodged.The day on which the incident happened, he along with his grandfather Chunni Lal was at his house situated in Manikpur.Two persons had come from the police station to his house, out of whom one was a police personnel and the other one was PRD Wala, who had stated that the inspector was calling him and when he reached at the police station, the inspector told him that his grandfather Munni Lal and his cousin brother Harish Chandra alias Bhukku had been murdered.Further he stated that he had not gone to the place of incident till about one year of the incident.The inspector had obtained his signatures at the police line or police station on all the papers.He had not received any phone call nor Chunni Lal had, about this incident, nor had he received any information in that regard from anyone, whatever he came to know, could be known only from the police station, further he has stated that the written report was written by him sitting outside the police station on Bench and at that time inspector was not available there and he along with his grandfather only were present there.The inspector had asked as to upon whom he had suspicion, to which his grandfather stated that he had enmity only with Dadua and had no enmity with any other miscreant of the area and on the basis of this enmity, the written report was got lodged.He further stated that till date he had no knowledge as to who was made accused by the inspector in this case nor the villagers had told him anything about the incident.After having seen all the three accused who were present in court namely, Radhey, Rohani and Tehsildar, he could not tell as to whether they were involved in the murder of his grandfather or not nor any information was given to him about the incident by Ram Dayal, Aditya Tiwari, Sant Das and Rajendra Prasad.First of all we would like to consider the FIR particularly in respect of the fact about non-mentioning the names of the accused persons therein despite the fact that the eye witnesses of this case have stated to have seen the incident and yet the names of the accused persons were not mentioned in the said FIR.This point was mainly emphasised by the learned counsel for the appellants and it was argued that the evidence which has come on record would show that in the FIR the name of Dadua and men of his gang has been mentioned on the basis of conjectures only and not as per the actual incident having been witnessed by the eye witnesses.It was also emphasised that since Dadua Gang was operating during the time when this incident occurred, it was probably guessed by the prosecution side that men of his gang including Dadua might have killed the deceased persons while in fact there was no eye witness.It is apparent from the record that first informant namely Chunni Lal has not been examined in the present case though he was examined in the separate SST No. 226 of 2006 (State vs. Phool Chand and others), but as per legal position in normal circumstances, his evidence could not be taken into consideration in the SSTs which are concerned in the present appeal, however, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that this being death reference, the said statement could be taken into consideration for the limited purpose of assessing the correctness of the incident.In the present SSTs to prove FIR Suraj Mishra as PW6 has been examined who has clearly stated that he had written FIR; whatever was told to him by his grandfather, Chunni Lal (first informant) who had enmity only with Dadua was written by him in the report.He is not an eye witness of the incident.In the night of incident, his grandfather Chunni Lal was in his house at Manikpur.In the night, two persons from, Police Station had come to his house informing him that he was being called by the Inspector whereon he reached the police station and he was told by the Inspector that Munni Lal and his cousin brother Harish Chand @ Bhaggu had been murdered.Neither he nor Chunni Lal had received any phone call in respect of the incident and for the first time he could come to know about the incident only at the police station.The Inspector had also asked them as to whether he had any doubt upon any person who might have committed the murder on which Chunni Lal had told him that he had enmity only with Dadua and none else and on the basis of the said enmity the first information report was got lodged and he did not know the name of any accused nor their names were told to him by any of the villagers or family members.He also stated that Radhey, Rohni, Tehsildar who were present in court, whether they had murdered the deceased, he does not know.He also stated that Ram Dayal (PW4), Aditya Tiwari (PW2), Sant Das (PW1) and Rajendra Prasad (PW3) had not given any information to him with respect to this incident.From the above statement, it becomes evident that this witness who is scribe of the FIR, has clearly admitted that the name of Dadua was mentioned in the FIR only on the basis of enmity with the deceased and that he was not informed by any of the eye witnesses mentioned above with respect to accused who had committed this offence and it also becomes clear from his statement that he could come to know about the incident only after the Inspector of the said area had apprised him about the incident.Now we would have to see as to whether the eye witnesses mentioned above i.e. Sant Das (PW1), Aditya Narain (PW2), Rajendra Mishra (PW3) and Ram Dayal (PW4) had actually seen the incident and were present on the spot.It may be mentioned here that all these four witnesses have stated that they had gone for nature's call from their houses situated in village Maugurdari towards Bardaha river at about 7.00 p.m. in the evening and were about to return after having become free from nature's call, they heard sound of firing there which came from southern-western direction and thereafter proceeded towards place of incident and by the time they had reached near the place of incident which is shown by letters 'E' & 'F' in the site plan, they had seen the incident from there taking cover of bushes.It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the testimony of these four witnesses was not believable because there are number of discrepancies with respect to fact as to whether they had come to the place situated near the place of incident from where they had stated to have seen the incident directly or had they gone to the village after having defecated and after hearing sound of fire, they proceeded for the place where they have stated to have taken cover of bushes and to have seen the incident.Therefore, their testimonies are not inspiring confidence and need to be discarded.It was also stated that reference is also made in their statements of having reached the school situated in village Maugurdari where they all assembled, the location of the said school in village Maugurdari has not been indicated in the site plan but it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that it was stated to be towards western side in the village and from there the place of incident is said to be 100 meters away towards west.It was also argued that the places where these witnesses had gone for defecating, have not been shown in the site plan near Bardaha river.It was also argued that from the place of incident, the distance of abadi of village Mauagurdari is shown to be one and half kms.towards east and the distance of abadi of village Gram Piyasi is shown to be one and half kms.towards south west and that of distance of abadi of Gram Garwa is shown more than one km. towards north.The place where the incident has happened is shown by ''A' where the deceased are stated to have been fired upon and 20 paces towards south of it is shown by ''B', where the tractor was burning and nearby that are shown the places shown by letters ''C' and ''D' where two dead bodies were lying.It is argued that the distance between the places shown by ''A' and ''B' where the incident happened and the places shown by ''E' & ''F' where the witnesses were stated to be present and to have seen the incident, which was an area covered with small bushes, was 25-30 paces.It was argued that it was not possible for the witnesses from such a distance to have seen the incident and to have recognized the accused persons making fire upon the deceased or burning their bodies and that it was on the basis of conjectures that they have stated that actually it was the men of the gang of Dadua whom they had seen giving effect to this occurrence that names of some of these accused have been taken by them as persons whom they knew from before because they used to visit the village.Pointing out towards this statement, it was also argued that if these persons had seen these accused persons giving effect to the occurrence and knew them from before, what prevented them from disclosing their names to the first informant and from mentioning their names in the FIR in the column of accused, and since their names do not find mention in the FIR, it should be concluded that these witnesses were making untrue statement to have seen the incident and only because of Dadua gang being operative in that area, it was conjectured that it might have committed these offences, hence they have stated that the accused-appellants were among those who actually gave effect to this incident, being members of Dadua gang.Sant Das (PW1) has stated that after becoming free from nature's call, when they were about to return home they heard sound of firing which was coming from southern-western direction and as soon as they reached near the place of incident, already 30-35 fires had been made.They had seen the incident from cover of bushes which were 25-30 paces away and had seen whole gang of Dadua comprising Dadua, Rathey, Tehsildar, Bhonda @ Gotar , Nathuwa , Chelwa, Raju, Phool Chand, Sunil, Ashok, Hari Shankar and many others who were all armed with weapons, whom he knew as they used to come and once they had abducted him also.When they reached near place of incident, he saw that rear wheel of tractor was burning and from its light it was seen that a drum of diesel was kept on cultivator which had holes in it and in the light of burning of tyre of rear wheel of the tractor and in the light of the tractor, they had identified the accused.Munni Lal after getting hit by fire, fell down behind the tractor.The dead body of Harish Chand was burning while Munni Lal was groaning.Four accused namely Phool Chand, Hari Shankar, Sunil and Ashok had fired upon the deceased after coming close to him and thereafter he was dragged and was placed upon the dead body of his son.The diesel of drum had caught fired in which both the dead bodies were burning.All the accused had made fires, sound of which was heard by him but had not seen them making fires.Gun of Munni Lal was lifted by Dadua and after having stayed there for quarter of an hour, they saw that the accused went towards southern direction.All of them were assembled in the school of the village, where they had told about the incident and thereafter information was sent to the police station.In cross-examination he has stated that on the date of incident, it was pitch dark.He and Ram Dayal had torches with them which were not lighted by them.The distance from the place where they were defecating to the place of incident was about one km. towards south, from where sound of fire was heard by him.From that place, the place of incident was not visible.However, only light was being seen and not the place of occurrence.At the time of fire being heard, he had full doubt it must have been gang of Dadua only which had once abducted him also which must have committed this offence.They did not make any fire.From the place from where they heard sound of fire, village must have been around 100-150 meters but they did not go towards village nor had they gone to village in order to tell the villagers about this incident nor they called the villagers to state that fire was being made because they were trying to be convinced whether they were fires by police or by miscreants or someone else.Had they been convinced that the fire was being made by the miscreants, they would also have made fire.They had reached the place from where they witnessed the incident concealing themselves in the cover of bushes.They had discussed among themselves that one of their companions had gone to the market, hence they ought to go to the place of incident to see whether the incident was happening against him.About 10-15 minutes time must have been taken in reaching near the place of incident from the place from where they were defecating and when they had reached just before 22-25 paces were left for the place of incident, from there the place of incident had become visible.The place where they had heard the sound of firing, from there the place of incident was about 25-30 paces away; which miscreants were committing this offence, he could not know.The place where incident has happened, the passage is 15 ft. wide; from the Ghat where they were defecating till their reaching near place of incident, they did not hear any sound of fire.At the place from where they had seen the place of incident, they had heard 5-6 fires.They had not made any fire upon the miscreants from the place where they were hiding.As soon as they had reached the place where they were hiding they had come to know that it was Dadua Gang which was firing.They were hiding towards east of the place of occurrence, about 20-25 paces away where there were little bushes.To the north of tractor, dead body of Munni Lal was lying while west of the said tractor, the dead body of Harish Chand was burning.At the time when they reached there, the dead body of Munni Lal was not burning rather he was groaning on the ground and prior to reaching there, both of them had already been fired upon and after having reached there, 10-15 minutes thereafter the miscreants set the dead bodies on fire.Thereafter, this witness had modified the statement stating that the place from where they were witnessing the incident was 8-10 paces away and the accused could not have seen them.About 8.00 p.m. and 8.30 p.m. they had reached home and there he gave information of the incident to the family members of the deceased at the school and it was also told that four persons had made fire upon the deceased and that the dead body of Munni Lal was dragged and was placed on the burning body of Harish Chand.He had stated to the police that 30-35 persons armed with guns, out of whom four were making fire upon the deceased Munni Lal and after dragging him he was placed upon the burning dead body of the deceased.The entire statements of this witness are full of discrepancies with respect to hearing sound of firing and place of occurrence having been seen from the distance where they were concealing themselves.This witness has admitted that by the time he reached near the place of incident, fire had already been made upon the deceased, therefore his statement is found to be self contradictory with respect to having seen four accused who have not been named to have fired upon the deceased although he has stated that 30-35 persons were there armed with guns at the place of incident belonging to Dadua gang.He has admitted that it was pitch dark, therefore, in our assessment it would be very difficult to have witnessed the incident particularly identification of the accused in the light of fire which is alleged to be there because of burning of rear wheel of tractor as well as the tractor's light.It is common knowledge that tractor light would always focuss in front of it and not the side ways.This witness has stated to have concealed himself in bushes towards eastern side of the place of incident while the passage on which the tractor was stopped and incident happened is going north to south, therefore, the light of tractor could not have lighted the area nearby the said tractor, side ways where the incident is reported to have happened of making assault on the deceased and setting them on fire by the accused persons.It is also argued that the light of burning tyre would form huge smoke of the kind which would make visibility further low and silhouette would not be sufficient to identify the accused.We find substance in this argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the light in which it is being stated by this witness to have seen this incident, does not inspire confidence.Further, the fact that this witness had seen the incident for about half hour and thereafter he went to the village to inform about the incident to the relative of the deceased and yet no names of the accused were disclosed by him to be involved in the incident, is illogical.Had he seen the incident, he certainly would have told the names of the accused to the family members of the deceased and consequently their names ought to have been mentioned in the FIR and therefore, we find that the names of the accused were being taken by him only on the basis of their being the members of the gang of Dadua.We do not find the testimony of this witness credible with respect to having seen the incident.Aditya Narain (PW2) who was also with Sant Das (PW1) at the time of defecating has stated that after hearing sound of fire, when they proceeded towards the place from where fires were being made, just 25-30 paces before the place of incident, he saw that members of the gang of Dadua made fires upon Harish Chand and Munni Lal, dead bodies of both of them were lying near rear wheel of tractor.On the cultivator of the tractor, drum full of diesel was kept on which fire was made, as a result of which diesel had spread towards dead body of Munni Lal and Harish Chand and miscreants put fire to it by which the said area became quite lighted and the light of the tractor was also on and in the light of both, he had seen Dadua, Angad, Radhey, Tehsildar @ Rohni, Chhota Patel, Munshia Kol, Raju Kol, Anirudhdha Yadav, Bhonda @ Gotar, Ashok Kol, Ram Sagar and Sunil.He knew them from before because they used to visit there.The place of incident was 50 paces away from Bardaha river and village was situated towards east at a distance of about one and half kms.He had seen the occurrence from a distance of 30 paces.The miscreants were known to him for last 17-18 years who were armed with rifle and other weapons but he had not seen them making fire because the deceased had already been shot dead before their reaching there.He had seen them firing upon the drum.The miscreants had made fire in his presence.He was present on the spot for about half hour.The double barrel gun of the deceased Munni Lal along with cartridges had been taken away by the miscreants and thereafter they had left towards Pahar and he with his companion went to his village and would give information to the family members of the deceased as well as other villagers and also informed by mobile phone to P.S. Manikpur.He also identified Radhey, Tehsildar, Bhonda @ Gotar in court, who have remained involved in the incident.In cross examination, this witness has stated that he is unaware as to who were members of Dadua gang but was recognising Radhey, Tehsildar and Rohani because they were in jail for last three years.This would indicate that he did not know the accused and was naming them only because they had been seen in jail.This witness had further stated that he does not recollect the names of those persons who had told him about the incident, however, on the basis of what had been told by them, he was stating before the Court.The statement of this witness appears to show that he was not eye witness as per his own admission.Again, this witness has stated that they had gone for the nature's call at about 5.00 pm without having any gun i.e, empty handed which is again in contradiction with the other eye-witnesses' statements because there was statement made by PW1 that all the four witnesses had gone for nature's call together and one of them had a gun.This witness has further stated that after hearing sound of firing, they had proceeded from village Maugurdari towards place of incident and had heard about 50 fires, all the four witnesses Ram Dayal, Sant Das, Rajendra Prasad and he himself had gone there and had returned from there and thereafter they stayed for whole time in school situated in the village, where Chunni Lal and the wife of Munni Lal were present, apart from other family members, whom he had told about the incident.This statement would show that the version of the prosecution that all the four witnesses had gone for the nature's call towards Bardaha river and from there they had gone near the place of incident after hearing sound of fire, stands belied because according to above statement of this witness, they had heard sound of fire in the village Maugurdari and from there they had proceeded to near place of incident from where they had seen the incident.Further, this witness has stated that Sant Das who was with him, had told Chunni Lal and other villagers about the incident including the names of the accused and had also told on telephone to S.O. Manikpur about incident whereon police had come on the place of occurrence in the night where all the villagers were present.He himself had not gone to the place of incident, therefore, he could not tell about the incident nor had he accompanied the police to the place of incident because of which he could not tell what proceedings were done by the police.This statement is also self contradictory as well as in contravention with the statement of scribe Suraj Mishra because Suraj Mishra has stated that he came to know about the incident from the police for the first time and not by this witness while according to this witness police had arrived at the place of incident on phone being given to the police by his companion Sant Das.Further, It is also beyond comprehension as to when this witness had spoken to police about the names of the accused and why the names of accused could not be mentioned in the FIR.It is also beyond comprehension as to why this witness did not accompany police to the place of incident in the night when according to him police had come there in the night.These anomalies make this witness's statement to be questionable.This witness has further stated that the place where they were defecating, from there the place of incident was not visible.They had become free from nature's call in 15 to 20 minutes and it was 7.30 p.m. by then when they had heard 7-8 fires and thereafter when they reached near the place of incident they heard 2-4 fires further and apart from these fires, about 50 fires were also heard within 10 to 15 minutes.From the place where they were defecating and the place of incident is 500 meters away and from the said place of defecating, they reached near the place of incident by concealing themselves in jungle.This statement also seems to be in contravention with his above given statement that firing was heard by them in village Maugurdari and from there they had proceeded to near the place of incident, hence there is inconsistency in the testimony of this witness with respect to his having seen the incident.The next eye witness PW3 Rajendra Mishra has stated that he had heard the sound of fire when he had gone for nature's call near Ramghat and after hearing the same taking cover of bushes, they reached near the place of incident which was about 20-25 paces away from the place of incident and after having reached there they heard 25-30 fires and saw that the dead body of Harish Chand was burning and dead body of Munni Lal was being dragged and was being placed on the dead body of Harish Chand by the miscreants.The miscreants had spilled diesel after making fire upon the drum full of diesel which was kept on the cultivator of the tractor, upon the dead bodies and put it to fire which resulted in diesel catching fire apart from burning of the of the dead bodies of the two deceased.In the flames of the fire so generated, there was enough light in which he had seen Dadua dacoit (deceased) Radhey, Tehsildar, Bhonda @ Botar and Angad (deceased), Rajua, Chelwa, Harish Chand, Phool Chand, Hira, Ashok, Sunil, Munshia, Ram Sagar, Aniruddha who all had guns in their hands and he had seen Hari Shankar making fire which hit the body of the tractor.It has also stated that he had seen that Radhey picked up the gun of the deceased.He stayed there for half an hour and had seen the accused Radhey, Tehsildar, Bhonda @ Gotar, Ram Sagar, Munshia and Ashok putting fire and also making fire shots.After half hour, these miscreants proceeded towards Chilbal Pahar.Thereafter, they had come home and Aditya had given information to the police station and his father Chunni Lal had given Tehrir at the police station.He remained at home for two days continuously because of fear and he talked to his father on the third day about 12 noon.In cross examination, this witness has stated that when he returned from the place of incident, people were assembled in the school, he did not stop there although his companion Ram Dayal, Aditya and Sant Das had stayed there.When he reached the place of incident, the miscreants were standing there.He had not seen the firing because they had reached there 4-5 minutes after the fire.Dadua, Angad, Radhey, Tehsildar, Bhonda @ Gotar, Ram Sagar, Munshia, Phool Chand, Ashok, Sunil, Hira, Aniruddha and Hari Shankar used to always remain with gang but he had not seen them with the gang nor had he seen them causing any incident except the present one.After having seen the incident, he did not go to lodge FIR at Police Station, Manikpur for three days nor he made any FIR nor he told about the incident to his father although informant Chunni Lal is his father and the deceased is his real uncle and Harish Chand is his cousin brother.This conduct of the witness does not inspire confidence that despite being so closely related to the deceased, he did not lodge any FIR, nor had he told anything about the incident to his father which is quite abnormal.He has admitted in the statement above that he had not seen the deceased having been fired by any of the accused who have been named above by him as he had reached there subsequent to the firing although he is claiming to have seen the accused having burnt bodies of the deceased by diesel and putting fire to it.His testimony also does not inspire confidence in respect of his having seen the occurrence.The last eye witness Ram Dayal Tiwari (PW4) has stated in examination-in -Chief that when they had gone for nature's call and heard fire at about 8.00 pm on 11.8.2006 they proceeded towards the place where fire was being heard and saw from a distance of 30-35 paces concealing themselves that fire was burning and front and real lights of the tractor were on.One dead body was kept by miscreants towards right wheel of the tractor and miscreants had made fire on the drum of diesel kept on the cultivator because of which diesel started flow out of it and caught fire and there become a lot of light there due to flames, in which he saw the men of Dadua gang, comprising Dadua, Angad, Chelwa, Ram Sagar, Radhey, Tehsildar, Bhonda @ Gotar and many persons of Chamroha Sakroha, Hira, Lal Tiwari in all 16-18 persons.The miscreants were making fires.They stayed there for quarter of an hour and continued to witness the incident whereafter the accused fled to Chiraul Pahar.All the four witnesses had guns with them when they had gone for nature's call.The SHO had come there in the night of incident itself about 12.00 O clock and stayed there for four hours near the dead bodies.All of them including the villagers had told the Inspector that the incident was done by Dadua Gang and thereafter all of them had gone to the place of incident on foot and found the tractor in burnt condition and both the dead bodies were also in burnt condition.Then only they could know that Munni Lal and Harish Chand were killed and not prior to that to which the Inspector had told them that Dadua Gang had murdered Harish Chand and Munni Lal and he subsequently changed his statement to the effect that they had told the Inspector that the incident was caused by Dadua Gang.They had not gone to the place of incident prior to coming of the Inspector.Rajendra, Sant Das, Aditya Narain had also accompanied the Inspector to the place of incident and prior to that they had not gone to the place of incident.When they were hearing sound of fire in the village, right then Aditya Narain of the village had telephoned the Inspector saying that miscreants were making fire in the jungle and that Harish Chand and Munni Lal had been killed.After having made the said phone, about four hours thereafter, all the people of village had assembled in the school and when police reached the place of incident, real brother of deceased Munni Lal i.e. Chunni Lal and his four sons were present.He had not seen Chunni Lal or his sons giving anything in writing to the Inspector.When they had reached the place of incident, it was absolutely dark and without light of torch nothing could be seen and the Inspector had shown them after lighting the torch that Munni Lal and Harish Chand were lying there in burnt condition.At the place of incident there was a Kachcha passage for bullock-kart and there was dense forest on either side.He had seen Dadua gang eight years ago and knew Dadua, Nakua, Angad and Rajua, Tehsildar because they used to come for canvassing in the village, since thereafter he had not seen them.It also appears that there is discrepancy in his statement with respect to having seen the accused making fire upon the deceased because according to him they had reached there after the fires had already been made upon the deceased rather the dead bodies were in the process of being burnt.He has claimed to know the accused named-above from before only on the basis that he had seen them earlier also eight years ago when Dadua gang had come for canvassing there and not thereafter.Eight years ago is a long time and in the light of fire which is alleged to be there on account of burning of diesel, it does not appear feasible that this witness could have identified the accused as to who was dragging the dead body of Munni Lal for being placed on the dead body of Harish Chand.His statement is not found to be confidence inspiring in this regard.From the statement of all the four eye witnesses, the relevant parts of whose statements are discussed above, it appears that all the witnesses were not eye witnesses of the incident.They appear to have heard sound of fires in the jungle where incident is stated to have taken place, from long distance and after hearing the fire, they appear to have guessed that it would have been caused by gang of Dadua who might have killed the two deceased who had gone out for taking diesel because the said gang was operative in the said area in those days.It is only after the incident had happened they appear to have gone there with the police and found that the two deceased were murdered and their dead bodies were set on fire.We reach this conclusion only because there are huge discrepancies in the statement of these eye witnesses of the incident as well as scribe of the FIR in respect of lodging the FIR and place of incident had been seen by them from the distance which is being stated to be 25-35 paces away.We have strong doubt that these witnesses could have seen the deceased being burnt after having been killed by the accused-appellants.None of the witnesses has stated to have seen the accused having made fire upon the deceased and whatever evidence has been given from the side of the prosecution indicates that they have tried to depose that they had seen the two deceased being set upon fire by the miscreants, which does not appear to be feasible to have been seen in the light of diesel fire.It also appears to us that only because of suspicion the names of these accused appellants appears to have been taken by the witnesses because they were supposed to be the members of Dadua gang, but the suspension how so ever strong, cannot take place of proof.It was required of the prosecution to prove beyond doubt that the accused persons had been seen by the witnesses murdering the deceased and thereafter setting them on fire but that has not been done.From the side of Learned Government Advocate, a list of members of gang of Radhey @ Subedar son of Mithai Lal Kurmi, resident of village Sapha, P.S. Kotwali, Kavri, District Chitrakoot (HS No. 120A) which is known as 1S-112 has been provided in which the names of seven hard-core members of the said gang and 18 adhoc members of the said gang have been mentioned among whom three accused namely Radhey @ Subedar son of Mithai Lal, resident of village Sapha, P.S. Kotwali Karvi, Bhonda @ Gotar son of Bhairo Chamar, resident of Ahira, P.S. Raipura, P.S. Raipura Rohni @ Tehsildar son of Shiv Mohan Kurmi, resident of Unna Banna, P.S. Raipura, all belonging to District Chitrakoot are shown among hardcore category members of the said gang while accused Phool Chand Kol @ Langra son of Vishnoo, resident of Daooa Majra Khandeha, P.S.Mau, Sunil Kumar son of Mewa Lal Brahman, resident of Chamroha, P.S. Manikpur both resident of Chitrakoot have been shown to be adhoc members of the said gang and it was argued that this gang was being led by Dadua and it was vehemently argued that because of fear of that gang, no one used to come forward to depose against them and that there was sufficient evidence on record to hold the accused-appellants guilty despite the fact that, there were several deficiencies/discrepancies in the statement of witnesses as they should be taken to be natural one, because such kind of discrepancy may occur when statements of witnesses are recorded at distant point of time.We are not inclined to accept the argument of the learned G.A. with respect to the discrepancies found in the statements of witnesses because severer the punishment, tougher must be the scrutiny of evidence which is adduced from the side of prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, more so in a case where death penalty has been awarded.Although it is beyond doubt that the two deceased have been killed and their post-mortems were conducted which have been proved by PW5 Dr. Mani Ram Ambedkar but nothing much has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants in this regard.It was pointed out by them that on both the dead bodies, line of redness was found present, therefore, it was stated that this shows that at the time when they were burnt, they might have been alive and could not be said with certainly that prior to their being burnt, they had been killed.Hence, it was further argued that the incident might have taken place in some other manner than in the manner as stated by the prosecution.We do not want to enter into this aspect of the case as to whether prior to the deceased being burnt, they were alive or not because this argument was probably made to highlight that if they were alive prior to being burnt, they would have screamed out loud but that would not lead us to draw different conclusion than what we have already mentioned above.The fact stands that both the deceased have been killed which is beyond doubt, what was important in this case was for the prosecution to prove beyond doubt that it was the accused-appellants who actually had caused their death and we have not found on the basis of prosecution evidence, proved beyond doubt that actually accused-appellants were the persons who had killed them.After having made a meticulous and in depth analysis of the evidence which has come on record, we are unable to convince ourselves with the finding given by the trial court on the basis of believing the testimonies of four eye witnesses of this case because we find their testimonies full of number of lacunas/discrepancies with respect to material aspects/circumstances and after having scrutinized the whole evidence of these eye witnesses, we have come to the conclusion that their testimonies do not inspire confidence as they do not appear to have seen the incident with their own eyes, strongest proof of which is that had they seen the occurrence, the names of the accused certainly would have been mentioned in the FIR, which is not the case in hand and it is also apprehended that none of them had seen the accused-appellants making fire upon the deceased and we have found that it was not feasible for these witnesses to have seen the incident particularly when the accused-appellants are alleged to have given effect to the incident in the night hours when there was complete dark, only in the light of fire which is said to have taken place on account of fire having been made upon the drum of diesel as well as the fire arising out of burning of tyre of the tractor, more so from a distance which is being stated by these witnesses from where they have seen the incident.Had they been present there, there would be strong possibility of their being fired upon by the assailants as well.It appears that these witnesses have come to know about the incident only when it had already taken place in the middle of jungle on a lonely passage and thereafter they had reached there with the police and had found dead bodies of the deceased as well as the tractor in damaged condition and pursuant to that on the basis of conjecture, FIR appears to have been lodged in this case against Dadua gang.Therefore, t8he judgment and order dated 07.05.2016 passed by Special Judge, D.A.A Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Chitrakoot, is hereby set aside.The death sentence reference made by the trial court for confirmation of the sentence of the appellants Bhonda alias Gotar, Rohini alias Tehsildar and Radhey thus stands rejected.In view of the aforesaid, the accused Bhonda alias Gotar, Rohini alias Tehsildar, Radhey involved in SST No. 240A of 2006 (State vs. Bhonda alias Gotar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.53 of 2006 under sections 148, 302 read with section 149, 201/149, 404/149, 429/149 IPC and section 14 D.A.A. Act, accused Ramsagar involved in SST No. 240B of 2006 (State of U.P. Vs.Ramsagar) arising out Case Crime No. 53 of 2006 under sections 148, 302 read with 149, 201/149, 404/149, 427/149 IPC and section 14 D.A.A. Act and accused Munshiwa involved in SST No. 240A of 2006 arising out of Case Crime No. 53 of 2006 under sections 148, 302/149, 201/149, 404/149, 427/149 IPC and 14 D.A.A Act, Police Station Manikpur, District Chitrakoot are acquitted of the above charges, if they are not detained in any other case, they shall be set at liberty forthwith subject to their furnishing bail bonds in terms of section 437-A, Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of the court concerned.A copy of this judgment be transmitted to the trial court forthwith for immediate compliance along with original record of this case.The appeals stand allowed.Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 15.2.2019 AU/A.P. Pandey

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 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']

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

The facts very briefly are that the respondent was married to Vijaya Bala.Vijaya Bala died on 27-06-1994 by consuming poison and committing suicide at her residential apartment in Soverign Shelter Apartments, Hyderabad.After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondent under Sections 306 and 498A, IPC.The Trial Court, however, found that the deceased Vijaya Bala had left a suicide note (Ext.P1) addressed to the police to the effect that no one was responsible for the death of the deceased and there was no pressure either from her parents, husband (respondent), children or friends and relatives and that the decision to commit suicide was taken by her on her own will and the suicide note was also signed by the deceased.The Trial Court, after considering the contents of Ext. P1 and after considering all other evidence, held that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent had abetted the deceased to commit suicide and accordingly acquitted the respondent of the charges under Sections 498A and 306, IPC.Aggrieved, the State carried Criminal Appeal No. 1207 of 2002 and by the impugned judgment, the High Court held that the suicide note said to have been left behind by the deceased wife and marked as Ext.P1, obviously exonerates the respondent on both the charges under Sections 498A and 306, IPC.The High Court further held that it was discernible from the evidence that the deceased had a suicidal tendency which was expressed on several occasions and except the only circumstance that the door was bolted from outside there was no other evidence that was available on record against the respondent and there was also no evidence that the respondent had subjected the deceased to any harassment or cruelty.Accordingly, the High Court did not interfere with the order of acquittal.So far as Criminal Appeal No. 1605 of 2007 is concerned, the same was filed by the complainant and it has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the parties that the complainant has expired during the pendency of the criminal appeal.Hence this criminal appeal abates.In support of Criminal Appeal No. 1604 of 2007 filed by the State, learned counsel for the State Mr. D. Mahesh Babu submitted that there was evidence of PW 1, the son of the deceased, to show that there were quarrels between the deceased and the accused over the innumerable loans taken by the accused and that the accused used to take away the salary of the deceased who was employed as a teacher.He further submitted that there was also evidence of PW 1 that the accused used to lock the house from outside and keep with him the keys with the deceased inside the house.He argued that the aforesaid evidence makes out the case of harassment, cruelty and abetment of suicide and therefore, the respondent was guilty of the charges under Sections 498A and 306, IPC.We have perused the evidence of PW 1 and we find that the respondent had taken PW 1 and his younger brother for a movie when the deceased committed suicide.This is what PW 1 has stated in his evidence with regard to what happened on the day the deceased committed suicide:“...On the fateful day, neither myself nor my father requested my mother to accompany us to see movie, as my mother was in a disturbed mood and my father asked us not to press her to come along with us.It is not true to suggest that there were no quarrel on that day and that I am saying for the first time contradictory statement.My father did not quarrel with us on that day.Myself and my brother accompanied my father to watch movie willfully, my mother did not oppose for us to go to movie and did not oppose for being the main door locked from outside of the home.My mother did not put the lock from outside or that she would bolt the door from inside by herself.At the time when we were leaving from our flat my mother was well awake and saw us going for movie.My mother knows that we were going to movie.My brother also told my mother that we are all going to movie.My mother did not show any interest to accompany us.Neither my father nor myself or my brother ever had any thought that she would attempt to commit suicide.” It is clear from the aforesaid evidence of PW 1 that the deceased herself opted not to go to the movie on that day along with the respondent and their two sons and neither the respondent nor the two sons had any thought that the deceased would commit suicide when they have gone to the movie.This being the evidence of the prosecution witness (PW 1), we fail to see how the case for abetment of suicide by the respondent could be made out, particularly when the deceased had left behind a suicide note (Ext. P1) absolving the respondent and all others from the responsibility for the step taken by her to commit suicide by taking poison.We have noticed from the evidence of PW 1 that on the day the deceased committed suicide, the respondent was not in any way guilty of any willful conduct which was likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide, nor did the respondent cause any grave injury to the deceased.Clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 498A, IPC states that harassment of a woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand amounts to 'cruelty'.Though PW 1 has stated that the respondent used to take away the salary of the deceased, he has very fairly conceded in cross examination that he had not stated before the police that the respondent used to take away the salary of the deceased.The appeals are accordingly dismissed.

['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.

WP-18818/2017 & WP-19320-2017 5

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

( 28.03.2019) This petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C has been filed for quashment of the criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 24/2018 pending before the JMFC, Niwadi, District Tikamgarh arising out of Crime No. 175/2016 under section 420 of the IPC.The facts giving rise to this petition are that the applicant no.1 and 2 were working as Sarpanch and Secre- tary of Gram Baraipura, Janpad Panchayat Niwadi and they sanctioned Rs.1.74 lacs for digging well under the Kapil Dhara Scheme of the government on the application filed by 2 M.Cr.About which in the year 2010 the said Ram Kumar made complaint to the Collector Tikamgarh that he never submitted application for digging well on his land and on the forged application of his name, the accused persons had got the amount sanctioned and utilized it by digging well on the land of Survey No. 412, which belong to his uncle and the family members of the ac- cused persons and in this way the applicants fraudulently misused the office by way of cheating benefited to their fam- ily members and themselves.In this regard earlier revenue officers have made inquiry several times and found that Sur- vey No. 412 on which the well was digged belong to the joint ownership of complainant Ram Kumar and his uncle Lachu.Ram Kumar filed complaint before the Special Judge (Preven- tion of Atrocities) Act, District Tikamgarh, which was sent for investigation to the police station Teharka and report dated 02/11/2012 of the police station shows that no offence has been committed and construction of the well has been found in accordance with the rules on the land of joint ownership of complainant and other family member of him and the com- plaint was dismissed with the observation that no offence un- der Prevention of Atrocities Act is made out and no sanction has been taken and if any offence under Indian Penal Code is 3 M.Cr.C No.34794/2018 made out the complainant is free to take action in accordance with law.Thereafter again complaint was made to the Collec- tor and in compliance of letter dated 23/12/2016 written by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Niwadi police reg- istered the aforesaid offence and police further investigated the matter and during the investigation no record with regard to application of Ram Kumar has been recovered as not avail- able in the concerned office and thereafter charge sheet has been filed under section 420 of the IPC stating that the appli- cant/accused persons have fraudulently withdrawn the money and utilized to provide benefit to themselves or to their rela- tive.Hence the proceeding be quashed.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the re- spondents opposed the aforesaid contention and stated that the inquiry made by the revenue officers or officer belonging to Janpad Panchayat establish that the applicants have mis- used their office and withdrawn the money in the name of Ram Kumar and utilized for providing benefit to other per- sons or themselves, hence the petition be dismissed.The com- 5Hence this petition deserves to be allowed.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

b)Bank Account details along with transcripts of himself and his familymembers and their companies.c)Ration Card/Voter I.D.Cardd)Details of immovable properties held in India by him/family members,name, companies name, viz., M/s.Chivas Trading Corporation, Trichy.Solicitor General of India:COMMON ORDER In these writ petitions, the challenge is to the summons issued by theDirectorate of Enforcement, Madurai, calling upon the petitioners to appearbefore the designated authority on 15.07.2014 at 11.00 a.m.The petitioner namely R.Geetha, in W.P(MD)No.11526 of 2014 isMrs.R.Geetha, partner of the same who has been directed to appear in person/authorised agent and it has not been specifically mentioned whether she hasto appear in person or through authorised agent, and has been directed toproduce the same documents/records as that of the other writ petitioner.B.Saravanan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitionerssubmits that the impugned summons is bad in law for several reasons.It ispointed out that Section 50 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act,2002,(hereinafter referred as the Act) enumerates the power of the authorityregarding the summon for production of the documents and to give evidenceetc.It is submitted that under Section 50(1) of the Act, the powersare vested with a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973, whiletrying a suit in respect of the matters like discovery and inspection,enforcing the attendance of any person and compelling production of recordsand receiving evidence on affidavits, issuing commissions of examination ofwitnesses and documents and any other matter, which may be prescribed havebeen conferred on the authority exercising power under Section 50 of the Act.The provision reads asfollows:12.Reporting entity to maintain records.-(1)Every reporting entity shall(a)maintain a record of all transactions, including informationrelating to transactions covered under clause (b) in such manner as to enableit to reconstruct individual transactions;(b)furnish to the Director within such time as may be prescribed,information relating to such transactions, whether attempted or executed, thenature and value of which may be prescribed;(C)verify the identity of its clients in such manner and subject tosuch conditions, as may be prescribed;(d)identify the beneficial owner, if any, of such of its clients, asmay be prescribed;(e)maintain record of documents evidencing identity of its clients andbeneficial owners as well as account files and business correspondencerelating to its clients".Thepetitioners fearing arrest, approached this Court seeking for anticipatorybail in Crl.The application foranticipatory bail was resisted by the respondent police as well as theintervenor one Mr.Mahesh and this Court after considering the rivalsubmissions, ordered to release the petitioners on bail in the event oftheir arrest subject to certain conditions and the operative portion of theorder reads as follows:"5.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and on perusalof the typed set of papers and records, it shows that the petitioners hereinhave borrowed money from the de-facto complainant for their agriculturalpurposes to the tune of Rs.2,06,00,000/-.6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail inthe event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned JudicialMagistrate No.IV, Tirhcy, and on each of them executing a bond for a sum ofRs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)with two sureties each for a like sumto the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on furthercondition that the petitioners shall report before the Court concerned dailyat 10.30 a.m until further orders.The petitioners shall comply with thecondition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously.The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate withina period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failingwhich, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed."Therefore, learned Counsel forthe petitioners submitted that the impugned summons deserves to be quashed.Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India,accepts notice for the respondent and submitted that the details mentioned inthe schedule to the summon are essentially required for conductinginvestigation under the provision of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, and thedocuments sought for are well within the scope and ambit of Section 12 of theAct.The further contention is that the matter is under investigation and asummon may not be quashed at the very threshold as it would ramper theinvestigation and the petitioners are bound to co-operate with the smoothconduct of the investigation.After hearing the learned Counsels and perusing the materialsplaced on record, it is seen that out of four documents sought for by thepetitioners, the documents (a) & (c) are the Passport, Ration Card/Voter I.DCard.Therefore, the petitioners have to defend themselves in thatproceedings independently.So far, the documents (b) and (c) mentioned inthe summons they are pertaining to bank details with the transcripts of thepetitioners and the family members and their Companies and other relate tothe immovable properties held by the petitioners in India and by their familymembers, Companies namly viz., M/s. Chivas Trading Corporation.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC.CRIMINAL CASE NO.45841 OF 2020 (Rafiq vs The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 03.12.2020 Heard the Counsel through Video Conferencing.Mr. Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the Applicant.Mr. Sagar Muley, learned counsel for the Non- Applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant has made elaborate submissions which have been replied to by the learned counsel for State.In this matter, case diary needs to be perused.The same be sent over through Email.The order shall be passed after perusal of the case diary.Later on:Case diary was perused.It appears that there was a standing dispute between the deceased Ali and Bablu on account of supplying construction material.On 22.06.2020 at about 9:45 pm, when deceased-Ali was coming in a motorcycle to his home Badnagar followed by his brother Shahdab and Amjad in 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC.CRIMINAL CASE NO.45841 OF 2020 (Rafiq vs The State of Madhya Pradesh) another motorcycle, co-accused Bablu, Aslam, Altaf and Najju came with iron rod and stick and assaulted deceased- Ali.Shahdab and Amjad rescued Ali and thereafter the present applicant - Rafiq who is the father of Bablu, Chand and Tipu came and assaulted Ali with Lathis and present applicant-Rafiq also fired from his fire arm.A report was lodged by Ali within an hour of the incident.However, complainant-Ali succumbed to his injuries after 4-5 days, thereafter offence was enhanced from Section 307 IPC to 302 IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to prior enmity whole family of Bablu including the present applicant have been roped in as an accused.Learned counsel further submits that it is extremely unnatural story that when four persons had already dealt blows with iron rods and lathis' etc on deceased-Ali and those four persons had already left then how the applicant would come with other co-accused persons and would again assaulted Ali.Learned counsel for the non-applicant/State was also 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC.CRIMINAL CASE NO.45841 OF 2020 (Rafiq vs The State of Madhya Pradesh) heard who has stated that the report has been lodged by deceased Ali immediately after the incident and allegations have been made against the present applicant and that stick has been seized from the possession of applicant as also the firearm.It is further submitted that multiple injuries have been caused to Ali which itself shows that there was an intention to cause murder of Ali.The Dehati Nalisi report was recorded by injured Ali at 22:35 pm in the night in which it has been specifically stated that after complainant Ali was assaulted by Bablu etc and thereafter while he was being taken to the hospital, the applicant - Rafiq who is the father of Bablu came along with Chand and Tipu and they snatched the complainant-Ali from his brother and again assaulted with lathis.On the very next day, the statements under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code of injured Ali were recorded in which he has stated that the present applicant - Rafiq had also fired from his pistol, a used cartridge has been recovered from the spot and a firearm with a live cartridge has also been recovered from the present applicant.This apart, a stick has also been recovered from him.The postmortem report shows that as many as eight injuries in the forearm, left wrist, left elbow and left lower limb, tibia and left knee and death has been shown 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC.CRIMINAL CASE NO.45841 OF 2020 (Rafiq vs The State of Madhya Pradesh) to be caused due to cardio respiratory failure as a result of multiple injuries.Although the injuries are shown to be on non-vital parts, but there are numerous injuries with great force applied which has resulted in fracture at many places in the limbs of deceased.Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant stands rejected.(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE Arun/-

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

It is also submitted that besides there being absence of element of threat or coercion, it is also true that prosecutrix had visited Court and had signed certain papers which according to appellant No.1 were signed for the purpose of making a registered marriage before notary and in view of such facts, conviction of appellants No.2, 3 and 4 should be set-aside.[3] It is further submitted by learned counsel or the appellants that as far as appellant No.1 is concerned, it is submitted that it is a case of consent and according to Dr. S.J. Beg (PW-1), age of the prosecutrix was 17 years when she was brought to her on 06.03.2012 by Constable Sudesh Sharma.She was undergoing menstrual cycle at the time of examination and she was sent for sonography and x-ray examination.Her secondary sexual characters including the breast were well developed.(22.06.2019) This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.05.2013 passed by the Court of the Special Judge, Guna, in Sessions Case No.208/2012, whereby appellants have been convicted under Sections 363/34, 366/34 and 506 (Part-2) of IPC and sentenced to undergo 5 years, seven years and one year's R.I. each with fine of Rs.1,000/-, 1,000/- & 5,00/-each respectively, with default stipulation.Appellant No.1- Mokam has also been convicted under Section 376 (1) of IPC and-( 2 )- Cr.A. No. 588/2013 sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with default stipulation.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.[2] It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that as far as appellants No.2, 3 & 4 are concerned, they have been falsely implicated.It is submitted that even father of the prosecutrix, Udham Singh (PW-2) has admitted in Para 9 of his cross-examination that when his girl was taken away from the field, he was not present at the scene of incident.Therefore, it cannot be said that other persons had forcefully taken prosecutrix along-with the main accused - Mokam Sahariya, who has been charged under Section 376 (1) of IPC.It is also submitted that when testimony of prosecutrix (PW-3) is read, then it is apparent that she has clearly deposed in Para 2 that when she was on her field, then Mokam had approached her and had threatened her of beating her brother, father and mother and asked her to accompany him, then she had accompanied Mokam, Janak, Parvat Singh and Kallu to a place called Hathikudan.From Hathikudan, she was taken to Court where certain papers were made to be signed by her and thereafter she was taken to Akoda at the place of maternal aunt of Mokam where Mokam had committed rape on her and prior to that other persons had left her in the house of maternal aunt of Mokam.There is no element of use of force or allegation of use of force against Janak, Parvat Singh and Kallu, therefore, ingredients of Sections 363 & 366 of IPC are not made out.-( 3 )- Cr.A. No. 588/2013 since no role has been ascribed to appellants No.2, 3 and 4 of enticing or taking away the prosecutrix from the lawful guardianship of her parents or without her consent, therefore, offence under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC will not be made out.At the best they can be considered to be friends to Mokam Sahariya who is the main accused.There were no injury marks on any part of the body including genitals and she had not complained of any pain, swelling or any other symptoms to the Doctor.It is pointed out that according to PW-1, two fingures were easily entering the vagina of prosecutrix and her hymen was old torn.In view of such evidence, it is submitted that prosecutrix was habitual of sex and since she was sent-( 4 )- Cr.A. No. 588/2013 for x-ray, ossification test would have revealed her actual age.It is also submitted that amendment has been made in Section 375 of IPC with effect from 03.02.2013 and incident had taken place prior to 03.02.2013, whereby age of consent has been enhanced from 16 years to 18 years under clause 6 (3), and therefore, on the date of incident since age of prosecutrix was above 16 years, it is a case of consent.The minimum age prescribed on the date of commission of offence was 16 years, thus in case this Court is not convinced on the merits, then reducing the sentence of appellant No.1 from 10 years to the period already undergone by him, his remaining sentence can be declared as undergone.[4] Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal and submits that there is no suggestion to the prosecutrix as to her consent and on the contrary she has denied the suggestion in Para 10 and also denied the suggestion that a false report has been lodged against Mokam.Her complete testimony reveals that she has deposed mainly against appellant No.1 and such testimony has remained unrebutted.She had taken admission in school on 08.07.2000 i.e. at the age of 6 years.The incident had taken place on 19.02.2011, intimation was received on 28.02.2011 and-( 5 )- Cr.A. No. 588/2013 report was lodged on 06.03.2012 at 17:00 hours.It has come on record that prosecutrix stayed with appellant No.1 for over 10 months and she did not complain anybody about such incident or she being kept in captivity by Mokam.In para 8, she had admitted that she had travelled in bus from Court to Akoda.She has also admitted that she was visiting the field along with Mokam during 10 months' stay at Hathikudan, and thereafter, she had met her aunt at Guna with whom she had travelled to her father.Though she denied suggestion that her father wanted to marry her to somebody-else, however, she has admitted that she remained admitted in Sadora hospital.She even did not inform anybody during her admission at Sadora hospital as to the fact that appellant Mokam was forcefully keeping her with him and has abducted her.Thus, it is evident that there is evidence on record to accept the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that it was case of consent, which for certain reasons turned into hostility resulting in criminal trial.Thus, charge under Section 376 (1) of IPC is not made out against appellant No.1 because there appears to be an element of consent, however, charge under Section 363 of IPC is made out as at the time of incident, age of prosecutrix was less than 18 years.As per Section 361 of IPC, whoever takes or entices any minor under eighteen years of age if such minor is a female, with a view to keep her out of the lawful custody of the guardian, without consent of-( 6 )- Cr.A. No. 588/2013 such guardian, then offence of kidnapping of such minor person from lawful guardianship is made out.The conviction and sentence of appellants No.2 to 4 awarded by the trial Court is set-aside [7] As far as appellant No.1-Mokam is concerned, as he is in custody for more than 6 years, looking to the age of appellant No.1 who was about 22 years of age at the time of incident and facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal in regard to appellant No.1 is partly allowed, his conviction and sentence under Section 376 (1) of IPC is set-aside.However, conviction of appellant No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 506 (Part 2) of IPC is maintained and his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him.[8] Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in above terms.-( 7 )- Cr.A. No. 588/2013 From the record, it appears that the appellants No.2 to 4 are on bail.[9] Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.(Vivek Agarwal) Judge Aman Aman Tiwari 2019.06.29 17:10:38 +05'30'

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(R2 impleaded as per the order of this Court made in M.P.No.1 of 2011) PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 ofCriminal Procedure Code, to call for records in C.C.No.460 of 2010 on thefile of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and quash the charge sheetand consequential further proceedings so far as against the petitioner isconcerned.For Petitioner : Mr.Saravanan For Respondent :Mr.V.Neelakandan, APP for R1 Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, senior counsel for Mr.J.Anandakumar for R2 :Order This quash petition is filed to quash the criminal proceedings inC.C.No.460 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Dindigul,having been taken cognizance for the alleged offence under Sections 406, 465,466, 468, 474, 420 and 120(b) of I.P.C., registered in crime No.29 of 2009 onthe file of the first respondent police.2.The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/defactocomplainant lodged a complaint alleging that he has been occupying thepremises of the petitioner admeasuring 1600 sq.ft.for the past 10 years as atenant.While being so, the petitioner offered to sell that premises alongwith the adjacent site situated in S.No.20/4 admeasuring 6814 sq. ft.atPallapatti Village, Dindigul Taluk for the sale consideration ofRs.18,39,780/-.The second respondent agreed to accept the said priceoffered by the petitioner herein and entered into a sale agreement on24.11.2008 by payment of Rs.10 lakhs as an advance.The time fixed forexecution of sale within a period of three months from the date of agreementand the sale deed should be executed in favour of the defacto complainant.Thereafter, when the defacto complainant surveyed the said property, he cameto understand that the land in which agreement entered between them inS.No.20/4 is not belong to the petitioner and it belongs to one Chinnasamy.Thereby, the petitioner cheated the defacto complainant.Hence, thecomplaint.On the receipt of the complaint, the Superintendent of Police,Dindigul District forwarded the said complaint to the District Crime Branch,Dindigul for necessary action on the complaint.Even after receipt of thesame, the District Crime Branch, Dindigul District did not take any action onthe complainant and as such, the defacto complainant filed private complaintbefore the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Dindigul and sought for direction underSection 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to register a case.The learned JudicialMagistrate No.2, Dindigul was pleased to direct the respondent police toinvestigate and register a case on the complaint lodged by the defactocomplainant.Thereafter, the respondent police registered the case in crimeNo.29 of 2009 as against the petitioner and others for the offences underSections 406, 465, 466, 474, 420 and 120(b) of I.P.C. The first respondent,after completing the investigation, laid charge sheet before the learnedJudicial Magistrate No.2, Dindigul and the learned Judicial Magistrate hasalso taken cognizance in C.C.No.460 of 2010 for the offences under Sections406, 465, 466, 468, 474, 420, 120(b) of I.P.C. As against the said criminalproceedings in C.C.No.460 of 2010, the petitioner/A1 filed this quashpetition.The said agreement was also registered as document No.6140/08 in the officeof Sub Registrar, Dindigul, Thereby, A1 to A8 committed the offence and theingredients of the offence as stated above are attracted as against theaccused persons.Further, there are sufficient materials available and thereare specific allegations as against all the accused persons and the pointsraised by the petitioner have to be established only during the trial and assuch, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage and thus, heprayed for dismissal of the quash petition.There are specific allegations against each of theaccused persons connecting the first accused/petitioner herein and as such,the grounds raised by the petitioner has to be established only during thetrial.8.Further, the defacto complainant filed the suit in O.S.No.85 of 2011on the file of the District Munsif, Dindigul for specific performance on thebasis of the sale agreement dated 24.11.2008 against the petitioner andanother for part of the property comprised in S.No.20/4 and the propertycomprised in S.No.20/5 admeasuring 3815 sq.ft of the property to be executedby way of sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant.13.As stated above, the prosecution witnesses have to be tested duringthe trial and at this stage,the criminal proceedings against the petitionercannot be quashed.14.In view of the above discussion, this criminal original petition isdismissed.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail.T he applicant was arrested on 26.02.2018 by Police Station Dehat, district Ashok Nagar in connection with Crime No.106/18 registered in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 376(D), 511, 354-B, 34 of IPC and under Sections 7 & 8 of POCSO Act.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that matter has been compromised with Bundel Singh and, therefore, the witnesses have turned hostile towards Bundel Singh.Prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. in paragraph 6 has admitted that she has not met with Sonu.She has also admitted that there are not talking terms with the family of Sonu for last 4-5 years.She has admitted that there was no injury on her body.She has admitted that she had not shouted and even a doubt has been created as to the age of the prosecutrix.Learned counsel for the applicant read statement of P.W-3 Hiralal, father of the prosecutrix, who has admitted that prosecutrix had not informed him that Sonu had taken out her salwar with a view to rape her.Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection.Looking to the facts without expressing any opinion of the case, this application is allowed.The applicant be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) alongwith two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court/committal court concerned, the applicant shall be released on bail, with a direction that he will remain present on each and every date of the trial before the trial court/committal court concerned and shall abide by all the terms and conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.His single non-appearance shall cancel his bail automatically by the trial court concerned, without any further order of this court.CC as per rules.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

1 50 12.09.2014 C. R. M. 10799 of 2014 SD Ct.No. 2 In re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on August 22, 2014 in connection with Hogalberia Police Station Case No. 64 of 2013 dated May 6, 2013 under Sections 376/511of the Indian Penal Code, l860 and Sections 13/14 of Foreigners Act.In the matter of : Jiban Krishna Karmakar...... Petitioner..... For the Petitioner.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, J. ) (SUBRATA TALUKDAR, J.) 2

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The petitioners will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The petitioners will not indulge themselves in 3 Mcrc.24657.2020 extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused;C.c as per rules.(Sheel Nagu) Judge pd PAWAN Digitally signed by PAWAN DHARKAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF DHARK MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=345b3604d572ed9dd149 AR 2fe82dc3b1eef67eff2cb59f3ac97e 920ac264de7828, cn=PAWAN DHARKAR Date: 2020.08.07 12:45:34 +05'30'Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard through video conferencing.This is first application u/S.438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioners.Petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with offence punishable u/Ss.307, 323, 294, 435, 147, 148, 149, 324, 325 & 326 IPC registered as Crime No.30/2020 by Police Station Mayapur, District Shivpuri (M.P.).Learned counsel for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.Attempt to murder is alleged against the petitioners who are two in number.Learned counsel for the State informs that though notices have been issued but they have not been proclaimed as absconders as yet.Petitioners are not the main accused but they arrived on the spot at 2 Mcrc.24657.2020 the time when the assault was coming to an end.There is a past animosity between the rival parties and therefore possibility of over/false implication cannot be ruled out.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions :-The petitioners will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by them;The petitioners will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;The petitioners will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;A copy of this order be supplied to the Legal Aid Officer, SALSA, Gwalior who is directed to communicate this order to the Paralegal Volunteers of the area concerned to verify as to whether petitioners have complied with condition No.7 or not and submit report once every month.5 Mcrc.24657.2020 In case, report regarding condition No.7 is not filed or report is found to be wanting in any manner then Registry is directed to list this matter as PUD before appropriate Bench.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for information.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Learned counsel for the applicant has sought adjournments on several occasions.Today also, he prays for adjournment.As such, prayer for adjournment cannot be accepted.There are direct allegations against the applicant for commission of offence of rape upon his cousin sister as per the story of the prosecution.The reason given by the learned trial Court for dismissing the bail application is as follows:vfHk;kst dgkuh la{ksi esa ;g gS fd vfHk;ksD=h ekpZ 2015 esa vius ?kj ij vdsyh Fkh rFkh vkosnd iznhi tks fd mlds cMs+ ikik dk yM+dk gS 'kke djhc 5 cts vfHk;ksD=h ds ?kj ds vanj vkdj vfHk;ksD=h dh NksVh cgukas dks iSlk nsdj ?kj ls ckgj Hkxk fn;k vkSj vfHk;ksD=h dks idM+ dj tehu ij iVd fn;k vkSj vfHk;ksD=h dk iStkek vkSj pM~Mh tcjtLrh mrkj fn;k vkSj vfHk;ksD=h ds eqag esa diM+k yxkdj tcjtLrh mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k vkSj fdlh dks mDr ?kVuk ds ckjs esa crkus ij vfHk;ksD=h dks tku ls [kRe djus dh /kedh fn;k ftlls vfHk;ksD=h ds }kjk mDr ?kVuk ds ckjs esa fdlh dks ugha crk;k x;k rFkk fnukad 23-07-2015 dks vfHk;ksD=h ds eka ds ekek ds ?kj tkus ij vfHk;ksD=h dks vdsyk ikdj vkosnd ds }kjk vfHk;ksD=h ds ?kj ds vanj vkdj vfHk;ksD=h dks ?klhVus yxk rFkk vfHk;ksD=h ds fpYykus ij vfHk;ksD=h dh nknh jkejrh lkgw ds vkus ij vkosnd vfHk;ksD=h dks NksM+dj Hkkx x;k rc vfHk;ksD=h ds }kjk lkjh ckr vius nhnh ,oa vkosnd dh eka dks crkbZ xbZA I find no reason to differ with the ground taken by the trial Court for which the bail was rejected.(MOOL CHAND GARG)

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 06.02.2019 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Bhadohi at Gyanpur in S.T. No. 59 of 2014 arising out case crime no. 124 of 2013 (State of U. P. Vs.Muzaffar), under Sections 302/34, 304-A, 307, 333, 427 IPC, Police Station Aurai, district Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi.Further prayer has been made to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid case.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.With the aforesaid observation, the application is disposed of.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']

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

whereby the detenu/the husband of the petitioner herein, by name, Babu, S/o.2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.M.K.Raja, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of non-supply of copy of the bail applications in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, which has affected the constitutional right of making an effective and purposeful representation to the authorities concerned, thereby vitiating the detention.However, he submitted that the copy of the bail applications in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention was not supplied to the detenu.4.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.5.It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases, the accused were released on bail [a] by this Court in Crl.OP.No.13843/2009 for the offence under sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC in Cr.No.301/2009 on the file of K.K.Nagar Police Station; and [b] by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur in Crl.MP.No.2392/2012 for the offence u/s.341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC in Cr.No.1960/2012 on the file of T-1 Ambattur Police Station respectively.

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

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

Ravi in No.751/BCDFGISSSV/2018 dated 25.08.2018 is quashed.The above named detenuhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 C.T.SELVAM, J and S.RAMATHILAGAM, J gm/rst is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai.[Order of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM, J] Petitioner, who is the detenu Srinivasan S/o.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:- Sl.Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law1. K-1 Sembium Police Station 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, Cr.No.904/2018 324, 307 and 506(ii) IPC The alleged ground case has been registered against the detenu in Crime No.906 of 2018 on the file of K-1 Sembium Police Station for offences under sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 336, 397 and 506(ii) IPC.Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present Writ Petition has been filed.Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor.‘5(ii).... The Detaining Authority, according to us, had wrongly entertained an apprehension that the detenu would be released on bail, by adverting to the fact that in similar cases, bail was granted.According to us, this is not have been taken as the basis to come to such a conclusion.In granting bail the Court inter alia takes into account several aspects most of which are case specific.Those would include the gravity of the offence, the ability to suborn witnesses and the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice.The “similarity case” yardstick applied by the Detaining Authority, based on the provisions of law under which an accused is booked, cannot be a satisfactory indicator for coming to the conclusion that the likelihood of the detenu being enlarged on bail was real and imminent.’ We are in agreement with the above finding.For the said reason, the order under challenge would have to fall.The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order passed by second respondent, detaining the detenu Srinivasan S/o.2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai-73.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.H.C.P.No.2021 of 2018http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (APPELLATE SIDE) PRESENT :The Hon'ble Justice Kanchan Chakraborty C.R.A No. 319 of 1994 Lakshman Chowdhury & Ors.passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Midnapur in Sessions Trial No. 27th February, 1994 whereby convicting the appellants under Section 498 A and 306 of IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibit Act. The Appellants Lakshman Chowdhury, Sukumar Chowdhury, Smt. Binapani Chowdhury were found guilty for committing offences under Section 498A/34 and 306/34 of IPC.Appellant Lakhan was 2 sentenced to suffer R.I for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to suffer for R.I. for six months more for the offence punishable under Section 498 A of the IPC.He was sentenced to suffer R.I for a term of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to suffer for 1 year more for committing the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.The appellant Sukumar Chowdhury and Binapani Chowdhury were sentenced to suffer R.I. for a term of 1 years and to pay a find of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months more for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC.They were also sentenced to suffer R.I. for a term of two years each and to fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to suffer further R.I. for six months more for committing the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.2) The appellant Lakhan Chowdhury was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to suffer for R.I for one year more for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act while the appellant Sukumar and Binapani were sentence to suffer R.I for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, suffer for six months more for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.So, the appeal in respect of the appellant Binapani Chowdhury stands abated.4) Niranjan Buiya lodged one petition of complaint in the Court of learned CJM, Midnapur Sadar on 15.1.1991 which was referred to the Keshpur 3 Police Station for under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for treating the same as FIR and to investigate into the matter.5) The same was received by the Keshpur Police Station on 22.1.1991 and accordingly, Keshpur Police Station case no. 11 of 1991 dated 22.1.1991 under Section 498A/304B/306/34 IPC was started against the appellants as well as Kumari Jharna Chowdhury.Jharna Chowdhury was also found guilty and convicted by the learned Trial Court but was released on probation.She is not an appellant in this appeal.6) The facts stated in the complaint lodged by the Niranjan Buiya is stated below ; in short :-7) Sister Krishan of Niranjan Buiya was given marriage with Lakshman Chowdhury (the appellant no. 1) about six years prior to lodging of the complaint and at the time of their marriage, presentation in form of cash and kinds were given to the bride groom party by the parents.Few days after marriage, the appellants started creating pressure on Krishna for more dowry.As all the demands of the appellants could not be fulfilled, Krishna was subjected to physical and mental torture in her matrimonial house.However, in the wedlock of Krishna and appellant Lakshman, two children were born.Whenever Krishna came to her parent's house she told her inmates that she was subjected to physical and mental torture by the appellants for dowry.Even she was driven out from her matrimonial house once.She had to file a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the appellant Niranjan.After filing of that proceeding under Section 125 of 4 Cr.P.C. , the appellants came to the parent's house of Krishna and assured them that there would not be any further torture on Krishna.Accordingly, on the basis of their assurance, Krishna withdraw the proceeding and went to her matrimonial house.But, few months thereafter, the appellants started inflicting torture on her for more dowry.On 12.1.1991, she was bitten up by the appellants mercilessly.Krishna could not tolerate the torture and consumed Poison .It was stated in the FIR also that two months prior to death of Krishna, a piece of land were purchased by the brother of Krishna in the name of Krishna in order to bring peace in the matrimonial life of Krishna.But, that did not satisfy the appellants.8) The case was investigated into and ultimately ended in a charge-sheet.The trial was conducted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court at Midnapur who framed charges under Section 498A/34, 306/34, 304/34 of IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all the appellants including Jharna Chowdhury.In course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses and got some documents admitted into evidence which were marked Exs.on behalf of the prosecution.Although no witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellants in course of trial, some documents were placed before the Court and were admitted into evidence and were marked Ex. A to F. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges so framed against them and accordingly, the trial commenced.They pleaded their innocence and denied the prosecution case entirely.9) The learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence on record found the appellants and Jharna guilty of offence under Section 498A/34 - 306/34 of IPC as well as under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Trial Court, however, acquitted the appellants and Jharna from the charge under Section 304 B of IPC.After passing the order of conviction, the learned Court passed the sentence against the appellant mentioned earlier.10) Mr. Rudranil De led by Mr. Himansu De, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants made manifold contentions.The main thrust of their contention is that the learned Trial Court erred in believing the oral testimonies of witnesses to the effect that before death of Krishna in Midnapur Sadar Hospital she made a dying declaration that the appellants assaulted her brutally on the previous night as well as in the morning of the fateful date and she consumed Poison supplied by the appellants.11) Mr. De contended that learned Court did not appreciate the evidence properly because there were contradictions in the statements of witnesses regarding the alleged dying declaration.He further contended that the learned Court failed to take proper note of the fact that there was no evidence, whatsoever, as to the mental and physical state of the deceased Krishna at the time she made such a declaration.He further contended that there was no proximate relation between death and the statement of the deceased.The ingredients of offence under Section 306 IPC are not atall been established in the learned Trial Court because there was no 6 evidence showing active role on the part of the appellants in the matter of alleged abatement by direct or indirect acts of instigation or by doing certain acts to facilitate the commission of suicide.Mr. De submitted that the learned Trial Court found the appellants not guilty to the charge of offence 304 B of IPC.Therefore, it was proved before the learned Trial Court that the death of Krishna was not a dowry death.If so, the learned Trial Court had no reason to convict the appellants for committing an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.12) Mr. Swapan Kumar Mallick, the learned Counsel for the opposite party State contended that the prosecution had a very strong case before the learned Trial Court.There were sufficient evidence and materials on record before the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court had rightly passed the judgement and order impugned.13) The point to be decided in this appeal is whether the judgement and order impugned are sustainable in law.It is also admitted position that in their wedlock she had given birth of two children.19) I have carefully gone through the evidence of all the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and found that there are discrepancies on material points over the issue.20) Firstly, the post mortem report does not disclose that there was any mark of injury on the body of deceased Krishna although poison was found in her stomach.that was act found.21) Secondly, according to the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, Krishna told them that she was subjected to assault severely by the appellants and was given a bottle containing poison with advise to take the same.She 12 consumed that because she could not tolerate the torture any more.The P.W. 3 the mother of deceased Krishna stated specifically that Krishna told that her mother-in-law i.e. appellant Binapani afforded her poison and told her that she would give marriage of her son Lakhan again.The statement of the P.W. 3 was supported by P.W. 6 to some extent.P.W. 6 happens to be the Nanad of deceased Krishna.She stated that Krishna told them that her mother-in-law (appellant Binapani) told her to commit suicide by taking poison and that she would give marriage of Lakhan again and get a large amount of money.The P.W. 6, however, has not supported what P.W. 3 has stated regarding supply of bottle of poison by Binapani.The P.W. 3, the P.W. 1 and the P.W. 2 have not stated that Binapani told that she would get huge amount of money in case appellant Lakhan remarries.22) The P.W. 7 a local man of Haridaspur had been to Midnapur Sadar Hospital together with the P.W. 1,2,3 and 6 on 13.1.1991 and heard Krishna saying that she was assaulted by the appellants two days back and on the following date when she attempted to come to her father's place, she was restrained and assaulted again and as she could not tolerate the same she was forced to take poison to commit suicide.None of them has stated that Krishna was forced to take poison to commit suicide and that when she was trying to come to her paternal house, she was restrained and assaulted.23) P.W. 8, a man of Paikarapur had also been to Midnapur Sadar Hospital on 13.1.1991 together with P.W. 1,2,3 and others and heard Krishna saying that two days prior to that date, she was assaulted by the appellants and on the following day she took poison and committed suicide.24) P.W. 9 is younger brother of deceased Krishna.He stated that is elder sister Krishna informed him that she could not tolerate the torture inflicted by the appellants and, as such, she took poison to finish her life.The evidence of P.W. 10 another man of the locality do not support the statements of the other witnesses over the issue.He has stated that on interrogation Krishna disclosed him that she was assaulted for last two days by her mother-in- law who offered poison which she had taken.Simple statement that the appellants inflicted torture for dowry and offered poison is not enough to record conviction under Section 306 of IPC.Each and every case is to be considered separately on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.In the instant case, the fact that the deceased Krishna was subjected to physical and mental torture in her matrimonial house has been established.This fact alone does not necessarily suggest that the appellants abated her to commit suicide.Krishna committed suicide and that has been established.Binapani the appellant (since deceased) supplied poison and told Krishna to take it and die so that she would arrange marriage of appellant Niranjan again.She was 16 allegedly assaulted on 12.1.1991 in the morning and on the previous night mercilessly.Had she been brutally assaulted consecutively for two days, the post mortem report would have been otherwise.The P.W. 3 and the P.W. 12 told that Krishna said the mother-in-law i.e. appellant Binapani (since deceased) offered poison not the other appellants.Some of the witnesses stated that deceased Krishna herself consumed poison because she could not bear the torture any further.The brother of Krishna stated that his elder sister Krishna put her life to an end by consuming poison.Therefore, it can heardly be said that prosecution established that all the appellants other than Binapani, since deceased, had any active role in the matter of abatement to commit suicide.31) I find that the appellants should have been given benefit of doubt by the learned Trial Court so far as charge leveled against them under Section 306 of IPC is concerned.32) As far as order of conviction and sentence in respect of offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, I find that there is sufficient and reliable evidence before the learned Trial Court to record 17 conviction under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellants.33) Accordingly I allow the appeal in part.34) The judgement and order impugned to the extent that the appellants are found guilty for committing offence under Section 498A of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are affirmed.The appellant are acquitted from the charge under Section 306 of IPC.The appellants have been suffering for Sixteen (16) years with mental agony and anxieties.They are, now of considerably aged and appellant Binapani had already expired.A lenient view be taken in case the appeal is dismissed.I, considering the factors above, reduced the sentence from three years to one year as far as offence under Section 498A of IPC is concerned in relation to appellant Lakshman.So far as the Appellant Sukumar Chowdhury is concerned, his sentence is reduced to a fine of Rs. 2000/- only, in default, R.I. for 6 months.The sentence passed for committing offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act will remain same as far as appellant Lakshman is concerned.The sentence passed against appellant Jharna will remain unchanged.36) The appeal stands disposed of.(Kanchan Chakraborty,J)

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the F.I.R. of Crime No.404/14 registered at Police Station Kotwali, district Bhind under Sections 147, 148, 294, 307, 336, 506-B of IPC.The petitioners are the accused persons against whom the respondent No.2 has lodged the report.Both the parties have filed I.A.No.8730/14 under Section 320 (2) of Cr.P.C. stating that they have amicably compromised the case.The same was sent to the Principal Registrar of this Court.Verification report dated 20.11.2014 has been received.The Principal Registrar has stated that he is satisfied that parties have settled their dispute and compromise has been arrived without any fear or force.Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shiji alias Pappu and others V. Radhika & another, (2011) 10 SCC 795, and Gian Singh Vs.With the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.

['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The facts giving rise to the criminal revisional application may be summarised as follows:The O.P. wife as petitioner in the Court of learned Magistrate filed an application under Section 125 of the Code against the husband petitioner and it was registered as Misc.On the very night of 'fulsajja', the husband petitioner told the wife that he does not like to lead conjugal life with her and he has one girl friend.The wife would lead a life remaining in his house as a maid servant and she would be provided with food, clothings etc. Two days thereafter, the wife told the matter to her mother-in-law but, she received a slap from her mother-in-law.On the right side of Ext. A, the name Soma Biswas appears and, on the left side the name Soma Pal appears and it was a writing consisting of four lines and in the last line there was something overwritten or pen through.If it is taken into consideration that on very night of 'fulsajja' it was written by the wife i.e. on 26.11.99, the petitioner would have disclosed it to his parents at least within 2/3 days of such writing after departure of relatives who attended marriage ceremony.On the otherhand, from evidence it is clear that the husband came to her in-laws house to perform 'astamangala' and thereafter returned back to his own house with his wife.The evidence establishes the fact that, the husband petitioner and other in-laws drove out the wife on 21.1.2000, and thereafter, she lodged the FIR against the husband and other in-laws which resulted into starting of a criminal case under Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and other in-laws.After being driven out of her matrimonial home it appears from evidence that the husband did not take care of her and did not take any information of her and did not pay her any money or maintenance.It was thus established that the petitioner neglected to maintain his wife.O.P: wife was entitled to claim maintenance from husband petitioner staying in her father's house as from evidence it has been proved that she did not voluntarily leave matrimonial home but, she was driven out of matrimonial home.JUDGMENT P.N. Sinha, J.This revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) filed by the husband petitioner is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.9.03 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 13th Court, South 24-Parganas at Alipore in Criminal Motion No. 436/01 thereby allowing the application under Section 125 of the Code filed by the Opposite Party (in short O.P.) wife after setting aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Sealdah in Misc.Case No. 45/2000 dismissing the application filed by the wife under Section 125 of the Code.The husband petitioner accordingly filed the application being CRAN No. 11/06 thereby praying for modifying the order dated 19.11.03 and 19.1.04 passed by this Court and also for setting aside the order dated 12.9.03 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and for dismissing the Misc.Execution Case No. 29/03 pending in the Trial Court.On 3.1.2000 she was driven out of her matrimonial home after assault.It was alleged by the wife that during this period the husband and his parents compelled her to write under threat that she was involved with one person and had illicit relation with that man.After being driven out, the wife filed one FIR at Chitpur Police Station and subsequently, she filed the application under Section 125 of the Code praying for maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/- per month.She in her application alleged that her husband is an employee of a contractor of Calcutta Telephones and earns Rs. 5,000/- per month and is also running a dancing school from where he earns Rs. 6,000/- per month.The husband petitioner contested the misc.case by filing written objection denying therein all the material averments of the application under Section 125 of the Code filed by the wife.The husband petitioner inter alia contended that his marriage with the O.P. wife was settled on the basis of advertisement in newspaper and on condition that there would be no demand for dowry from their side.The wife created pressure on him to live separately and when he refused the request of his wife, his wife left his house on her own sweet will.He was a casual employee of Calcutta Telephones but subsequently he lost that service.He is not running any dancing school and has no income from any dancing school.He was unnecessarily involved in a criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) as a result of which he lost his job.The husband contended that as he has no income and as the wife was living in adultery and as she left the matrimonial home voluntarily, the wife was not entitled to receive any maintenance under Section 125 of the Code.It appears that, in the Court of the learned Magistrate four witnesses were examined by the wife including herself as P.W.I Soma Pal.The other witnesses were P.W.2 Jyotsna Biswas, P.W.3 Sasanka Sekhar Biswas (father of P.W. 1) andP.W.4 Bhaskar Sen, the S.D.O.(P), Cossipore Telephone Exchange.On behalf of the husband only one witness namely D.W.I Tapas Kumar Pal, the husband was examined.The learned Magistrate after consideration of evidence and materials-on-record placed reliance on Ext. A, the alleged writing of the wife admitting her living in adultery with one Samir Chandra and dismissed the application under Section 125 of the Code filed by the wife.The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the decision that Ext. A, the alleged writing of the wife Soma Pal was not voluntary and she was forced by the husband to write it, and ultimately, came to the conclusion that the husband was negligent and he drove out his wife from matrimonial home and accordingly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Code after setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the learned Magistrate.The learned Additional Sessions Judge granted maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/- per month in favour of the wife and made the order of maintenance effective from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 of the Code.Besides that, the learned Judge granted Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation costs.At the time of admitting the revisional application this Court stayed the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on condition that the husband petitioner shall go on paying Rs. 5.00/- per month as maintenance to the wife in the Court below until further order and in case of failure to make payment stay order shall automatically stand vacated.At the same time, this Court stayed further proceeding of Misc.Execution Case No. 29/03 pending in the Court of the learned Magistrate.Accordingly, the wife is no more entitled to get any maintenance and she should make refund of the maintenance amount received by her from petitioner along with interest.Mr. Pratik Bhattacharya, the learned Advocate for the husband petitioner laboriously contended that the learned Judicial Magistrate after considering the evidence of the parties and Ext. A, the writing of the wife on the night of 'fulsajja' admitting her illicit relation with one Samir Chandra rightly dismissed the application under Section 125 of the Code.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the revisional application, preferred by the O.P. wife against the order of dismissal of application under Section 125 of the Code committed grave error in appreciating the evidence of witnesses and made mistake and illegality in disbelieving Ext. A. Section 125(4) of the Code clearly lays down that no wife shall be entitled to receive maintenance allowance from husband, if she is living in adultery or without sufficient reason has refused to live with her husband.Mr. Bhattacharya contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate evidence and committed illegality in allowing the application under Section 125 of the Code filed by the wife and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge amounts to miscarriage of justice.The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge accordingly should be set aside.This Court while admitting the main revisional application directed payment of Rs. 500/- per month by the husband petitioner to the wife and the husband has complied with the said order.As the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was bad in law and as the wife has married for the second time during pendency of the revisional application, the wife was not entitled to claim any amount of maintenance and she must refund the amount of maintenance which she has received in the meantime from husband petitioner.Mr. Bhattacharya submitted that the wife has so far received Rs. 14,000/- as maintenance approximately and, she should refund the said amount to the petitioner along with interest.He submitted that in view of provisions of Section 127 of the Code, the wife had the duty to inform the Court about her remarriage and as she failed to inform the Court concerning the fact of her second marriage, she is bound to refund the total maintenance amount received by her from the present petitioner along with interest.Mr. Bhattacharya also submitted that the husband petitioner filed Matrimonial Suit No. 48 of 2001 against O.P. wife for divorce and obtained a decree for divorce on 4.9.04 from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, 9th Court, Alipore and from 4.9.04 there was no existence of marital tie between husband petitioner and O.P. wife.Accordingly, both the revisional application and the application being CRAN No. 11/06 should be allowed and necessary order should be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the O.P. wife.Mr. Kaushik Chanda, the learned Advocate appearing for the O.P. wife submitted that after her second marriage, the O.P. did not take any money as maintenance from the petitioner.He submitted that from April, 2005 the O.P. did not claim any money and did not withdraw any money as maintenance from petitioner.In view of provisions of Section 125 of the Code the term 'wife' includes a divorce wife.A divorced wife is entitled to claim maintenance till she is remarried.Therefore, no question of refund of maintenance amount received by the O.P. arises as in law she was entitled to claim maintenance.Mr. Chanda further submitted that the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the evidence properly and committed grave error in relying upon Ext. A and failed to realise that Ext. A was obtained by the husband petitioner from the O.P. by force under threat.The learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly appreciated the evidence and disbelieved Ext. A as voluntary writing of the wife.The learned Additional Sessions Judge decided the matter in accordance with law on proper appreciation of evidence and rightly allowed the application of O.P. under Section 125 of the Code.There is no ground to set aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.It clearly indicates that the person who is aggrieved by the order of granting maintenance should approach the Court for alteration of maintenance allowance, and naturally, in this matter it was the duty of the husband to file an application under Section 127 of the Code for alteration, modification of maintenance order or for setting aside the maintenance order.There is no question of refund of maintenance amount with interest, and if proper calculation was made, the O.P. wife was entitled to get some more amount from petitioner.I have also carefully perused relevant provisions of Sections 125 and 127 of the Code.Certified copies of the evidence adduced by the parties in the Trial Court was filed before this Court and I have gone through the evidence of P.W.I Soma Pal, P.W. 2 Jyotsna Biswas, P.W. 3 Sasanka Sekhar Biswas, P.W. 4 Bhaskar Sen and OPW 1 Tapas Kumar Pal.P.W.I is the O.P. wife and OPW 1 Tapas Kumar Pal is the present petitioner.P.W. 3 is the father of O.P. After appreciating the evidence of the witnesses and the alleged document marked as Ext. A over which the husband petitioner placed much reliance, I am of opinion that the learned Judicial Magistrate totally misread the evidence adduced by the parties and committed illegality as well as gross irregularity in placing reliance on Ext. A. After appreciating the evidence of witnesses and materials-on-record I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties, and very rightly disbelieved Ext. A.At that time there was no disclosure at all about Ext. A. Appreciating the evidence I find that it was the husband who on the very night of 'fulsajja' told the wife that she would be provided with food, clothing and other articles but, would not expect anything more and would be treated as maid servant in their house as he has relation with a girl.P.W.3, the father of O.P. wife totally denied existence of any illicit relation of his daughter with Samir Chandra.Considering the entire evidence, materials-on-record and circumstances I am firm in my opinion that Ext. A is not a voluntary writing of O.P. wife and she was forced or compelled to make those writings under the threat of her husband.The learned Additional Sessions Judge accordingly, rightly disbelieved Ext. A.It has not been proved that the O.P. wife was living in adultery with another person which disqualified her from getting maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Code.Wife's claim was that her husband earns Rs. 5,000/- per month and works as a casual labourer under Telephone Department and also earns Rs. 5,000/- per month from a dance school.Evidence of P.W.4 goes against the wife so far as it relates to income of Rs. 5,000/- per month being casual worker under Telephone Department.P.W.4 is S.D.O.(P), Cossipore Telephone Exchange and his evidence reveals that the petitioner Tapas Pal is not their employee and he works as a casual labourer of their contractor 'Lokenath Enterprise'.No man of 'Lokenath Enterprise' was examined by the wife to establish monthly income of husband petitioner.The wife also could not produce any paper or document or any witness of dance school to prove that the petitioner used to earn at least Rs. 5,000/- per month from dance school.Accordingly, the amount of maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/- per month granted by the learned Additional' Sessions Judge was to some extent excessive, and accordingly after considering the entire evidence, materials-on-record and circumstances, I am of opinion that the amount of Rs. 500/- per month as was ordered by this Court dated 19.11.03 is the proper amount which the O.P. wife was entitled to receive as maintenance from her husband at the relevant time when she was entitled to get maintenance in accordance with law.In my opinion she was entitled to get the amount of maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month from the date of her application and she was entitled to get it till the date of her remarriage.In view of the description of 'wife' as embodied in Section 125 it includes a woman who has been divorced by or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.It is clear, therefore, that a wife who has been divorced by her husband is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband.In the present matter, therefore, even after the petitioner obtained decree of divorce from the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, 9th Court, Alipore on 4.9.2004 in MAT Suit No. 48 of 2001, the O.P. wife was entitled to claim maintenance at the aforesaid rate till her remarriage.Provisions of Section 127 of the Code nowhere lays down that it was duty of a wife after her remarriage to inform the Court granting maintenance the fact of her remarriage and to request the Court to alter or cancel the order of maintenance.The true spirit of Section 127 of the Code gives clear indication that it is the aggrieved person against whom an order of maintenance has been passed, who should move the Court for alteration, modification or cancellation of maintenance order due to change of circumstances.Accordingly, the argument advanced by Mr. Pratik Bhattacharya that it was the duty of the wife to inform the Court under Section 127 of the Code about her remarriage is not at all acceptable.There is no question of refund of Rs. 14,000/- approximately obtained by the wife as maintenance from petitioner with interest.If proper calculation was made relating to maintenance amount from date of application in 2000 upto 23.4.05, the wife was entitled to get some more amount from the husband.But as she has remarried on 24.4.05 the O.P. wife is no more entitled to claim any further maintenance amount from her ex-husband, the present petitioner.It is expected that O.P. wife would live happily with her present husband and would not claim or press for payment of balance maintenance amount, if any.Execution Case No. 29/03 stands quashed and disposed of.Both the revisional application being CRR No. 2458/03 and the application being CRAN No. 11/06 stand disposed of in the light of the observations made above.All interim order passed earlier stand vacated.Let xerox certified copy of this order be given to the parties within two weeks from the date of making of such application on payment of proper fees and charges.

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

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

P.C in crime no.257/2018 under section 34(2) of the Excise Act registered at police station Excise Department Circle Chhawni, Indore.This time mainly the period of custody i.e. more than a year is taken as substantial ground for granting bail stating that he is in jail for a period more than a minimum sentence prescribed for the offence, therefore, he be granted bail.The petitioner is in jail since 28.06.2018 but he has diversified criminal record.However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it as early as possible preferably within a period of four months.With the aforesaid, the present petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.

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

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

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 8.5.1996 at about 6 AM prosecutrix, (PW-2), had gone to answer the call of nature out of the village at Jajhuja hill, and while she was returning the appellant came from backside and caught hold her and dragged her to few steps from the way and committed rape with her.On hearing the cry of the prosecutrix, her mother-in-law Fuliya (PW3), Kadi Basor and one Tailor towards the spot and saw the appellant clinging over the prosecutrix.After seeing them, the appellant left the prosecutrix and fled away.The entire story has been narrated by the pros- ecutrix to them.On the same day, information of the incident was given at Po- lice Station Jaso, on the basis of which First Information Report, Ex.P/3, was lodged and crime no.46/1996 was registered against the appellant for the offence punishable under sections 376 of the I.P.C. and the matter was investigated.The prosecutrix was sent for her medico legal examination.Maya Pandey (PW-8) examined her at the Community Health Centre, Nagod and gave her report Ex.(Delivered on 28th day of August, 2018) The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 17.4.1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Satna, in S.T.No.140/1996 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 376 of the IPC and sentenced to un- dergo RI for 7 years, with default stipulation.Spot map was prepared.Bangles of the prosecutrix were recovered.Appellant was arrested on 24.7.1996 and his medical examination was conducted.After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed be- fore the concerned JMFC, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions.The court of Sessions Judge, Satna, framed the charge against the appellant for the offence under section 376 of the I.P.C. The appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.His defence was that he has been falsely implicated on account of dispute with regard to taking Tendu leaves of the appellant by the prosecutrix.The learned court below after adducing the oral as well as doc- umentary evidence convicted the appellant under section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him, as mentioned above.The allegation of com- mission of rape with the prosecutrix has not been established be- yond reasonable doubt by the prosecution as the medical evidence and other circumstances also do not establish the fact of commission of rape.The appellant has been falsely implicated, as there was dis- pute between the prosecutrix and the appellant with regard to steal- ing of Tendu leaves, with the assistance of Bhangwandeen with whom the appellant have strained relations.The statements of the prosecutrix and other witnesses are contradictory and medical evi- dence also does not support the facts of the incidence.FSL report is also not on record.Hence, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established the charge beyond reasonable doubt.Hence, no offence 3 Cri.A.No.922/1997 under section 376 of the I.P.C. is made out.Hence, the appeal be al- lowed and the conviction and sentence be set aside.On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate has contended that the finding of the learned court below is based on legal and proper appreciation of the evidence, which does not require any interfer- ence, therefore, the appeal be dismissed.Having considered the contention advanced by learned coun- sel for the parties and on perusal of record first of all it is to be seen whether the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the rape was committed by the appellant.The prosecutrix, PW2, has stated that on the date of incident nearabout 6 AM while she was returning after answering the call of nature, from Jajhuja hill, the appellant came from backside, pressed her mouth, threw down her by his leg and committed sexual inter- course with her.The prosecutrix started crying and on hearing her hue and cry, her mother-in-law Fuliya, Bihari and Chhote Tiwari came to the spot.They also saw the applicant running away after leaving her.The prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to them then they went to lodge FIR, which is Ex.Thereafter, police sent her for medical examination where she was examined by Dr.Maya Pandey.However, Dr.Maya Pandey has stated that the prosecutrix is a married woman.No definite opinion can be given about rape.Vaginal swab was prepared and handed over to the police and re- port, Ex.P/10 was prepared.Mother-in-law of the prosecutrix, Fuliya, PW3 and Chhote Tiwari, PW4 have corroborated the testi- mony of the prosecutrix.The aforesaid testimony of the witnesses have been challenged on the ground that Chhote Tiwari, PW4, is an implanted witness as his name has not been disclosed in the FIR, Ex.P/1 and the persons who are named in the FIR have not been examined.Statement of the prosecutrix is also not corroborated by the medical evidence.A.No.922/1997 Prosecutrix in her statement has stated that at the time of incident, she received injuries on her waist, there were scratches on the waist as the appellant dragged her forcefully.However, Dr.Maya Pandey, PW10, has stated that there was no injury on any part of her body.Mother-in-law Fuliya, PW3 has also stated that when she reached the spot, she saw that the appellant left the prosecutrix and fled away by climbing over the hill.Prosecutrix, PW2, Fuliya, PW3 and Chhote Tiwari, PW4, have admitted that at the time of incident peo- ples were collecting Tendu leaves on the hill.In such situation, it is not possible to commit forceful rape in such a common place where large number of people were present.The prosecutrix has categori- cally stated that when she was returning, the appellant came from the backside, pressed her mouth, threw her down by his leg, dragged her 2-3 steps and committed rape on her in open place, which seems to be unnatural.Report with regard to vaginal swab has not been produced and there is no explanation of it.In such circumstances, adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution as the same will go against the prosecution.On behalf of the appellant accused defence witness Gaya Prasad, DW1, who is an independent witness, has been examined.He has stated that on the date of incident in the morning quarrel had taken place between the prosecutrix and the appellant because the prosecutrix had stolen Tendu leaves of the appellant and the prosecutrix after abusing the appellant left the place.He further de- posed that he did not see the mother-in-law of the prosecutrix at the spot.Fuliya, PW3, mother-in-law of the prosecutrix, in her cross ex- amination has admitted that the appellant had enmity with one Bhagwandeen.The statements of prosecutrix, PW2 and her mother- in-law Fuliya, PW3 and Chhote Tiwari, PW4 also show that on the date of recording of their statements, Bhagwandeen was present in the court.Fuliya, PW3 has also stated that the date with regard to 5 Cri.A.No.922/1997 her evidence was also told by Bhagwandeen.These circumstances show that Bhagwandeen was having interest in the case.In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that on account of quarrel with regard to stealing Tendu leaves of the appel- lant at the instance of Bhagwandeen, false case could have been cooked up by the prosecutrix.The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication.In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law and looking to the facts and evidence available on record, it can conveniently be held that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed rape with the prosecutrix.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

And In the matter of : Dr. Brindaban Chandra Kundu & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Chinmoy Pal Mr. Ajay Lal Acharya For the Petitioners Mrs. Pushpita Saha For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Lake Town Police Station Case No. 240 of 2013 dated 07.08.2013 under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.The Petitioners are the parents-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in- law of the complainant.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty,J )

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

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

Issue notice to respondent no.3 who may file counter affidavit within four weeks.Learned A.G.A. may also file counter affidavit within the same period.This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the release of Shalu Mishra from Naari Niketan, Lucknow.I have heard Sri G.S. Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Sunil Dixit, learned counsel for respondent and Km.Nand Prabha Shukla, learned A.G.A.Briefly stated petitioner's case is that Sunil Kumar Mishra married Shalu Mishra on 16.05.2013 before 'Arya Samaj Mandir, Aliganj, Lucknow'.Copy of marriage certificate as well as photographs have been filed to buttress the submission.Parents of Shalu Mishra are trying to marry her with some other person, although she is married wife of Sunil Mishra.It is stated that mother of Shalu Mishra lodged an F.I.R. against Sunil Mishra, registered as Case Crime No. 872 of 2013 under Sections 363, 366, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Purwa, District Unnao alleging that Sunil Mishra had enticed Shalu Mishra, aged about 16 years, with the collusion of Mukesh and Ashish and father of Sunil Mishra is also involved in the incident.Apprehending his arrest, Sunil Mishra filed a Writ Petition No. 4189 of 2013 (MB) in this Court wherein following order was passed on 21.05.2013 :"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.We have been taken through the allegations contained in the F.I.R. and the material on record.Rejoinder affidavit may thereafter be filed within two weeks.List this matter after expiry of the aforesaid period.Till the next date of listing, the arrest of the petitioners, who are involved in case crime no.617 of 2013 under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B I.P.C P.S. Purwa District Unnao shall remain stayed."After obtaining interim order of this Court, when they were returning, Jai Prakash Tiwari, Rajendra @ Bawali intercepted and assaulted them.Bhola Mishra, father of the girl and one Anoop dragged Shalu and her husband and took them in a Bolero vehicle forcibly and beat them up.Shalu was taken to her parental house forcibly where she was detained against her wishes.Matter was reported to DGP by Kailash Mishra, father of Sunil Mishra by means of application dated 24.05.2013, with copy to S.P., Unnao and concerned police station.It is submitted that since Shalu Mishra is major, she cannot be detained by respondents, as such order of her release may be passed.A.G.A. informed the Court that application dated 24.05.2013 led to the registration of a Case Crime No. 696 of 2013, under Sections 364-A, 307, 352, 506, 323 I.P.C. on 04.06.2013 and on 05.06.2013 final report was prepared.Shalu Mishra was directed to appear in the Court who stated that she wants to go with Sunil Mishra.Case was fixed on 13.06.2013 on which date S.O., Mahila Thana, Unnao submitted report informing that Shalu Mishra had stated that she and her husband were dragged by Jai Prakash Tiwari and Rajendra @ Bawali and taken them in a Bolero vehicle forcibly from where she was detained in her parental house.So far as the investigation is concerned, it is going on and no comment is required from this Court.So far as habeas corpus petition is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Shalu Mishra and Sunil Mishra both are major, having married, have a right to live together without any interference from anybody.She cannot be detained against her wishes.Learned counsel for the private respondents submits that according to educational certificate, Shalu Mishra is minor, as such, her marriage was illegal.From the case diary submitted by learned A.G.A., it appears that date of birth of Shalu Mishra recorded in High School Marksheet is 21.02.1996, as such, she was less than 18 years on 16.05.2013 i.e. date of marriage.She was medically examined by the Police in district hospital, Unnao.According to medical report, she was found to be more than 19 years.It further appears that Investigating Officer produced Shalu Mishra before the Sessions Judge, Unnao on 01.06.2013 where Sunil Mishra claimed her custody.Raj Kumari, mother of Shalu also claimed her custody.Sessions Judge, Unnao directed Shalu Mishra to be placed in Naari Niketan and fixed 04.06.2013 for further orders.On 04.06.2013, learned Sessions Judge recorded the statement wherein Shalu Mishra disclosed her date of birth 21.02.1996, however, she disclosing her actual age to be 19 years, expressed her willingness to go with her husband.Sessions Judge observed that according to medical report, she was about 19 years.Learned Sessions Judge believing the age recorded in High School Certificate to be correct, treated her minor and directed her to be detained in Naari Niketan.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 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 case alleged by the prosecution is that on 21st July, 2001, one Jagdish Sahni came to the Police Station and gave a statement which forms the basis of the FIR, which is stated by the prosecution as follows:That he (Jagdish Sahni) resides at house No. 80, Jawala Ghat, Yamuna Bazaar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi and runs a tea shop near Nigam Bodh Ghat, Delhi.He further stated that lot of scrap dealers and rickshaw pullers frequent his shop for taking tea.These persons work for the whole day and sleep in the parks near Hanuman Mandir, Yamuna Bazaar, Delhi.Since, the customers of the complainant are poor and could not pay instantly, so the complainant visits their spots where they sleep at night to recover his money.It was stated by the complainant that 13-14 days ago, at about 11 pm or 12 pm when he had gone in the park at night to collect his dues, he saw 6 boys namely Prem Kumar, Raj Kumar, Kameshwar, Shakeel @ Gainda, Lal Bihari and Dharampal beating a boy.On enquiry, he came to know that when Dharampal was sleeping on the pavement of main road, the said boy tried to steal the watch from the wrist of Dharampal, but he got awake and called his friends and they all started beating the said boy and they then took injured to a park while beating him.Raj Kumar was having a danda in his hand whereas Prem Kumar was giving fist and kick blows.Dharampal took out his belt out from the pant and started beating the said boy with it.Thereafter, Kameshwar took that belt from Dharampal and started beating the said boy.Accused Shakeel @ Gainda then took the belt from Kameshwar and strangulated the boy by tightening the belt around his neck.When Shakeel @ Gainda was tightening the belt, the said boy tossed in pain to free himself but other accused hold of the boy and were exhorting "SAALE TO PARK ME HI GAAD DETE HAIN".Thereafter, the assailants asked the complainant to run away and threatened him to keep quite lest he would also meet the same fate.JUDGMENT Mukul Mudgal, J.This appeal filed by the appellant Dharam Pal challenges the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 132/01 in FIR No. 334/01, P.S. Kashmere Gate, Delhi under Sections 302/201/34 IPC.The impugned judgment convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC while convicting the other co-accused Kameshwar, Lal Behari, Raj Kumar and Prem Kumar under Section 304-II read with Section 34 IPC for a period of 5 years and also convicted all the accused under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC for 3 years imprisonment and the sentences were to run concurrently.The complainant ran away from the park and later on he was told by one Kishan that the dead body of that injured was buried by the 6 assailants in the park itself that since he was afraid of the assailants, he did not disclose this fact to police and that now on 21.7.2001 he had came to police station and had lodged this report.On the basis of this report, FIR bearing No. 334/01 Under Section 302/301/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Kashmere Gate, Delhi and investigation started.On completion of investigation, challans were filed before the Ld. MM on different dates as accused Dharampal was arrested later on.On completion of formalities, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.On 13th March 2002, charges were framed against accused Prem Kumar, Raj Kumar, Kameshwar, Lal Bihari and Dharampal under Sections 302/201/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution examined 17 witnesses and then the Trial Court recorded the statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The two eye-witnesses in the case were PW-1 Jagdish Sahni who lodged the FIR and PW 4 Kishan who was the witness to the incident.The PW-1 Jagdish Sahni deposed as follows:That he was present at his shop at Nigam Bodh Ghat, Kashmere Gate, Delhi when he saw 5-6 persons beating a boy who have dandas and belts.The deceased boy suddenly gave a teeth bite on the thumb of the accused Dharampal who exhorted "Yeh Paagal Ho Gaya Hai Isko Maar Do".The accused Shakeel @ Gainda tightened the belt around the neck of that boy and as a result thereof he died on the spot.Apart from Shakeel @ Gainda and Dharampal, Raj Kumar, Prem Kumar, Lal Bihari and Kameshwar were also giving beatings to the boy.PW-4 Kishan also deposed that a pick pocket was trying to steal the watch from the wrist of Dharampal who woke up and had quarrel with the pick pocket and called his other companions.One Shakeel @ Gainda started beating the pick pocket and put a leather belt around the neck of the said boy and the other accused such as Dharampal and Kameshwar were beating him with belts.Other accused persons were having lathis and were giving lathi blows on the said person resulting in his death.The recovery of the body was effected at the instance of the accused Prem Kumar, Raj Kumar and Kameshwar about 14 days later.Principally on the basis of the statements of the eye-witnesses, the trial court recorded the conviction of the accused by recording the following finding:Thus, the prosecution had proved:(a) the presence of accused person;(b) the presence of victim;(c) the death of victim;(d) his burial by accused;(e) the exhuming of his dead body; and(f) the cause of death.The facts only show that accused Lal Bihari, accused Kameshwar, accused Prem Kumar and accused Raj Kumar had come to help accused Dharampal when they came to know that the deceased was trying to steal the watch of the accused Dharampal and hence they all started beating the boy.Their intention was to teach the said boy a lesson by beating him but not to kill him.It is well settled that if the intention of all accused persons was to teach victim a lesson, but one of them had exceeded such intention and had killed the victim then only such person shall be liable for murder.All the accused persons no doubt had started beating the deceased to teach him a lesson but it was only on exhortation of accused Dharampal that accused Shakeel @ Gainda strangulated the deceased.This shows that accused Dharampal and accused Shakeel @ Gainda exceeded the common intention and caused death of the said boy.The fact shows that only accused Dharampal and accused Shakeel Gainda were responsible for causing death of the said boy and their individual acts cannot be attributed to remaining accused persons.If any person share a common intention to cause hurt/grievous hurt but actually cause an injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death then can this be regarded as an act committed by him jointly with other accused or that the said act is only an individual act.The answer settled in the following judgment:In Rejender Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors.Hence, accused Lal Bihari, accused Kameshwar, accused Prem Kumar and accused Raj Kumar would be liable under part II Section 304 IPC.The delay in lodging the FIR was also found to be on account of fear of Shakeel @ Gainda.Taking into account the above findings accused Prem Kumar, Raj Kumar, Kameshwar and Lal Bihari were convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month upon each of the accused person.He further submitted that even if exhortation was to be given by the accused Dharampal, it occurred on account of two significant facts.One that the wrist watch of Dharampal was attempted to be stolen by the deceased leading to the beating of the deceased and second the deceased gave a tooth bite on the thumb of the accused Dharampal.Even if we are to assume that there was an exhortation, the facts pointed out by the prosecution reveal that the exhortation was in the nature of exclamation arising from a tooth bite on the thumb of the accused Dharampal by the deceased and could not be such an exhortation which could be construed to be motivated by an intention to kill the deceased.Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.The appeal stands partly allowed in the above terms and since the appellant has already undergone the awarded sentence he is directed to be released forthwith.

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

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

Her father also lodged her missing report at P.S. Churhat, Distt.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;C.C. on payment of usual charges.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge sarathe Digitally signed by NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Date:2018.12.07 16:55:29 +05'30'

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard finally through Video Conferencing.This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.213/2020 registered at Police Station Bhonti, District Shivpuri for offence under Sections 323, 294, 506 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and all other consequential proceedings.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the FIR has been lodged by the respondent No.2 on the allegations that on 09/07/2020 at about 08:30 in the evening he had gone to a medical shop for purchasing the medicines.In the said shop, the applicant was sitting and due to old enmity, he started abusing the complainant and also humiliated and insulted him by his caste name and when the complainant objected to it, then the applicant assaulted him by fists and blows.

['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the applicant seeks withdrawal of the bail application with liberty to surrender the applicant before the trial Court and the Court may be directed to consider their bail application on the same date.Considering the aforesaid, the bail application stands dismissed as withdrawn with a direction to the applicant to surrender before the trial Court and apply for regular bail, which shall be decided as expeditiously as possible.Certified copy as per rules.(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 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.

The appellant thereafter gave stab injury on the neck, chest and back of Daya Ram and when Smt. Shanti and her daughter shouted for help, the appellant ran away from the spot after giving knife blows to her sons.On the basis of this statement, Rukka for Registration of the FIR under Section 307 IPC was sent to the Police Station through Ct.The injured Dina Nath died on 26.10.1999 in the hospital.It is further submitted that although the incident was committed during the day time and many other neighbours might have witnessed the incident yet the prosecution has failed to join independent public witnesses.It is also contended that the prosecution has failed to produce the weapon of offence as the knife which is alleged to be the weapon of offence has not been recovered.During the cross-examination, he has stated that he reached the spot at about 12.45 pm.There were public persons present there.This plot was located in between her house and the house of appellant Vinod.Before this incident there was no dispute between them and appellant Vinod.At the time when objections were raised by Vinod about flow of water she was sitting out side her house at the Chabutra.She only told Vinod that since water was flowing from her house as well as his house, he should not trouble them.She did not try to save Daya Ram.Her son Dina Nath also came out.In the meanwhile she had been asking Vinod not to create trouble for small things.As soon as Dina Nath came out.Vinod caught hold of him and left Daya Ram.After coming out Dina Nath also tried to advice Vinod not to create dispute on small thing.However, Vinod stabbed Dina Nath after telling him that how dare he tried to advice him and that he will finish the matter for all times to come.Blood had fallen opposite to her house where stab injuries were caused.She came back to her house at about 2.30 pm along with the police who lifted blood sample in her presence and then again she went to the hospital.She has denied to the suggestion that neither she nor her daughter Geeta was witnesse to the incident and she was deposing falsely.She has also denied the suggestion that she had reached the hospital only on the next day.Prosecution has further examined PW 2 Daya Ram who has stated that the water of their house and some other houses flows towards an open plot situated in front of their house.On 24.10.99 at about 11.15 AM on hearing the abuses he and his mother came out of their house and inquired from the appellant as to whom he was abusing.The appellant felt offended and started giving him beating with fist and leg blows.Seeing them his mother cried for help, on hearing the same his brother Dina Nath and his sister Geeta came out of the house.As soon as his brother tried to save him from the appellant the appellant took out a knife from the right side pocket of his pant and started giving knife blow on his person.He received two knife injuries on his back.He pushed the appellant and ran to save himself when the appellant gave a knife blow on the head of his brother.His brother was about to fall but he took care of him.When he was in the process of taking care of his brother the appellant caught hold of him from behind and gave a knife blow on his neck on the back side.He and his brother fell on the ground due to the injuries caused by the appellant to both of them with the knife.The appellant proclaimed that he has finished the matter once for all and ran away from the spot.After about 30/45 minutes the police came there and put both of them in the gypsy and took them to the DDU Hospital.During the cross-examination he has stated that prior to the incident he had three sister and two brothers.His brother Deena Nath died in the incident.He was the eldest amongst the brothers but was younger to their eldest sister.He admitted that it was Sunday on the date of the incident.Except for his father and the eldest sister all other members of his family were present at home at the time of incident.Geeta and Malti were his younger sisters.There maybe 7/8 houses surrounding the chowk in front of his house.The residents of those houses were also present at the time of incident.The appellant was standing at a distance of about 10 places from his house when he was abusing his family members.The appellant was giving him beating while he was lying on the ground.His brother Dina Nath came to his rescue.The appellant has taken out the knife in his right hand from the left side of his pant.His brother became unconscious shortly he was stabbed by the appellant at a short distance.He has denied to the suggestion that during the course of grappling his mother came and laid down over him in order to save him.He admitted that the appellant gave him second knife blow when he was on the process of saving his falling brother.He has also denied to the suggestion that his brother and he himself wanted to marry a girl named Shanti @ Shanni or that she was the bone of contention or that he had any enmity with the appellant or for that reason he got the appellant implicated in this case.Prosecution has further examined PW3 Geeta who has stated that on 24.10.99 at about 11.00 am the appellant came in front of their house and started abusing.In the meanwhile her brother Daya Ram along with her mother came out of their house to enquire as to why he was abusing.The appellant started giving fist and led blows to brother.Her mother cried and she and her elder brother Dina Nath came out of the house.When her elder brother tried to come to the rescue of her younger brother the appellant took out a knife from the right side pocket of his pant and started attacking her brothers therewith.The appellant gave knife blows on the head and back of her elder brother Dina Nath.He also gave knife blows on the back and side of the neck of her brother Daya Ram.She and her mother raised alarm for help as a result of which the appellant ran away from the spot along with the knife.Her brothers became unconscious and subsequently her brother Dina Nath died.During the cross-examination she has stated that she was inside the house when Vinod started abusing.Her mother was sitting outside and her brother had gone out after hearing the noise of abuses.Prosecution has further examined PW 8 Dr. Tarun Jain, DDU Hospital, who has stated that he examined Daya Ram on 24.10.99 at 1.30 PM and prepared MLC Ex. PW 8/A which bears his signatures.During the cross-examination, he has stated that the patient was having three incised wound but was not having an cousion, lacerated wound or ligature.The incised wounds were caused by some sharp edged weapon.The corresponding cuts were available on the clothes of the patient.Patient was conscious at the time of examination.He was already conscious when brought to him.After examining the MLC is Ex. PW 8/A. He gave the opinion of injury as dangerous vide his endorsement Ex. PW 9/A which bears his signatures.The patient was declared fit for statement on 27.10.99 vide his endorsement Ex. PW 8/B which bears his signatures.During the cross-examination he has stated that the patient was under his supervision and he kept on examining him between 24.10.99 to 27.10.99 when he was declared fit for statement.He has admitted that he had given the opinion about the nature of injury suffered by the patient only after Dr. Tarun Jain had examined and prepared his MLC.Prosecution has further examined PW 10 Dr. Mehtab Singh who has stated that on 24.8.99 he examined the patient Deena Nath s/o Cheddi lal with the alleged history of assault.PW 4/A which bears his signatures.Prosecution has further examined PW 5 Dalip who has stated that on 26.10.99 he identified the dead body of his brother Dina Nath in JPN Hospital mortuary.His statement was recorded by the IO which is Ex. PW 6/A which bears his signatures.Prosecution has further examined PW 11 Shri Leerath Raj Singh, Draftsman, who has stated that on 3.11.99 he went to the spot i.e. Sethi Enclave, AB-16, and took rough notes and measurement on the instructions of SI Man Mohan Singh of the place of occurrence.He prepared scaled site plan with the help of measurements and rough notes.SI Manmohan Singh was present there.SI Manmohan Singh pointed out at these points were blood stains.The distance between the house of Vinod and the house at the opposite side, is about 50 fts.Prosecution has further examined PW 12 Dr. Sanjeev Arora, who has identified the signatures of Dr. G.J. Singh in charge, Surgery Department where the injured Dina Nath and Daya Ram were admitted on being recommended by Dr. R. Grover.Prosecution has further examined PW 13 Const.Chander Singh who has stated that on 24.10.99 he assisted SI Man Mohan Singh in the investigation of this case.he along with said SI and Const.Harish had gone in search of the appellant to check Pipalwala, Mohan Garden.After search was conducted for sometime, the secret informer identified the appellant Vinod who was sitting outside his house.SI arrested him.He was interrogated and his statement was recorded.His personal search was also taken.He signed the same which is Ex.PW 13/A. The disclosure statement made by appellant was also signed by him and the same is Ex. PW13/B. He also pointed out memo Ex.. PW13/C was prepared which also bears his signatures.He has further stated that the appellant was taken to DDU Hospital by him and Const.Prosecution has further examined PW 14 Const.Rajesh who has stated that on the night intervening 25/26.99 at about 4.20 AM he received information from Babu JPN Hospital that injured Dina Nath had been referred to JPN Hospital.He reduced this information in writing vide DD No. 48 C which was in his handwriting and the same is Ex. PW14/A.Prosecution has further examined PW 15 Const.Harish who has stated that on 24.10.99 he remained with the IO in the investigation of this case.On that day he along with IO and Const.Chander Singh went to Mohan Garden in search of appellant.Appellant was apprehended.Appellant has sustained injuries and his shirt was blood stained.Thereafter appellant was brought to police station.In the night, he along with Const.Chander Singh took the appellant to Hindu Rao Hospital for his examination.Appellant has told the IO in the interrogation that he would get recovered the knife but the same was not recovered by him.Prosecution has further examined PW 16 Komal Singh, Const. who has stated that on 24.10.99 he handed over the one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of CMO (DDU) Hospital to SI Manmohan who seized the same vide memo Ex. PW16/A which bears his signatures.Prosecution has further examined PW 17 Sanjay Kumar who has stated that on 24.10.99 he accompanied Addl.SHO T.P.S. Tomar to Sethi Enclave, leaving him there at the spot.IO along with Const.Ashok went to DDU Hospital.At the spot blood was lying.Thereafter IO returned to the spot and in the presence of Shanti Devi mother of the injured, IO inspected the spot and prepared site plan.IO called the photographer who took photographs IO seized from the spot the blood stained cotton.Bloodstained earth, earth control and the blood lying at some distance after he prepared the four parcels sealed with the seal of MMR vide seizure memo.Ex. PW17/A same bears his signatures.Prosecution has further examined PW 18 Const.The copy of the FIR is Ex. PW 21/A. He has also recorded the DD No. 2A as a token of registration of this case.Prosecution has further examined PW 22 Kuldeep Singh who has stated that on 24.10.99 SI Manmohan Singh deposited with him 12 sealed parcels sealed with the seal of MMR and one sealed parcels with the seal of CMO DDU Hospital and the sample seal.On 27.10.99 Insp.Blood was lying in many places.He came to know that one Vinod Kumar had given him knife injury and thereafter he left the spot.He took injured Daya Ram in PCR Van and got him admitted in DDU Hospital.Prosecution has further examined PW 24 Const.Naresh Kumar who has stated that on 15.12.99 he took the case property from MHC(M) along with FSL form vide RC No. 261/21/99 and deposited the same in FSL Malviya Nagar so long as the case property remained with him same remained intact.Prosecution has further examined PW 25 Const.Ashok Kumar who has stated that he joined the IO in the investigation of this case.On receipt of one DD of which he could not remember the number, at about 12.00 noon he along with IO reached 8/13, Sethi Enclave, Mohan Garden.There they came to know that injured had been taken to DDU Hospital.Then they reached DDU Hospital and recorded the statements.Thereafter IO gave him tehrir and then samples were taken.He had nothing more to say.This witness turned hostile.During the cross-examination by the Ld. APP he has stated that IO recorded his statement.He admitted that IO received DD No. 12B. he has admitted that at the spot they came to know about quarrel but no eye-witness was available and blood was lying on many places.After leaving the Const.Sanjay, he along with IO reached DDU Hospital.IO obtained the MLC of Dina Nath and Daya Ram who were unfit for statement.He has also admitted that in the hospital Smt. Shanti met the IO and IO recorded her statement.Prosecution has further examined PW 26 Const.Gurdeep Singh who has stated that on 24.10.99 he recorded DD No. 12A. The photocopy of the DD is Ex. PW20/A.Prosecution has further examined PW 27 Cosnt.Satish Kumar who has stated that on 4.11.99 he had gone to the spot at the call of the IO where he had taken the photograph at the instructions of the IO.He has taken eight photographs.This witness was also cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the state as he has not supported the prosecution case.During the cross-examination he has stated that IO has taken his statement.He has also admitted that due to lapse of time he had forgotton the date and month.Prosecution has further examined PW 28 Inspector Man Mohan who has stated that on 24.10.99 on receipt of DD No. 12B he along with Const.Ashok reached the place of occurrence i.e. House No. 13, Sethi Enclave, Super Bazar, where they came to know that injured had been taken to DDU Hospital.SHO along with cons.Sanjay reached at the spot.He left the Const.Sanjay there.he along with Const.Ashok reached the DDU Hospital where he procured the MLC of Dinesh and Daya Ram and they were unfit for statement.In the hospital Smt. Shanti Devi met him who gave the statement Ex.PW1/A. He made endorsement Ex.PW28/A and sent the Const.Ashok who got the case registered on the basis of the same.Thereafter he along with complainant Shanti Devi returned to the spot.Meanwhile Const.Satish came at the spot who took the photographs Ex.He also recorded his statement.From the spot, he seized the bloodstained earth, earth control and other exhibits vide seizure memo Ex. PW17/A. He sealed all the pullandas with site plan Ex. PW28/B with correct marginal notes.Thereafter they searched for the appellant but they did not find him.Thereafter he accompanied with Const.Ashok reached DDU Hospital.The hospital duty const.Kamal Singh handed over to him one sealed parcel with the seal of CMO and seized the parcel vide seizure memo Ex. PW16/A. He recorded the statement of Kamal Singh and in the hospital Geeta d/o Cheedi Lal met them and he recorded her statement.He has further stated that thereafter he along with Const.Ashok came back to the spot.Again they searched for the appellant but they did not get any clue.They thereafter returned to the police station and deposited the case property with MHCM.Then at about 8.30 PM he along with Const.Harish and Const.Chander left the plice station for search of appellant.When they reached peepalchock, at the instance of secret information appellant Vinod was apprehended.He got the appellant medically examined.They returned to police station and recorded the disclosure staement which is Ex.. PW13/B in which he disclosed that he could get recover Lathi and knife.On 25.10.99 he along with Const.reached to DDU Hospital where they came to know that Dina Nath has been shifted to LNJP Hospital and unfit for statement.Then he came to the police station.Thereafter appellant led them to the spot and pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex.PW 13/C. The personal search memo is Ex. PW13/A. He tried to recover the weapon of offence but could not recover it.On 26.10.99 DD No. 48B was received with regard to the death of Dina Nath.He along with Const.Mehtab reached JPN Hospital and got conducted the post mortem of the deceased and before that he conducted inquest proceedings.JUDGMENT G.S. Sistani, J.The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 04.11.2003 and order dated 06.11.2003 of the Additional Sessions Judge thereby holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302/307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.The necessary facts of the case are that on 24.10.1999 on receipt of information pertaining to the commission of murder in front of house No. 8/13, Sethi Enclave Uttam Nagar, an information was recorded vide DD No. 12B. On receipt of this information Sub-Inspector Man Mohan Singh along with Ct.Ashok reached the spot of the incident House No. 8/13, Sethi Enclave, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.Vinod Kumar (hereinafter the appellant) has been convicted for the offence of murder of Dina Nath, stab injuries to Daya Ram and, thus, convicted under Sections 302/307 IPC.At the spot of the incident none was present and on information it was learnt that the injured/deceased were admitted to DDU Hospital.Statement of Smt. Shanti, the mother of the injured/deceased was recorded.According to her, the appellant was her neighbour and he had quarrelled many times earlier with her sons for not letting the waste/dirty water of the kitchen, enter the plot outside her house due to which the plot would get muddy.On 24.10.1999 at about 11.35 am, the appellant had come in front of her house and had started abusing.On hearing this, Daya Ram, son of Smt. Shanti went outside and enquired from the appellant as to why and to whom he has been abusing, due to which, the appellant became angry and started kicking and giving fist blows to Daya Ram.On hearing the noises, her daughter and son Dina Nath also came out of the house and when Dina Nath saw his brother being beaten by the appellant, he tried to intervene.Thereafter, the appellant took out a knife and threatened Dina Nath and Daya Ram and shouted that he would kill them.The dead body of the deceased was sent for post portem and the case was converted into Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment dated 04.11.2003 and order dated 06.11.2003 are bad in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same are liable to be set aside.It is submitted that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the facts and material on record and, thus, the story of the prosecution is false, frivolous, fictitious and fabricated and the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.In fact, the judgment of the Trial Court is based on conjectures, suppositions, surmises and assumptions and, thus, not sustainable.As per the appellant, the version of the prosecution is not probable.9. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the prosecution did not attribute any motive on the appellant to commit the alleged offence.PW-1, the mother of the victims has specifically stated that there was no enmity with the appellant and the open plot where the waste water usually got collected, did not belong to her.Learned Counsel for the appellant has strongly contended that the alleged eye-witnesses i.e. PW-1, is the mother of the deceased, PW-2 is the brother of the deceased and PW-3 is the sister of the deceased who belong to the same family are interested witnesses and no reliance can be placed on their evidence.Nobody came to give the statement.The injured were taken to hospital by PCR Van.The appellant was arrested on 24.10.99 at about 9.30 pm.The prosecution in support of its case, examined 28 witnesses.Prosecution has examined PW 1 Shanti Devi who has stated that on 24.10.99 at about 11.30 AM she was present in her house when appellant Vinod came to her house abusing them.She came out along with her son Daya Ram.Her son inquired from the appellant as to whom he was abusing and why? The appellant was abusing on account of flowing of water of their house in the adjoining plot.In the meantime her elder son Dina Nath and her daughter Geeta came out of the house.The appellant proclaimed that he will finish the matter of flowing of water on that day for all times to come.In the meanwhile the appellant took out a knife and hit her elder son on his head with that knife.He also gave a knife blow on the back of her son as a result of which her son became unconscious.He tried to attack Daya Ram also with that knife.But apprehending danger to his life Daya Ram started running from there but then appellant followed Daya Ram, caught hold of him from back side and gave four knife blows on the back of Daya Ram.Thereafter the appellant ran away from the spot.PCR van came there and removed her both sons to DDU Hospital.Her statement Ex. PW1/A was recorded by the police which bears her right thumb impression.During the cross-examination she has stated that she had three daughter namely Rani, Malti and Geeta and three sons namely Deena Nath, Daya Ram and Parveen.There may be more than 100 houses in the Kumhar colony.The water of her house used to go in a plot opposite to her house which was not belonging to her.She did not know about the owner of that plot.The plot where the water flows from her house was not belonging to Vinod appellant.On the date of incident also the water was flowing to the said plot adjoining to the plot.This plot was located in between her house and the house of appellant.On the date of incident also the water was flowing to the said plot adjoining to the plot.Her statement was recorded by the police in the hospital at about 4.00 pm.She did not make any effort to intervene in the fight.This kind of incident happened for the first time about the dispute of water flowing but earlier there used to be minor discussions.She and her mother had gone to the hospital in the police vehicle along with her brother.19.Prosecution has further examined PW 7 Dr. S.K. Khanna, Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, who has stated that on 26.10.99 he conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased Dina Nath and found following external injuries on the body:Stitch wound 5.5 c.m. on the left side of face.The margines of the wound was clean cut.Incised wound 1.5 x 1.2 c.m.On the left side of back of chest.Abrasions 4 x 2 c.m.On the right side of forehead.Conduction 1.5 x 1, c.m.on the middle part of right arm.Abrasions 1.5 x 1.2 c.m.on the lower third of left forearm.INTERNAL EXAMINATION OF HEAD Skull was found to have liner fracture involving left sphenoid, temporal bones and extending to left middle cranial fossa.There was defused subarachnoid hemorrhage all over both the cerebral hamispheres.There was condusion of left temporal end partial lobes of the brain.There was blood in both the lateral ventricles.CAUSE OF DEATH.All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and about 1 to 2 old before death.Injuries No. 1 and 2 were caused by a sharp edge weapon and injuries No. 3 to 5 2343 caused by blunt force.Injury No. 1 along with damage to the brain was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.His report is Ex. PW 7/A which bears his signatures.During the cross-examination he has stated that there is possibility of receiving of injuries similarly to injury 3 to 5 in this case by fall on some hard surface/ground.He also stated that it could safely be opined that it was sufficient along with damage to the skull and brain corresponding to injury No. 1, to cause death, in the ordinary course of nature.Prosecution has further examined PW6 Dr. Amitabh Bhasin Radiologist who has stated that on 27.12.99 he examined X-Ray plate of patient Daya Ram and found that in the X-Ray of abdomen collection in the left plaurel space.Rest of the X-Ray was normal.X-Ray of the chest showed that there was collection in the left plaural place suggestive of hemothorax.There was also subcutaneous emphysema seen in the right upper neck.His report is Ex. PW 6/A which bears his signatures.He found the clean incised wound about 3 to 4 cms on lateral side of forehead above left eye.The injury was nearly too deep.The nature of injury was sharp and the patient was kept for observation in the deptt.Surgical ICU.Prosecution has further examined PW 4 Chedi lal who has stated that on 26.10.99 he identified the dead body of his son Dina Nath in JPB Mortuary.His statement was recorded by the IO which is Ex.After preparing the scaled site plan, the rough notes and measuresments were destroyed.The scaled site plan prepared by him which is Ex. PW 11/A and bears his signatures.During the cross-examination he has admitted that he has not shown the house of complainant Shanti Devi because it was too far from the place of incident.After the medical, he was brought to Vikaspuri Lock Up.No recovery was effected on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the appellant.Suresh Chander who has stated that on 27.11.99 he obtained the case property of this case along with form FSL from MC(M) vide RC No. 253/21/99 but case property could not be deposited and he deposited the same with MHC(M) on 4.12.99 on his return to Delhi from Calcutta.Prosecution has further examined PW 19 Const.Mehtab Singh who has stated that on 26.10.99 he got conducted the post mortem on the body of deceased Deena Nath in JPN Hospital and after the post mortem the dead body of the deceased was handed over to Cheddi Lal.Prosecution has further examined PW 20 Const.Ravinder Kumar who has stated that on 25.10.99 he along with IO came to Tis Hazari Court and took one day police custody of the appellant and thereafter he pointed out the place of occurrence.Prosecution has further examined PW 21 HC Mohinder Singh who has stated that on 24.10.99 he recorded FIR No. 1056/99 u/s 307 IPC on receipt of rukka sent by SI Manmohan Singh and brought by Const.Ashok Kumar.T.P.S. Tomar deposited with him one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of MAM College and sample seal.On 27.11.99 he handed over the case property of this case along with sample seal to Const.Suresh vide RC No. 253/21 for depositing the FSL, Calcutta but the case property could not be deposited.On 15.12.99 he again handed over the case property to Const.Naresh Kumar vide RC No. 266/21 for depositing the same in Malviya Nagar.On 1.5.00 the result from FSL was received along with remnants of the case property.So long the case property remained with him, the same remained intact.Prosecution has further examined PW 23 HC Samay Singh who has stated that on 24.10.99 he received the call about the stabbing incident.He reached the place of occurrence and found two persons Daya Ram and Dina Nath in an injured condition.He also admitted that on his return to the spot, he handed over the tehrir and copy of FIR.In the hospital the duty constable handed over to the IO one sealed parcel and one sample seal with the seal of CMO DDU Hospital which was seized by the IO Ex. PW16/A.During the cross-examination, he has stated that the sealed parcel was given by the IO at 12.30 noon.They reached the hospital at 12.20 PM.IO recorded the statement of Shanti Devi at about 1.00 PM.The statement of identification of dead body is Ex.PW28/C. After the post mortem the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased.He also asked the doctor to preserve the blood sample of the deceased.On 27.10.99 he again joined the investigation of this case and he handed over one sealed parcel with the seal of Forensic Medicines MAM College, New Delhi and one sample seal to the IO who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW28/D. On 3.11.99 the IOD got prepared the scaled site plan from the Draftsman Sh.Teerath Raj Singh where he was present.Complainant Shanti Devi was also present.It is contended by learned Counsel for the State that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt and the same is based on the evidence of the eye-witnesses including PW-2 who is also injured.We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.It would be appropriate, at this stage, to analyze the evidence in this matter.There are three eye-witnesses in this case, PW-1, who is the mother of the deceased; PW-2 who is the brother of the deceased; and PW-3 who is the sister of the deceased.As per the three eye-witnesses, the date and time of the incident stands corroborated.What is also corroborated from the evidence of each of the witnesses is that the appellant had come in front of their house and started abusing.PW-1 has stated that she came out of the house along with her son Daya Ram (deceased) and the appellant was abusing them on account of flowing of water from the house of the deceased to the adjoining plot.At the same time it emerges from the statements of PWs-1 to 3 that Dina Nath as well as PW-3, the daughter also came out of the house.All the three eye-witnesses have been consistent in their evidence to state that the appellant took out a knife from his pocket and gave knife blows on PW-2 as well as knife blows on the head of Dina Nath (deceased).All the three eye-witnesses in their account have mentioned that the appellant after giving the knife blows to the deceased Dina Nath as well as after injuring Daya Ram ran away from the spot.In the cross-examination of the witnesses at length, all the three-witnesses remained unshaken in their testimony.Merely the fact that the eye-witnesses were related to the deceased cannot by itself be called as interested witnesses.Nothing has come on record to show that there was any reason for the three eye-witnesses to implicate the appellant falsely nor any motive was attributed.The deceased Dina Nath had, in fact, gone outside to save his brother PW-2, who was being beaten by the appellant.The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. On reading of this statement, we find that the appellant had admitted the factum of Kachi drain in front of his house which was a nuisance and due to which a pit was formed and passers by used to fall in it due to which there was some disputes between the neighbours.He has also stated that on 22.10.1999 at about 7.30 pm, one cyclewala had fallen in the drain due to the pit made by PWs Dina Nath and Daya Ram.Of course in the statement, he also states that he has been falsely implicated in the case.However, according to him, it was a quarrel between the brothers and the appellant, who had been falsely implicated.This statement when taken into consideration with the cross-examination of PWs, wherein a suggestion was made to PW-2 that when he was grappling with the appellant his mother Smt. Shanti Devi came to the spot.The suggestion put to PW-2, Daya Ram, who was injured is reproduced as under:It is wrong to suggest that during the course of grappling, my mother came and laid down over me in order to save me.Even otherwise, it would be a natural consequence that, in case, the appellant was found abusing outside the house of these witnesses who happened to be the mother, the son and the daughter, it would be natural for them to run outside the house to see why a person is abusing.It will be useful to refer to the judgment of Masalte v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported at , relevant portion of which is reproduced below:Mr. Sawhney has then argued that where witnesses giving evidence in a murder trial like the present are shown to belong to the faction of victims, their evidence should not be accepted, because they are prone to involve falsely members of the rival faction out of enmity and partisan feeling.

['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.

2) Rule is made absolute In those terms.(M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)mahajansb/ ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 17:03:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 17:03:08 :::

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In view of the guidelines laid down by this Court, the urgent bail applications have been directed to be heard through Video Conferencing.Learned Counsel for the applicant had made an application for urgency which was placed before the concerned court and it has been allowed and it is in this fashion that this bail application has been placed before this Court.The Court has heard Sri Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri J.S. Tomar learned AGA through video conference.The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case.As per the version contained in the First Information Report, it is alleged that a Jeep was caught by the Police wherein illicit liquor was found.It has been submitted that the applicant is doing the work of shuttering and on the date of occurrence, the applicant was returning to his house and seeing a taxi that was going towards Faizabad.The applicant took a ride in the said Jeep.(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or his their counsel.In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

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

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

THIS is first application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.241/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station- Maingaon, District Khargone.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of District Dhar, having no criminal antecedents.As per the prosecution case, he has created pressure on the deceased for recovering his borrowed amount, however, he has not instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide.The applicant is ready to co-operate with the investigation.Co-accused Mohd. Jameer has already been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 11/11/2016, passed in M.Cr.On the ground of parity, the applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail.On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the Non- applicant/State opposes the prayer and prays for dismissal of the application.It is made clear that if the applicant breaches any of the condition, then this order shall automatically stand cancelled without reference to this Court and the concerning Court shall be free to take appropriate action to secure the presence of the applicant.C stands disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.(JARAT KUMAR JAIN)

['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

"We, therefore, direct the Director, CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry in the matter of execution and implementation of the NRHM and utilization of funds at various levels during such implementation in the entire State of U.P. and register regular case in respect of persons against whom prima facie cognizable offence is made out and proceed in accordance with law.The preliminary enquiry shall be conducted from the period commencing year 2005- 06 till date.It is directed that the inquiry be completed within four months.The State Government is directed to hand over and make available all the records as may be required by the CBI and render full support and cooperation to CBI.The Central Government is also directed to render full support as may be asked by the CBI."In view of above direction issued by this Court FIRs were registered and the preliminary enquiry was conducted by the CBI.After conclusion of the preliminary inquiry prima facie involvement of the accused in the crime was established as a result of which investigation was proceeded with.There are four accused persons in the charge sheet namely S.P. Ram, Saurabh Jain, Suneet Singhal and M/s CNC Metal Forming Ltd through its Director Suneet Singhal and in the supplementary charge sheet six more accused persons have been named as accused namely Pradeep Shukla, Vipin Kumar Chaudhary, M.M. Trpathi, A.K.Srivastava, Vipul Kumar Gupta, Babu Singh Kushwaha.It is also important to mention that in the charge sheet RC 220-2012 E0001 and RC 220-2012 E0002 Girish Malik, Manvendra Chaddha, Ramesh Tandon, Abdul Mateen, S.B. Pandey, Masood Ul Hasan and M. K. Jain were initially arrayed as accused in the FIR have been named as witnesses by prosecution.It reveals from the charge sheet that starting point of conspiracy was a hidden intention to award this contract to one M/s Surgicon Medequip Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) for supplying the O.T. Modular fitted with Acs.Conspiracy was hatched by the accused Pradeep Shukla, IAS the then Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Govt of UP and co-accused Devendra Mohan, the then MD, UPPCL and Ravindra Rai, the then GM (Commercial), UPPCL and Naresh Grover, MD of M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt Ltd. Babu Singh Kushwaha, the then Minister, Family Welfare as well as R.P. Jaiswal, the then MLA, Govt. of UP in furtherance of the said conspiracy, Naresh Grover, MD of M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt Ltd through its representative namely Girish Malik and Manvendra Chaddha approached Pradeep Shukla the then Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare and Babu Singh Kushwaha, the then Minister, Family Welfare, Govt of UP for allotment of the said work to UPPCL for getting the work allotted in his favour.Accused Pradeep Shukla demanded Rs. 1.25 crores and accused Babu Singh Kushwaha demanded an amount of 3 % of the total contract amount for allotting the said work to UPPCL so as to benefit M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt. Ltd. The representatives also approached Devendra Mohan, the then M.D. UPPCL and Ravinder Rai, the then GM (Commercial), UPPCL, who also demanded their share of bribe for showing favour to the firm M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt Ltd.It is further revealed that Rs. 1.25 crores was paid to the accused Pradeep Shukla in two instalments.An amount of Rs. 25 lacs was paid to the accused Pradeep Shukla at his residence and on his direction an amount of Rs. 1 crores was paid at the residence of his relative namely Ashok Bajpai through Girish Malik and Manvendra Chaddha.An amount of Rs. 75 lacs was paid to Babu Singh Kushwaha through representative of M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt Ltd. On receipt of the said amount Babu Singh Kushwaha instructed Pradeep Shukla to award the work of up-gradation of District Level Hospital to UPPCL in order to benefit the M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt Ltd.The first step towards achieving the object of conspiracy was to prepare a ground for allotment of the work to UPPCL which admittedly was a company involved in the construction activities.The communication dated 7.8.2009 was sent by accused Devendra Mohan addressed to the Mission Director, NRHM requesting him to award the contract related to up-gradation of Forty District Level Hospital as per Indian Primary Health Centre norms to the UPPCL.This letter was not found to be dispatched from the office of MD, UPPCL nor was any receipt thereof found in the record of the NRHM.It was found in the office file of the said Programme Management Unit containing the endorsement made by S.K.Singh, the then G.M. (Admn), SPMU, NRHM, UP and marked to Dr. R. P. Yadav, the then GM(Construction), SPMU, NRHM.The said letter was handed over personally by accused Ravindra Rai to S.K. Singh and on the direction issued by accused Pradeep Shukla in its meeting on 8.8.2009 contract was allotted to the UPPCL.Meeting is alleged to have been attended by only Rajneesh Pandey and officiating Executive Engineer, office of DG, Family Welfare, Govt. of UP and R.R. Bharti, Director General, Family Welfare.No other committee member was found to be present in the meeting.Names of other executive members consisting of 17 persons are shown to have attended the meeting.Some other officials of NRHM and DG Family Welfare were shown to have attended the meeting.None of them was regular members of the Executive Committee.Members of the Executive Committee have shown ignorance about the said meeting.On 12.8.2009 out of the 19 members of the Executive Committee only four were shown to be present as per attendance sheet and out of those four members, Lalit Verma, IAS the then Secretary, Medical Health denied to have attended the said meeting.Other three members also have shown ignorance regarding the allotment of the contract to UPPCL as no such agenda was discussed relating to the said allotment.Decision to allot the contract was taken by the then secretary Pradeep Shukla.The second limb of allegations relate to assigning of work of facility survey to one M/s EPOS India Private Ltd by the accused Pradeep Shukla and Devendra Mohan and Ravinder Rai.Purpose was for preparation of facility survey reports in respect of District Level Hospitals.The whole idea was to incorporate the concept of Modular OT in the facility survey reports so as to include the same in the work of up-gradation of district level hospital and to allow maximum illegal gain to M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt Ltd. as well as to themselves.The concept of Modular OTs was introduced to help the M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt Ltd. Company for which estimated cost of Rs. 50 lacs per hospital was shown.The cost was determined without any survey made in this behalf.The facility survey containing concept of Modula OTs were sent to C. B. Prasad, the then DG Family Welfare, who formed a committee consisting of officers/doctors from the Office of DG Medical Health and DG Family Welfare for evaluation of the said reports.However, the said committee was dissolved on the instruction of accused Pradeep Shukla who wanted to have a committee consisting of Officers/Doctors from the office of DGFW to have direct control over them so as to get the said facility survey reports approved without any objection thereto.After approval of facility survey report preparation for specification of Modular OTs by UPPCL was processed.Accused Devendra and Ravindra Rai in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy obtained the specification from Naresh Grover who got the same prepared in such a way so as to derive maximum profit by way of supply of Modular OTs on those specifications.In order to avoid publicity, it was decided that for the purpose of calling tender publication in only two news papers of lesser circulation should be done.No communication was addressed to Director Information and Public Relations as letter dated 15.1.2010 was never sent to the said Directorate.Publication was made only in two news paper namely 'Swattantra Chetna' dated 18.1.2010, Lucknow Edition and in the 'Statesman' dated 19.1.2010, Delhi edition.Companies who are said to have participated in the tendering process namely M/s Unicare India Private Ltd, Noida and M/s Anod Pharma Pvt. Ltd, Kanpur and M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt Ltd. were managed by accused Naresh Grover.Accused Naresh Grover applied on behalf of M/s Unicare India Private Ltd, Noida and M/s Anod Pharma Pvt. Ltd, Kanpur without their knowledge and for which their papers were fr adulently obtained by him.On the basis of forged and bogus documents co accused Naresh Grover was able to get M/s M/s Unicare India Private Ltd, Noida and M/s Anod Pharma Pvt. Ltd, Kanpur empanelled with UPPCL with the connivance of the co accused Ravindra Rai and Devendra Mohan.The rates quoted by M/s Unicare India Private Ltd, Noida and M/s Anod Pharma Pvt. Ltd, Kanpur were shown on the higher side whereas the rates of the said M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt Ltd. were shown on lower side with intent to procure the said contract.The contract was allotted to M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt Ltd. at the rate of Rs. 45,16,560/- as cost of Modular OT and cost of Air Conditioning/Air Handling Unit as Rs. 28,90,200/-.Total value of the contract per one Modular OT Unit and AC Unit was Rs. 74,06,760/- which was higher in comparison to the prevalent market value of Rs. 33 to Rs. 34 lacs and as a consequence of this loss to the tune of Rs. 6.02 crores was caused to the State Exchequer with corresponding gain to the accused persons.It also emerges from the charge sheet that up-gradation of 89 hospitals was also under way for which M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt Ltd. approached the accused persons namely Pradeep Shukla and Babu Singh Kushwaha.An amount of Rs. 1.50 crores was demanded by accused Pradeep Shukla and Rs. 5 crores was demanded by accused Babu Singh Kushwaha.It it alleged that out of the said amount Rs. 1.25 crores was given to accused Pradeep Shukla.It appears that the work which was earlier allotted to UPPCL for up-gradation of 40 District Level Hospitals was withdrawn but the same was restored after much persuasion by UPPCL that they had already started the work of Modular Ots in 36 District Hospitals towards up-Gradation of 40 District Hospitals.Allegations further reveals that the Babu Singh Kushwaha and R. P. Jaiswal invested the illegal gratification received to the tune of Rs. 12.61 crores approximately and Rs. 76.27 crores approximately in a number of companies, trust owned and controlled by their family members.Documentary proof in this behalf has also been submitted along with charge sheet.Crux of the allegations in this charge sheet reflects the manner in which all norms were thrown to winds while focusing on the main object of conspiracy to allow the contract to M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt Ltd. The chain of events as are revealed from the charge sheet identifies the role of all the accused persons in allotting this contract to the said company.Allegations contained in charge sheet No. RC 220-2012 E 0003 are that for up-gradation of 89 District Level Hospital @ of Rs. 1 crore per hospital totalling Rs. 89 crores, the Executive Committee headed by Pradeep Shukla in its meeting dated 13.7.2010 allotted the said work to PACCFED.It is alleged that during the period June-July 2009, Sri Saurabh Jain and Rajni Jain, Directors of M/s SRJ Ifratech Pvt Ltd., Seema Varshney Director, M/s SS Industries and Suneet Sehgal, Director, M/s CNC Metal Farming Pvt Ltd. entered into criminal conspiracy with Pradeep Shukla and S.P. Ram, the then DG, Family Welfare and Officers of PACCFED for obtaining the contract for up-gradation work of 89 District Level Hospital on the basis of bogus documents submitted by the said company.The said work was allotted to the PACCFED by the Pradeep Shukla on 13.7.2010 instead of UPPCL which was already doing similar work in 40 Hospital by showing that the performance of UPPCL was not satisfactory.On persuasion of the representative of M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt Ltd. the work was allotted to UPPCL instead of PACCFED.In pursuance to the said decisions, funds to the tune of Rs. 87.16 crores were transferred in the account of UPPCL by the DG, Family Welfare on 19.8.2010 and direction was given to all Chief Medical Superintendents to consult the District Unit of UPPCL to give priority to the said work.However, again on 6.9.2010 the Executive Committee headed by Pradeep Shukla decided to transfer the work from UPPCL to PACCFED in lieu of monetary consideration to the extent of 25% of the total project cost to be paid by Sri Saurabh Jain of M/s SRJ Infratech and his associates.The said decision was taken on the basis of false report prepared by Sri S.P. Ram, the then DG, Family Welfare.The said contract was allotted at exorbitant rate of Rs. 45,96,500/- per Modular Ots and for AC Units Rs. 28 lacs.The loss to the tune of Rs. 17.68 crores has been caused to the government exchequer.Allegations contained in charge sheet No. RC 220-2012 E 0001 relates to up-gradation of 134 District Hospitals in UP under the NRHM.Loss to the tune of Rs. 5.36 crores has been caused to the Government exchequer.The said work has been allotted to the Naresh Grover, MD of M/s Surgicoin in connivance with the office of Construction Design Service, UP.It is alleged that the representative of M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt Ltd. approached Babu Singh Kushwaha, the then Minister of Family Welfare and R.P. Jaiswal at his residence to get the said work under NRHM allotted in their favour.For allotting the said work Babu Singh Kushwaha and R.P. Jaiswal demanded a bribe equivalent to 3 % of the total project value which was agreed to by the accused company.Executive Committee headed by Sri Pradeep Shukla decided to have this contract executed by the Construction and Design Services, UP.One D.K.Singh who is said to be an official looking after the work of Construction and Design Services accepted to allot the contract to the said company in case the work to the tune of Rs. 2 crores be given to R.K.Singh, Proprietor of M/s Modern Interiors, Lucknow, a friend of D.K.Singh.Rates were prepared by Unit No. 50 Barabanki, C&DS which were higher to the extent of 5 times more than the prevalent market value.Allegations against the accused B. N. Srivastava are that while functioning as Project Manager in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy with the officials of C&DS verified 27 items to be supplied to 134 district hospitals without consulting the then Medical Superintendent of the respective hospitals as a consequence of which a sum of Rs. 9,93,30,016/- and Rs. 1,74,51,328/- were paid to M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt. Ltd. in view of supplied items verified by the said accused to 134 District Hospitals under the NRHM scheme.Rates were highly exorbitant.It is revealed from the charge sheet that the rates were five times higher than the market value as a result of which loss to the extent of crores was suffered.The purchase committee of Unit No. 50 C&DS Barabanki has collected 04 quotations from M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt Ltd., M/s Modern Interiors, 30, M/s Rajpal and M/s Avon Dealers.The State was interested with responsibility of administration of the Mission whereas substantial resources are to be provided by the Union Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MoH&FW) in contribution with the State Government.The implementation of NRHM in the State is to be under the overall guidance and supervision of the State Health Mission constituted as per G.O. dated 16.11.2006 with Chief Minister as its ex-officio Chairperson.The State Health Society registered under the Societies Registration Act was constituted by merging all existing state level health societies on 21.02.2007 to carry out functions of the Mission in an additional managerial capacity to the Department of Health & Family Welfare of the State Government.It was further ordered that the health and family welfare are two separate departments in Uttar Pradesh and therefore, they were ordered to be merged under the directives of the Central Government into one department of health and family welfare.The State Health Commission's primary responsibility was to receive, manage (including disbursement of funds to implementation agencies such as Directorate, District Societies, NGOs etc.) and account the funds received from the MoH & FW.The Governing Body of the Society is vested with full control of the affairs of the Society whereas the Executive Committee and such other committees constituted by the Governing Body serve as its implementation agency.The Chief Secretary is the Chairman of the Governing Body which is vested with the power to monitor the financial position of the Society to ensure smooth income flow and review the annual audited accounts and is required to convene meeting at least once every six months.Body was entrusted with the job to evaluates at its annual meeting (a) the income and expenditure account and the balance sheet for the past year, (b) annual report of the Society, (c) appointments for the executive committee and the various committees, and (d) other business brought forward with permission of the Chairman.The Executive Committee is to act on behalf of the Governing Body and is empowered to take all decisions and exercise all powers vested in the Governing Body except those which the Governing Body was specifically excluded.The Principal Secretary, Family Welfare is the Chairperson of the Executive Committee while a full time Mission Director appointed by the State for NRHM is the Convenor of the Society.The Secretariat known as State Programme Management Support Unit (SPMSU) is responsible for daily management of the Society's activities as set out in Article 5 of the Memorandum of Association of the Society which includes disbursement of NRHM funds to implementation agencies and also acts as a Secretariat of State Health Mission.According to sub-clause I(B) of clause B of the bye-laws of the Society, all powers pertaining to release of funds for implementation of plans/allocations which have been approved by the Governing Body/Executive Committee have been vested in the Mission Director.The funds made available for the Mission were subject to audit of the State and District societies organised by the State within six months of the close of every financial year.Thereafter, the State Government would prepare and submit a consolidated statement of expenditure, including the interest that has been accrued.All these funds were subject to statutory audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG).It is within this institutional set-up envisaged by the MOU that the NRHM in the State of U.P. was to be implemented.The scheme was implemented in the State in the year 2007 and the state health Mission was constituted which was headed by the Chief Minister as its ex-officio Chairperson.From the perusal of the aforesaid scheme four tire system was in place to implement the scheme:-(a) State Health Mission headed by Chief Minister as its chairman;(b) State Health Society headed by the Chief Secretary as its Chairman;(c) District Health Family Welfare Society which was renamed as District Health Society to guide the policy and operation and;(d) Hospital Management Society called 'Rogi Kalyan Samiti'.Functions were delineated by the Scheme itself.The State Health Mission was to supervise, monitor and guide the implementation of the Mission in the State and was also required to meet at least once every six months for this purpose.(a) His decision to allot the work to UPPCL which is a construction company was objected by one Chanchal Tiwari an official of the department as the company did not have expertise in dealing with the equipments required to be used in the Hospital.The witness Chanchal Tiwari was working as Mission Director, NRHM, Lucknow.He has stated in his statement that in the meeting held on 17.6.2009 recommendation was made by Sri R.P.Yadav that the work allotted for up gradation of the hospitals may be awarded to an experienced and competent agency equipped with architectural and technical competence and latest construction equipments.It was also mentioned in clear term that none of the agencies from which proposals have been received during the meeting dated 17.6.2009, is having the aforesaid requisite competency to execute the said work as such decision may be taken to award the said work to an experienced agency like UP Rajkiya Nirman Nigam.In the said meeting it was also decided to recommend construction of 608 sub sub-centres to be awarded to UPPCL.It also appears that out of 19 members of the Executive Committee only 4 were shown to be present as per attendance sheet.Out of those four members one Lalit Verma, IAS the then Secretary Medical Health denied to have attended the said meeting and further three members have shown their ignorance regarding the allotment of contract to UPPCL as no such agenda was discussed relating to the said allotment.Even then the contract was allotted to UPPCL on 12.8.2009 by the said accused.In support of his contention, prosecution has examined Dr. Chandra Bhan Prasad acting as Director General, Family Welfare, Govt of UP.He has stated that the procedure adopted in the Executive Committee for holding the meeting of NRHM, the said meetings were convened by then Principal Secretary Dr. Pradeep Shukla.He has stated that the meetings were convened in the conference hall of Pradeep Shukla.Members were never asked to sign the minutes of the meeting and two three people of SPMU including the then Principal Secretary used to sign the same.He has further stated that he was not aware about the specification of the Modular OTs as no exercise in this regard was in progress.The then Principal Secretary Pradeep Shukla told me that he had discussion with Devender Mohan, MD, UPPCL in this regard and Devndera Mohan will send somebody to him with specification of Modular OTs.He was asked to approve the specification sent by Devendra Mohan.(c) For the purpose of allotting the contract for up gradation of 89 hospitals the contract was allotted to PACCFED on 13.7.2010 while ignoring the case for allotment in favour of UPPCL for construction of the said hospital.It is said that their work was not satisfactory, however, this decision was changed and the contract was allotted to UPPCL.Decision was again changed on 6.9.2010 by allotting the same to PACCFED.This decision was revoked and the work from UPPCL was transferred to PACCFED.(a) Communication dated 7.8.2009 was sent by the accused Devendra Mohan addressed to Mission Director requesting him to award the contract for up gradation of 40 District Level Hospitals as per Indian Primary Health Centre.This letter is said to have not been dispatched from the office of MD, UPPCL nor was any receipt on the record of the NRHM.It was found in the office file of Programme Management Unit containing the endorsement made by S.K.Singh, the then GM (Admn), SPMU, NRHM and marked to DR.R. P. Yadav, the then GM (Construction), SPMU, NRHM.This letter was personally handed over by accused Ravindra Rai to to S.K.Singh.He has stated that he is manufacturer of Modula OT and Medical Gas Pipeline for last four years.His firm has successfully supplied/installed Modular OT in many hospitals including Caritas Hospital, Cochin, Indo Gulf Hospital, Noida, Niramaya Hospital, Delhi, Kalinga Institute of Medical Science, Bhubaneshwar, Synergy Hospital, Indore.Statement of Asheesh Srivastava son of Sri K.K. Srivastava, Architect, Partner M/s ANB Consultant has stated that he had set up his own office in the name and style of M/s ANB Consultants Architects Engineers, Interior Designers, Conservation Consultants.The functions of M/s ANB Consultants include consultancy for architecture, Interior Design and conservation field.He has stated in his statement that facility survey is a diverse nature of work and required multifarious knowledge and expertise and companies/firms having such multifarious proficiency are only competent to conduct such assignment.No agency or firm or individual is eligible/ competent/ appropriate or suitable for conducting the facility survey work which is an assorted nature of job unless that is having the said multifarious knowledge and experience.He further submits that the concept of the modular OT was neither studied during the facility survey nor it was suggested by any of the Chief Medical Superintendent during the period of conducting facility survey.Principles of public life are of general application in every democracy and one is expected to bear them in mind while scrutinising the conduct of every holder of a public office.It is trite that the holders of public offices are entrusted with certain powers to be exercised in public interest alone and, therefore, the office is held by them in trust for the people.Any deviation, from the path of rectitude by any of them amounts to a breach of trust and must be severely dealt with instead of being pushed under the carpet.Facts of this case are some how similar where an effort was made to push the matter under the carpet.Therefore, through an intervention of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3611 (MB) of 2011 [P.I.L] Sachchidanand (Sachchey) versus State of U.P. and others connected with other matters, Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as 'the CBI') was directed to hold preliminary enquiry in the matter concerning implementation of the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) in the State of Uttar Pradesh.Gross abuse and misappropriation of NRHM funds by the State functionaries in a planned and concerted manner was alleged in the petition filed before this Court.This court in its order dated 15.11.2011 issued the following direction as under:-On the conclusion of the investigation various charge sheets have been filed before the CBI Court at Ghaziabad.Taking cognizance in the matter process has been issued to summon the accused persons.These summoning orders are subject matter of challenge before this Court.Following are the details of the applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C., questioning the various charge sheet, filed by the accused persons before this Court.The said charge sheets have been questioned in this Court, details of which are given herein below:-There are eight accused named in the charge sheet filed by CBI and in the supplementary charge sheet two more accused persons have been incorporated.The aforesaid two applications have been filed by accused Babu Singh Kushwaha and B. N. Srivastava.There are seven accused persons named in this charge sheet namely Babu Singh Kushwaha, Devendra Mohan, Ravindra Rai, Pradeep Shukla, Naresh Grover, M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt Ltd., and R.P. Jaiswal.Amount of money collected by the accused Babu Singh Kushwaha and R. P. Jaiswal were invested by them in various trusts and companies owned/controlled by them, their family members and associates.The above investments were undertaken through paper based companies located at various parts of India.It is alleged that these companies are only in the business of creating entries with regard to the regularisation of illegal financial transaction.These companies used to create cheque entries against the cash payments received from the parties.Details of investments made by the two accused is contained along with the charge sheet.No other quotation was given supply order.Rates quoted in respect of various items as well as quotation submitted by M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt Ltd. Were 3-5 times more than the market rates prevalent at that time.By comparing the rates a loss of Rs. 5.93 lacs per unit was caused to the government exchequer, amounting to a total loss of Rs. 7.93 crores.Since in all these cases controversy relates to the misuse and misappropriation of funds for implementation of NRHM scheme in the State of UP and the nature of legal issues raised are identical as such they are being dealt with by a common order.The issues which were subject matter of enquiry are; (1) deliberate acts of omission and commission with culpable intention of State functionaries to abuse NRHM funds, (2) the irregularities in purchases of medicines, equipment and other material relating to NRHM, and (3) omission of the State to take prompt corrective measures even after being fully acquainted with the irregularities being committed in the utilization of NRHM funds.In order to understand the working of the NRHM, it is necessary to give some basic premise on the basis of which scheme was to be implemented in the State of U.P.The Scheme of NRHM was launched on 12.04.2005 with a view to provide accessible, adequate, affordable, accountable and reliable health care to all persons particularly the vulnerable people residing in remote areas.It was a special scheme which was required to be implemented by the State Government.This MoU governs the implementation of the Mission in the State which provides decentralised system of administration.(i) Babu Singh Kushwaha:- At the relevant time it has come on record that he was holding the post of Minister for Health and Family Welfare in the State of UP.The Minister demanded an amount of Rs. 3 % of the total contract amount for allotting the said work to UPPCL.An amount of Rs. 75 lacs was paid to the Minister.In this behalf statement of Manvendra Chaddha and Girish Mallick has been recorded by the Investigating Officer who have pin pointed the role of the said accused.In respect of the allotment of contract for up-gradation of 89 hospital it has come on record that the same was allotted to PACCFED.The background of allotting this work was that its proprietor namely Saurabh Jain has offered higher commission to the extent of 30 % of the contract value.The contract was awarded to PACCFED on its willingness to pay the bribe who were in league with Saurabh Jain.On the intervention of the M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt Ltd. the contract was allotted to M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt Ltd. on the promise of higher percentage of bribe been paid against what was offered by Saurabh Jain.It also appears that on non fulfilling of the commitment the contract was re-allotted to PACCFED who was in league with Saurabh Jain.In this behalf Rs. 2 Crores was paid to Sri R.P. Jaiswal on behalf of Sri B. S. Kushwaha, the then Minister.Statement of one Ritesh Kumar has also been recorded as witness.(b) work was assigned for facility survey to one M/s EPOS Indian Private Ltd by the accused Pradeep Shukla and Devendra Mohan and Ravindra Rai with intention to incorporate the concept of Modular OTs in the facility survey so as to include the same in the work of up gradation of District Level Hospital.Concept of Modular OTs was introduced to help the M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt Ltd.In support of his contention, prosecution has relied upon the statement of Sunil Dutt son of Jai Pal Singh, partner M/s Creative Engineers and Medical System.He further stated that he was shown the specification of Modular OT and AC unit which were required to be installed in various hospitals in Uttar Pradesh.The rates quoted as Rs. 74,06,760 for one unit of Modular OT and AC unit was substantially higher as per his experience and knowledge.One Unit of Modular OT and AC unit of the given specification should not have cost more than Rs. 25-26 lacs if the industry profit including overhead charges is included to the said cost it would be around Rs. 33-34 lacs only.He has given details and the reasons in support of his contention in the statement.The rate for Air Conditioning/Air Handling Unit of the given specification has been quoted @ Rs. 28.96 lacs per unit whereas the market/industry rate is around Rs. 10 lacs only.He further stated that out of the above, AHU of the given specification has been quoted @ of Rs. 12.55 lacs whereas the market/industry rate is about Rs. 3.5 lacs, Chiller unit of the given specification has been quoted at the rate of Ss. 12.30 lacs whereas the market/industry rate is around Rs. 3.75 lacs.This statement has been supported by Adhir Khanna son of Late B.N. Khanna, Director, M/s Alfa Air Technologies Pvt Ltd. In his statement he submits that he has successfully installed/commissioned Air Conditioning Units in operation Theatres, Biometric Labs also including the Metro Hospital, Noida and 36 District Level Hospitals in UP as a supplier of sub contractor of M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt Ltd.He submits that the rate quoted for the given specification of AC unit is Rs. 11,23,398/- being the total cost of each unit including supply, installation/commissioning and on site warranty for one year.A meeting was called by Devendra Mohan the then MD and Sri Ravindra Rai, GM, Commercial of UPPCL to discuss the issue of supply of Modular OTs.In the said meeting both Devendra Mohan and Ravindra Rai instructed all the participants i.e. representative of EPOS India, other Architects and Firms involved in the work of conducting facility survey of the hospitals, to include the provisions of Installation of the Modular OT in all the District Level Hospitals.It was further suggested by Devendra Mohan the accused that the budget allocated for this purpose is approximated one crore per modular OT and he suggested that the tentative cost of the Modular OT and AC units can be estimated and recommended below one Crore.As per instruction of Devendra Mohan, the concept of Modular OT was incorporated in all the facility survey reports.Therefore, it was clear that this witness was not competent to prepare the same.Both the accused Devendra Mohan and Ravindra Rai made available the technical specification to this witness and asked him to sign the same and return to them which was done under influence of these accused persons.He has further stated that accused Ravindra Rai informed him that the specification was obtained by one Naresh Grover of M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt Ltd.Other witnesses have also deposed against the accused persons, which is not being detailed for the sake of brevity as prima facie there is sufficient legal evidence to support the allegations levelled in the FIR.I say so for the following reasons:-(a) Statement of witnesses discussed herein above clearly shows that involvement of accused persons in first procuring the contract in favour of UPPCL and then allotting to PACCFED for a consideration;(c) Rates approved for supplying the OT without first obtaining the market value of the equipments.(d) Providing specification of the OT Modular unit without getting expert opinion on it.(e) Collecting higher price for AC unit when supplier himself admits that he had quoted rate of Rs. 12 lacs per unit to M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt Ltd..(f) The manner in which the then Principal Secretary Pradeep Shukla allotted the work initially to PACCFED and consequently allotted the same work to UPPCL and again re-allotted the same to PACCFED.(g) The process to allot the contract to M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt Ltd. is initiated only after representative and the owner of the company met the then Health and Family Welfare Minister Babu Singh Kushwaha seeking its allotment on payment of 3 % of the total work.(h) Initially allotment of contract to PACCFED for up-gradation of 89 Hospitals but subsequently allotment to UPPCL and then reallotted to PACCFED;(j) In up-gradation of 134 district hospitals, exorbitant rates were given by accused B. N. Srivastava, which was five times higher than the market value.Items which were supplied was done without consultation of the District Hospitals.These are the circumstances and facts as are revealed and supported by evidence.I am not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the applicant accused that on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court no case is made out at this stage so as to allow the proceedings to continue before the Trial Court.Second aspect of the matter as contended by learned counsel for the applicants is that the evidence which has come on record both oral or documentary is not legally admissible.In order to appreciate this argument, Mr U. Lalit, Senior Advocate, appearing for the accused applicants has laid thrust on the following issues.(i) That it is on the basis of the testimony of Girish Mallick and Manvendra Chaddha that the whole web of conspiracy has been woven by the prosecution.He submits that these persons were arrayed as accused in the FIR but consequently they were deleted and listed as prosecution witnesses without first obtaining the parodon under Section 306 Cr.P.C.Tender documents were approved by the DG, Family Welfare.(v) The contract was allotted to lowest bidder i.e. M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt Ltd.So far as the first contention relating to placing reliance on the statement of Girish Mallick and Manvendra Chaddha is concerned, it can be said that, without taking into consideration the statement of the said witness, prima face role of present accused persons is visible for the following reasons:-

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

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

sh This is third application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail.First application and second applications were dismissed as e ad withdrawn.The applicant has been arrested on 03/02/2017 in connection Pr with crime no.58/2017 registered at Police Station Ambah, District a Morena for offence under Sections 353, 307/34, 333/34 of IPC and hy Sections 25(1-B)(a), 27 of Arms Act.ad It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that after rejection of the last bail application the coordinate Bench of this Court M by order dated 20/02/2018 passed in MCRC No.5692/2018, has of granted bail to the co-accused Shyamu alias Shyam Singh and the case of the present applicant is on better footing than that of co-accused rt Shyamu alias Shyam Singh because the alleged gunshot fired by him ou did not cause any injury to anybody.Considering the fact that co-accused Shyamu alias Shyam Singh has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 20/02/2018 passed in MCRC 5692/2018 and maintaining the parity and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court/committal Court, to appear before the Court concerned on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, but in case of bail jump it shall become ineffective.CC as per rules.(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE MKB sh e ad Digitally signed by MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK Date: 2018.02.27 18:39:59 +05'30' Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H

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

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

pk CRM No. 16150 of 2014 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 18th November 2014 in connection with Chanchal P.S. Case No. 498/14 dated 21.9.14 under Sections 341/326/307/354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Chanchal P.S. Case No. 498/14 dated 21.9.14 under Sections 341/326/307/354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code have come to this court for anticipatory bail.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Ishan Chandra Das, J)

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

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

a. The first accused is the son of Accused 2 and 3, while the fourthaccused is sister of the second accused.P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased .Inbetween the house of P.W.1 and the accused, a drainage odai goes and in thatodai, the waste water from the house of P.W.1 and from the house of P.W.6,Sankaran, passes through.The accused objected for draining the water throughthe drainage channel and about the same, the family members of P.W.1 complainedto the police twice, The police came and warned and even thereafter, the accusedused to quarrel very often.On the date of occurrence that was on 2.8.1992 atabout 6 a.m., when the deceased was in his house, P.W.1 saw that the thirdaccused Rengaramanujam was scolding the deceased by showing broomstick towardshim.When he went over there to question the third accused, the first accusedimmediately came out with a knife and inflicted injuries by stabbing thedeceased on the chest and also further stabbing with the knife on the parietalregion .The deceased snatched the knife from the hands of the first accusedand at that time the fourth accused intervened and in that course, the fourthaccused sustained injuries.The second accused attacked PW1 with wooden log onher head and she has also sustained injuries.The third accused beat thedeceased with a broomstick and the fourth accused who is no more pushed asidePW1 when she rushed towards her husband and thus PW1 sustained pain on herelbow.The accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.b. P.W.1 took her husband Ramasamy to her house where he feltunconscious. P.W.6, phoned up to the fire service and the fire service men cameand they took Ramasamy, Gengammal and Rengaramanujam(A3) in their van andP.W.1's brother Chandrasekar also went along with them in the Van, P.W.1 wentto Kovilpatti Government hospital along with her children in an auto.In theGovernment Hospital, Kovilpatti, the husband of PW1 was declared dead.P.W.1gave a statement to the Head Constable which is marked as Ex.c. P.W.2, a doctor attached to the Kovilpatti Government Hospital gotthe dead body of Ramasamy at 7.40 a.m on 2.8.1992 and sent it to the mortuaryand registered the same in the accident register which is marked as Ex.Onthe same day, he examined one Gengammal for injuries and the accident registerregistered by him for the same is Ex.Thereafter, the said Gangammal wassent to Tirunelveli Medical College hospial for further treatment.On the sameday at about 7.20 a.m. he examined one Rengaramanujam for injuries sustained byher and the wound certificate issued for the same is Ex.P.W.15, the former Sub Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti, on informationwent to Kovilpatti Government Hospital and obtained the statement fromRamalakshmi(PW1), the wife of the deceased and on the strength of which, heregistered a case in Crime No.440 of 1992 under Sections 302 and 323 IPC andprepared Printed FIR, the copy of which is Ex.He sent Ex.P1 and P.15 tothe concerned Court and he also sent through P.W.11 the copies of the concerneddocuments to the higher authorities and the Inspector of Police forinvestigation.The wife of the second accused also gave a complaint to the samepolice officer who registered a case in Crime No.441 of 1992 under Sections 324and 323 IPC and prepared printed FIR, the copy of which is Ex.He sent thecopy of EX.P.16 to the Inspector of Police for investigation.e. P.W.17, The former Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti(West) took upinvestigation proceeded to the spot on 2.8.1992 at about 9.30 a.m. made aninspection in the presence of P.W.16, the former VAO prepared Observationmahazar Ex.P.17 and drew a rough sketch Ex.P.22 and he recovered M.Os.and heexamined the witnesses and recorded their statement.He went to the GovernmentHospital, Kovilpatti and conducted inquest in the presence of panchayatdars andthe witnesses and prepared Ex.P.23 inquest report.He sent the requisition forpostmortem through P.C.972 .He examined Rengaramanujam, the third accused whowas inpatient in the Government Hospital, Kovilpatti with respect to CrimeNo.441 of 1992 and recorded her statement.A stab wound 2cm x 1/2cm /1-1/2 cm inches above let ear diverted downwards.5.A stab wound on the palmar side of base of left thumb.The doctor issued Ex.(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J) This appeal has been brought forth by the first and second accusedin Sessions Case No.106 of 1995 whereby they along with third accused stoodcharged and found guilty as follows:The first accused was convicted for the offence under Section 302IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, the second accused wasconvicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC read with 34 IPC and 323 IPC andsentenced to undergo life imprisonment and six months simple imprisonmentrespectively and the sentence shall run concurrently, while the third accusedwas initially found guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC read with 34IPC and later acquitted of the charges.The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of the appealcan be stated thus:f. On receipt of the requisition Ex.P.6 from the Inspector of Police,P.W.7, a medical officer conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ramasamy andfound the following injuries:1.A stab injury 4cm x 3cm x first vertical to right nipple long axis in verticaland slightly to right.A stab wound 2cm x 1/2cm on the left parietal region of head.P.7 Postmortem certificate wherein he opined that thedeceased would appear to have died of shock and haemoharrage due to theinjuries sustained.h. P.W.17, the investigating Officer, referred the case in Cr.No.441of 1996 as one of mistake of fact.i. Pending investigation, on 5.8.1992, P.W.17 arrested the 2ndaccused and remanded him to judicial custody.On 13.8.1992, he arrested thethird accused and sent her for remand.On 10.8.1992, he got information thatthe first accused Srinivasan surrendered before the Chief Judicial MagistrateCourt, Madurai.On 18.8.1992, he presented a petition for police custody of theaccused Srinivasan and he got police custody of the accused for two days.Onthat day evening, he examined the accused Srinivasan in the presence of VAO andhis Thaliyari.The first accused volunteered to give a confessional statement inthe presence of two witnesses and the same was recorded by the investigator, theadmissible part of which was marked as Ex.Pursuant to the confessionalstatement, M.O.1 Soori Knife was recovered in the presence of witnesses.Thefirst accused was sent to Judicial remand.All the Mos.recovered from the placeof occurrence and from the dead body were subjected to chemical analysis by theForensic Department.On analysis, Ex.P.12 the Chemical Analyst's report andEx.P.13 is the Serologist's report were received by the Court.On completion ofinvestigation, the final report was filed by the investigating officer beforethe committal Court.The case was committed to the Court of Sessionsand necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges levelledagainst the accused, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and relied on 23exhibits and 6 material objects were marked.The accused have flatly denied them as false.On the sideof the defence, no witness was examined.But, they relied on two documents whichwere marked as Ex.On completion of trial, both sides were heard.Thelearned trial Judge has found the appellants guilty as referred to above.Hence,this appeal at the instance of the appellants before this Court.Arguing for the appellants, learned counsel would submit thatthe prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and thewitnesses examined by the prosecution were all close relatives.In the instantcase, the lower Court was not prepared to accept the case of the prosecution inso far as the third accused is concerned, but on the same evidence, it has foundA1 and A2 guilty.In the instant case, though the lower Court found A2 guiltyunder Section 302 read with 34 IPC, no evidence with regard to common intentionto commit murder is available.Hence, automatically, the charge framed underSection 302 IPC read with 34 IPC against the second accused should have beenrejected by the lower Court.In the instant case, the prosecution has notproved the motive at all.Since the dispute between the parties in respect ofthe drainage water was already settled, there is no motive as stated .On thedate of occurrence, according to P.W.1, when the deceased was in his house,P.W.1 saw the third accused scolding the deceased by showing broomstick towardshim, but no broom stick was recovered and no evidence is available in thatregard also.This would be indicative of the fact that the deceased has gone tothe house of the accused and hence he was the aggressor and when he went overthere, he began to attack the accused.There are lot of discrepancies found inthe instant case and according to the prosecution, PW1 has spoken to the factthat they gave information to the Fire officer and pursuant to which P.W.2 cameand took them to the Government Hospital, Kovilpatti .But, according to thefire officer, P.W.3, he got information from the DSP Office.Thus, it would bequite clear that there is a discrepancy in this regard.In so far as FirstInformation Report was concerned, according to the prosecution, the occurrencetook place at about 6 a.m. and the FIR came into existence at 8.45 p.m.. But,according to PW1, she gave information to the Head Constable at the policestation.According to PW15, he recorded the information from PW1 in the hospitaland thus, there is also a discrepancy in that regard also.It is highly doubtfulwhether Ex.P.1 came into existence as referred to above by the prosecution andthe earliest document was suppressed and now what is available before the Courtis not the First Information Report.In the same transaction, the third accusedsustained injury and A4 was also sustained injury and he was also taken fortreatment for a long time and A3 gave a complaint to the very same policeofficer and pursuant to which a case came to be registered in Crime No.441 of1992 under Sections 324 and 323 IPC and later it has been referred as mistake offact.But from the evidence it would be clear that it was the deceased whoattacked A4 and in that melee, A4 sustained injury and hence the investigationwas not properly conducted and it is biased.The prosecution has suppressed apart of the transaction and brought to the Court the other part of thetransaction.Further the lower Court has recorded the confessional statement ofthe first accused and pursuant to which M.O.1 was recovered, the weapon of thecrime.It is pertinent to point to out that when the first accused wasquestioned , he has expressed that he was not inclined to give any confessionalstatement even then, police custody was ordered and in the course of policecustody, the prosecution has categorically stated that the first accused gave aconfessional statement and pursuant to which ,M.O.1 weapon of crime wasrecovered.The confessional statement and the recovery of weapon of crime arenothing but invited for the purpose of suiting the prosecution case and hencethat part of the evidence should have been rejected.In the instant case, theinvestigation conducted was a biased one, since Crime No.441 of 1992 was notproperly investigated.The deceased was the aggressor in the said incident sincethe occurrence took place inside the house of the accused.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions andmade a thorough scrutiny of the available materials .It is not the fact in controversy that one Ramasamy, the husbandof PW1 died out of homicidal violence in an incident that took place on 2.8.1992at about 6 a.m.in front of the house of the first accused.Following the same,inquest was made by the investigator and the dead body was subjected to post-mortem and the postmortem doctor P.W.7 has given a postmortem certificate Ex.P.7where he opined that the deceased died out of shock and haemorrhage due to theinjuries sustained.The fact that he died due to homicidal violence was neverquestioned by the appellants at any stage of proceedings and hence without anyhesitation, it can be recorded so.At thisjuncture, on exercise of careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws.1,2,5 and 6who are close relatives of the deceased, their evidence stood the test and hencetheir evidence inspired the confidence of the Court.The origin of theoccurrence was that when the third accused showed broom-stick from her house tothe deceased and aggrieved over the same, the deceased went to the house of theaccused and questioned the same.When he questioned, A1 came out with a knifestabbed him on the chest and on the parietal region, immediately the deceasedsnatched the very same knife from the first accused and was about to attack him,in that course, A4 intervened and sustained injury.The manner in which theprosecution has given the case has been clearly spoken to by all the witnessesand this part of the evidence of the ocular testimony stood in fullcorroboration with the evidence of postmortem doctor and the postmortemcertificate which is marked as Ex.P.7 through him.In the instant case, P.W.1 isthe injured witness.It is settled proposition of law in a case like this whereeye witness is an injured witness, unless and until strong reason orcircumstance is noticed, their evidence need not be discarded or rejected.P.1, a case came to be registered and FirstInformation Report has come into existence at 8.45 a.m. which reached theconcerned Court at 9.30 a.m., even within a short span time of 45 minutes.Itwould clearly indicate that medical evidence stood in corroboration with theocular testimony as referred to above.Now at this juncture, the contention of the learned counsel forthe appellants have got to be considered.The first contention that the FirstInformation Report was suppressed by the prosecution and now what is availablebefore the Court is not the First Information Report has got to be rejected.Itis an admitted position that PW1 was the author of the said document and thesame was marked as Ex.Hence when the firstaccused attacked the deceased on the chest and parietal region, he snatched theknife from him and in that course the fourth accused intervened and sustainedinjury.In so far as A2 is concerned, this Courtis able to see some force in the contention put forth by the learned counsel forthe appellants that there is nothing to draw common intention attracting thepenal provision of Section 34 IPC that the second accused has not got anycommon intention, when the first accused attacked the deceased with a knife.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin2.The Director General of Police, Chennai.3.The Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti West.4.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Palayamkottai5.The Public Prosecutor, Maduai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

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

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

Raju Batham (P.W. 3) and Kantibai (P.W. 2) are her parents/father and mother.When she was playing outside the house, appellant came there and tempted her for giving biscuits and chocolates and took her in his room and she was laid on mat.He removed her undergarments and also removed his garments and started fingering in her vagina and touched her vagina from his penis and laid over her body.When she felt pain, she cried.Appellant Pancham called her and gave temptation of toffies and chocolates and he took her to his room where he was speaking filthy words.He removed her underwear, thereafter he also removed his clothes.He started fingering in her vagina and rubbing her chest.She was laid on a mat and thereafter he also laid over her and was doing bad thing.Because of this bad work blood came out from her vagina.She started weeping.JUDGMENT A.K. Gohil, J.Against which he has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.As per prosecution story on 23-2-2003 prosecution aged about 5 years was playing outside the house.In the meantime, sister of the appellant came on spot and pressed her mouth.Blood oozed from her private part and thereafter accused left her free.She came to her house and narrated the story to her Uncle Manoj and mother Kantibai.Thereafter her mother went to lodge the report to Police Station Gwalior, where FIR was lodged by prosecutrix, which is Ex. P-1; on the basis of which crime was registered, criminal law was set into motion and the prosecutrix was referred for medical examination.She was examined by Dr. Yashodhara Batham (P.W. 4).Slide of the vaginal swab was prepared and her clothes were also seized.Spot map Ex. P-5 was prepared.Plastic mat was also seized by seizure memo Ex. P-6 and thereafter both the accused persons were arrested.Accused Pancham was also medically examined and after investigation charge-sheet was filed.During trial, accused persons abjured their guilt.Trial Court acquitted one accused Mahesh Kumari and found that the charge under Section 201, IPC is not found proved against her but convicted the appellant under Section 376 read with Section 511, IPC and sentenced as aforesaid, against which he has preferred this appeal.I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is a young boy of 22 years and he has been falsely implicated due to enmity with Raju Batham (P.W. 3).Therefore, looking to the enmity and young age the jail sentence be reduced from three and half years to three years and he be released.In reply, Shri C.S. Dixit, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment.During trial prosecution examined prosecutrix (P.W. 1), her mother Kantibai (P.W. 2), her father (P.W. 3) and Ramesh Dubey (P.W. 8), who is the neighbour and who has supported the prosecution story, the prosecutrix had narrated the story to them.Dr. Yashodhara Batham (P.W. 4) had examined the prosecutrix.Jagnandan Singh (P.W. 7) has reported FIR and Shelja Gupta (P.W. 9) has performed the investigation.Kalicharan (P.W. 6) is the witness of Ex. P-5 spot-map and Raghuraj Singh (P. W. 5) has proved the fact of sending copy of FIR to the Magistrate.In defence, tow witnesses Ramshree (D.W. 1) and Omprakash (D.W. 2) were also examined on the question of enmity and for demanding money.It is not in dispute that the prosecutrix (P.W. 1) is a girl aged about 6-7 years.Her statement was recorded.She has stated that on the date of incident she was playing outside of her house.In the meantime, Mahesh Kumari came and pressed her mouth and thereafter accused left her free.She reported the matter to her mother and also to the father and uncle Manoj in the evening.Though on the insistence of Public Prosecutor she has stated that he did bad work by penetrating her penis into her vagina but in the cross- examination she consistently maintained that he did bad work by fingering into her vagina.Dr. Yashodhara Batham (P.W. 4) had medically examined her and she found that blood stains were present on the medial aspects of both the legs, external genitalia also stained with blood, IIIrd degree perineal tear were present, right lateral vaginal wall tear present.Two vaginal swabs were taken and slides were prepared.The clothes which she was wearing at the time of incident were seized, packed, sealed and handed over to the Constable.In the cross-examination she has stated that she has not seen any external injury on the private part of the prosecutrix.She was unable to give any opinion about the rape with her, but she stated that the injuries received by her may be caused by fingering forcefully.Kantibai (P.W. 2) has deposed that in the evening prosecutrix went out of the house.She searched her and she was found at about 7 p.m. at the Chauraha and thereafter she narrated the story to her.Raju Batham (P.W. 3 has also narrated the same story.Kalicharan (P.W. 6) is the witness to whom Raju Batham had told about the commission of crime by the appellant.

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

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

CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 1 of 54Before proceeding to deal with the arguments advanced by the counsels for the parties, it is necessary to refer to the factual matrix of the present case, as culled out from the narrative in the impugned judgment.The family of the appellant comprised of his mother, Smt. Darshana Suri, brother, Shri Sumeet Suri and sister-in-law, Smt. Aarti Suri.After they had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, the prosecution had examined twenty two witnesses to prove its case.The material witnesses included Praveen Kumar Chhabra and Dalip Kumar Chhabra, both brothers of the deceased (PW-2 and PW-5), Smt.Anita Chhabra, sister (PW-4), Smt. Sushila Devi, mother of the deceased (PW-CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 2 of 549), Shri S.N. Sethi and Shri Ajay Sethi, neighbours of the accused (PW-7 and PW-10), Dr.Harpreet Singh Cheema (PW-15), who was called to the appellants house on 19.7.1996 and on examination, had declared Madhu Bala dead, Dr. Ashok Jaiswal and Dr.Rajesh Gupta (PW-12 and PW-17), who had conducted the autopsy of the dead body and SI Dal Chand (PW-21).In his testimony, Praveen Kumar Chhabra (PW-2), brother of the deceased had deposed that his sister used to complain that the appellant herein and the other co-accused used to harass her for bringing insufficient dowry and on one occasion, she had been sent back to her parental home on account of insufficient dowry.He had also deposed that about a month before the demise of Madhu Bala, in the month of May 1996, the accused had shifted their residence to premises No.G-17, Vikas Puri and at that time, all of them had made demands of new furniture and a colour television from the deceased.PW-2 had stated that fifteen days prior to the demise of Madhu Bala, his parents had supplied a new double CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 3 of 54 bed as demanded by the accused but had failed to provide a mattress, due to which, his sister was tortured by them.CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 3 of 54Dalip Kumar Chhabra (PW-5), the other brother of Madhu Bala had deposed that the appellant had demanded a catering van to enable him to settle down in his life.He stated that within a month of the marriage, the accused persons had started demanding a colour television and other articles from the deceased and once, when Madhu Bala and the appellant had visited her parental house, their mother had paid a sum of `25,000/- to the appellant in the presence of Sh.Harish Chand Chhabra (father of the deceased).He had deposed that the appellants mother used to ask Madhu Balas family members to arrange money for her son so as to settle him in life as he wanted to start his own business and two days prior to her death, their sister (PW-4) had received a telephonic call from the appellant that he had purchased a shop and had paid the earnest money but needed money to pay the balance amount of the sale price.In her testimony, Smt. Anita Choudhary (PW-4), Madhu Balas sister had stated that when the accused had shifted to their house at Vikas Puri, her father had given him a sum of `10,000/- and provided a double bed on the demand of the appellants mother.She had also deposed about the visit of Madhu Bala and the appellant to her parental home and the fact that at that time, a demand of `25,000/- was raised and their mother had paid the said amount to the appellant.She stated that two days prior to her death, the deceased had telephonically CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 4 of 54 informed her that the appellant had purchased a shop in Vikas Puri for a sum of `7 lacs and paid only a sum of `10,000/- towards the earnest money and further, that the appellant had asked her to bring the balance amount from her parents.As per PW-4, at the time of Madhu Balas marriage, they were told that the appellant and his brother were carrying on joint business but after their marriage, the co-accused, Sumeet Suri had separated from the appellant in business and thereafter the appellant had started demanding money from his in-laws to establish his own business.PW-4 had stated that the appellant had told Madhu Bala that she should bring money from her parents to purchase a catering van for him and such a demand was also raised before her parents, but they were not in a position to fulfill it.CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 4 of 54The very same SDM had conducted the inquest proceedings on the dead body, recorded the statement of the parents of the deceased, got the case registered and had the dead body of the deceased subjected to an autopsy.The statement of Smt. Darshna Suri made before the SDM marked as Ex.In her statement made before the SDM, PW-9 had stated that at the time of Madhu Balas marriage, there was no demand of dowry made by the CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 5 of 54 accused, but later on they used to harass her and taunt her for bringing very little dowry.CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 5 of 54In her testimony recorded in the Court after six years, PW-9 had reiterated that all the accused persons used to make demands of dowry on her daughter after her marriage.She claimed that the accused had demanded a colour television set but they were not in a position to fulfill the said demand and one and a half month prior to her daughters death, a sum of `10,000/- and a double bed were delivered at the new residence of the accused at Vikas Puri.She had also deposed that the accused had demanded furniture for their new house and when the appellant and Madhu Bala had visited her parental house, he had demanded a sum of `25,000/- from his in-laws for business purposes, and she and her husband had paid the said amount to the appellant.Shri S.N. Sethi and Shri Ajay Sethi (PW-7 and PW-10, uncle and nephew respectively) were produced by the prosecution, being next door neighbours of the appellant.PW-7 who had telephonically informed the police at 100 number and the parents of Madhu Bala about her death, had deposed that the accused persons who had shifted in the neighbourhood about two months earlier, did not have a telephone connection at their house and they used to visit his house to make or to attend to telephone calls.He had stated that he had never seen the deceased coming to his house to attend to telephone calls either from her parents, or from any other family member.He stated that as Dr. Cheema (PW-4) had observed CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 6 of 54 ligature marks on the neck of the deceased, he along with Mr. Anand, President of the RWA of the area, had gone to the bathroom of the appellants house, on the ground floor, but they did not find any rope or anything else there.In his cross-examination, he had stated that the other co-accused, Sumeet Suri and his wife, Aarti Suri (brother and sister-in-law of the deceased) were residing on the first floor of premises bearing No.G-17, Vikas Puri, whereas the mother, Smt.Darshana Suri was living separately on the second floor.The appellant and the deceased used to reside on the ground floor.The testimony of Shri Ajay Sethi (PW-10) was also on the same lines.CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 6 of 54Dr. Harpreet Singh Cheema (PW-15) had testified that in the year 1996, on being informed that the deceased was serious and it was an emergency case, he had accompanied a gentleman to the appellants residence and on reaching the bedroom situated on the ground floor of their residence, he had found a lady lying on the bed and on examining her, he had declared that she had already expired.SI Dal Chand (PW-21) had deposed about the recovery of a rope (Ex.P1) from the bathroom on the ground floor of the residential premises of the appellant as also the seizure memo, Ex.PW-21/C. He had testified that he had visited Police Station: Vikas Puri on 19.07.1996, the date on which DD No.2A was received and alongwith another constable, had reached the spot to find the dead body of Madhu Bala lying on the bed in a room on the ground floor of the said house.He had observed a ligature mark on the neck of Madhu Bala.Shri Harish Chand Chhabra, father of the deceased had made a statement on the spot (Ex.PW-3/B) and alongwith the said statement duly endorsed by him, PW-21 had sent a Rukka to the Police Station, whereafter, senior police officers had reached the spot.PW-21 had called for the photographer to take photographs of the dead body and the place of occurrence, informed the SDM, Punjabi Bagh about the occurrence and got all the accused, who were arrested, medically examined.He deposed that during investigation, he had seized a rope from the bathroom of the residential premises of the house, where the dead body was found, vide recovery memo (Ex.PW-21/C) that bears his signatures and the said rope was enclosed in a parcel and duly sealed.CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 8 of 54CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 8 of 54While admitting the factum of the marriage of Madhu Bala with the appellant herein, they had denied all the other incriminating evidence that had emerged in the course of the evidence produced by the prosecution.On their part, the accused had examined five witnesses, including DW-1, Praveen Singh, a clerk from Canara Bank, who had deposed that two FDRs of `75,000/- each were issued on 25.06.1996 in the names of the appellants mother, Smt. Sudarshana Suri and the other son, Sumeet Suri (Ex.DW-1/A and B).DW- 2, Shri Ashok Kumar Kapoor, father of Smt. Aarti Suri and father-in-law of Shri Sumeet Suri (co-accused), had deposed that at the time of the marriage of his daughter, Aarti with Sumeet Suri, when he had asked the parents of Sumeet Suri if they had any demand of dowry, they had stated that they did not need anything and he had not given any dowry articles.He had also stated that even after his daughters marriage, no demand of dowry was made by Sumeet Suri or his family members.He had further stated that the father of the deceased had never complained to him about the conduct of the appellant or the other co-accused or made a grievance that any dowry had been demanded by them.DW-3, Mr. Inderjit Kumar Singh from Citibank, had proved the joint savings account of the appellant and his mother, Ex.On 18.07.96, in the morning, I promised her to return home well in time either to a theatre or a restaurant but I could not fulfill the promise because of damage to the property at my office, I could reach my home at 11 p.m. as a result, my wife started quarrelling with me.She started abusing in the loud voice.I requested her not to shout but in vain.I tried to pacify her putting forth that I was suffering from headache because she was shouting but in vain.Ultimately, I slapped her, dragged her and gave her punches, as a result whereof, she suffered minor injuries.It so happened in between 12 and 1 am.Thereafter, I pacified her and we dined together.We slept at about 3 a.m. In the following morning, at about 10:15 a.m., my mother knocked at the door and enquired from me as if I was not to go to my office.I apprised my mother of my late arrival during the previous night.I got up and found Madhu missing.I then entered the bathroom of my portion and found that her dead body was hanging there.I cried and also called my mother, brother Sumit and sister-in-law Aarti.I removed the dead body from the bathroom.Then I asked my brother Sumit Suri to bring a doctor.I also asked my sister-in-law to go to the house of Mr. Sethi, our neighbor to inform the police and my in-laws.Sethi and Dr. Cheema came to our house.My in-laws also reached there.Police also reached my house.All of us were arrested at the instance of my in-laws and taken to police station."CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 10 of 54At the time of his examination under Section 313 Cr.PC, the appellant herein had stated as below:-"After the marriage I and my wife went to Shimla for honeymoon and we were living very happy marriage life.I was serving in a Distillery store.I use to visit my office at about 10 am and come back at about 10/10:30 p.m. Because of busy schedule of my job I could not spare my time for my wife.I never raised any demand of dowry.On 18.07.96 I promised my wife in the morning that we shall go together either to a restaurant or cinema at night.However, I could reach my house at about 11/11:30 p.m. because of some damage of articles in the godown where I was serving as Godown Incharge.My wife felt it and got angry which led to verbal wrangle and ultimately beating by each other.In that process my wife suffered some injuries at my hands on account fist and kick blows.I ultimately succeeded in prevailing upon her and at about 1.30 night we dined together and slept at about 3 a.m. My mother knocked at the door at about 10/10:30 a.m. and enquired from me as to whether I was not to go to office.At that time, I found that my wife was missing from the room.On reaching the bathroom, I found that she had hanged herself there.I raised noise attracting other members of the family.Prior to this incident, we were having a factory in an area of 650 sq. yards in Mayapuri.For coming to any conclusion in this regard, the events that had CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 29 of 54 occurred on the fatal day are very material.The trial court record reveals that there was enough material available on the record to demonstrate the conduct of the appellant in abetting the suicide of Madhu Bala by instigating her and the said evidence is that of the appellant himself, who had stepped into the witness box as his own witness as DW-6 and had deposed that a quarrel had taken place between him and Madhu Bala on the night of 18.07.1996 and when she had shouted at him, he had slapped her, dragged her and had given her punches that had resulted in her suffering injuries that he chose to describe as "minor".The appellants version remained the same, that on 18.07.1996, he had promised his wife in the morning that they would go out in the evening, but he could not reach his residence till late in the night due to some pre-occupation at work and when he had reached his home at 11:00/11:30 PM, she was angry and that had led to a verbal duel between the parties and he had physically assaulted her by giving her punches, fist and kick blows.The appellant went on to state that thereafter he was able make peace with his wife and they had dined together at 1:30 AM in the night, whereafter they had gone to sleep at 3 AM.It would be equally a travesty of justice to discard the entire evidence of the family members of the deceased on the singular ground that Smt. Sushila Devi (PW-9) had failed to give greater details of the dowry demands made by the appellant and his family members and that there was a time lag between the date of the incident and the date when the testimonies of the remaining family members of Madhu Bala were recorded.57. PW-9 had candidly stated before the SDM that though at the time of her marriage, Madhu Balas in-laws had not demanded any dowry, but after her marriage, she had told her parents that her in-laws used to demand dowry and they had raised a grievance that they had not got enough dowry at the time of the marriage.She had also stated that Madhu Balas in-laws used to beat her up in her matrimonial home and she did not get enough to eat.Rather, she was told to work and earn money to maintain herself.It was specifically stated by the mother that they had paid a sum of `10,000/- in cash and purchased a double bed for the appellant about a month prior to the fateful day.CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 46 of 54CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 46 of 54Praveen Kumar Chhabra(PW-2), brother of Madhu Bala had stated that his sister used to complain against the appellant and his family members for harassing her on account of bringing insufficient dowry and that she had been sent back to her home for the said reason.He had elaborated that at that time, the appellants father was alive and they were living at their earlier place of residence at Mayapuri and after about 15-20 days of sending Madhu Bala back to her parental home, the appellant had come to fetch her and had confessed to his mistake.He had also specifically stated that after the appellant had shifted with the deceased and the other family members to their new home at Vikas Puri, Madhu Bala had told him that she was being harassed and tortured by the appellant and his family and they had been demanding new furniture and a colour television for the new house.He CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 47 of 54 had deposed that the deceased had shared with him the fact that when she had refused to convey their demands to her family, the appellant had been beating her.He had stated that fifteen days prior to her death, his parents had given the appellant a new double bed as demanded by them and because the mattresses were not provided with the bed, the deceased was taunted.CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 47 of 54Dalip Kumar Chhabra, (PW-5) the other brother of Madhu Bala had stated that there was no demand of dowry before the marriage of Madhu Bala but after her marriage, the accused persons had started demanding a colour television and other articles.The appellant has assailed the judgment dated 23.12.2006 and the order on sentence dated 02.01.2007 passed by the learned ASJ in SC No.38/2006, holding him guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC, while acquitting him of the offences under Sections 302 & 304B read with Section 34 IPC.By the impugned order on sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and pay a fine of `5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 498A IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of `15,000/-, in default of CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 1 of 54 payment of fine, undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months for the offence under Section 306 IPC.As per the prosecution case, the deceased was found dead at her matrimonial home on 19.07.1996, which was within seven years of her marriage and her death had taken place under unnatural circumstances.The present case came to be registered on the statement made by Shri Hari Chand Chhabra (father of the deceased) on 19.07.1996 itself.Initially, charge for the offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC was framed against the appellant herein, his mother, brother and sister-in-law and charge for the offence under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC and Section 201 IPC was framed against the appellant and his mother.Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the deceaseds mother had filed a revision petition in the High Court.Vide order dated 09.12.1999, the revision petition was allowed and it was directed that charge for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC should also be framed against the accused.Resultantly, vide order dated 11.09.2000, charge for the offence under Section 304B read CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 2 of 54 with Section 34 IPC and in the alternative, charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was framed against all the four accused persons.He also deposed that there were minor injuries all over the body of the deceased, in addition to bruises on both her hands and neck.Dr. Ashok Jaiswal (PW-12), C.M.O., Mortuary, Subzimandi, was produced by the prosecution to establish the medical evidence.The said witness alongwith Dr. Rajesh Gupta (PW-17), C.M.O., Mortuary, Civil Hospital, Delhi, had performed the post mortem on the body of the CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 7 of 54 deceased and they had proved the autopsy report of the deceased (Ex.PW-12/A).CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 7 of 54DW-3/A. DW-4, Mr.Madan Lal, Manager of Canara Bank, had deposed about the encashment of an FDR dated 05.07.1996 of `75,000/- in the name of the CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 9 of 54 appellant and his mother vide receipt Ex.DW-4/B and another FDR dated 05.07.1996 for `75,000/- encashed vide receipt, marked as Ex.DW-4/D.CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 9 of 54We sold that factory for a sum of Rs.72 lacs in February 1996 after the death of my father.With that money we purchased this house for Rs.48 lacs.We spent Rs.4/5 lacs for its renovation.There are three floors in this house.I was putting up on the ground floor with my wife.Sumit, my brother and his wife was putting up at 1st floor and my mother was living on the second floor.All the floors were fully furnished having all luxurious articles like TV AC Refrigerators.My mother had got issued FDR in my name and of my brother for a CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 11 of 54 sum of Rs.75,000/- each.My mother got issued FDR in her own name also for Rs.1.50 lacs.CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 11 of 54I have one Fiat car and a scooter.My brother Sumit Suri was having one Volvo car.He has sold it.He was also having a scooter."After taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the counsels for the parties and examining the ocular and documentary evidence produced by both sides, the Sessions court had arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to substantiate the allegations of demand of dowry by any of the accused prior to the marriage, at the time of marriage, after the marriage or soon before the death of Madhu Bala that could amount to cruelty or harassment to her, and therefore, charge for the offence under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC could not be established against the accused.As for the prosecution case that the deceased had been murdered, the court held that from the material available on the record, the prosecution had failed to establish the presence of the co-accused, Darshana Suri (mother), Sumeet Suri (brother) and Aarti Suri (sister-in-law) or attribute any role to them on the date of the incident that had taken place on the night intervening 18/19.07.1996, on the ground floor portion of the house, where the appellant and the deceased were residing together.Further, the Sessions court came to the conclusion that the prosecution was unable to lead cogent and convincing evidence to establish that the appellant had CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 12 of 54 murdered his wife, but was of the opinion that the role played by him in the night intervening 18/19.07.1996 falls within part (a) of the explanation appended to Section 498A IPC as he had treated his wife with cruelty and abetted the commission of suicide by her.Consequently, the appellant was held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.At the same time, the other co-accused were acquitted of all the charges framed against them.Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 12 of 54Learned counsel had sought to explain that whatever had happened between the CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 13 of 54 appellant and Madhu Bala on the fateful night was a spontaneous act that had taken place at the spur of the moment and in the altercation between husband and wife, the appellant had caused simple injuries to the deceased.He therefore urged that it could not be said that the said injuries were caused to drive Madhu Bala to commit suicide.He further argued that there is no evidence on the record or any finding returned by the trial court that could establish that prior to the date of the incident, the appellant had treated the deceased with cruelty and resultantly, he could not have been convicted under Section 498A IPC solely on the basis of his own statement as recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC.CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 13 of 54As regards the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC, learned counsel for the appellant had argued that no opportunity was afforded to the appellant to discharge the burden of proving that he was not guilty of the said offence, particularly since neither was the charge amended to include the offence under Section 306 IPC, nor was the appellant confronted with the ingredients of the said offence when his statement was being recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, thus causing grave prejudice to his defence before the Sessions court.It was canvassed that even otherwise, there was no evidence brought on record to attribute any mens rea to the appellant or to establish that he had CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 14 of 54 instigated/abetted the deceased to commit suicide.To drive home the said arguments, learned counsel had relied upon the following decisions:-CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 14 of 54(v) Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal; (2010) 1 SCC 707Per contra, Mr. Rajat Katyal, learned APP for the State strenuously defended the impugned judgment and the order of conviction and rebutted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.He had submitted that contrary to the stand taken by the other side that only a single incident of provocation could not be treated as a ground to indict the appellant, in the present case, there was a history of dowry demands made by the appellant and his family members on the deceased and the last straw was the incident that had occurred on the night intervening 18/19.07.1996, when the appellant had seriously assaulted the deceased and as per the autopsy report(Ex.PW-12/A), it had resulted in causing seventeen injuries, including one ligature mark on her body.He had argued that the circumstances reveal that it was after suffering such severe beatings at the hands of the appellant, the CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 15 of 54 deceased was provoked into committing suicide.He argued that nothing has emerged from the evidence to rebut the presumption that the deceased was provoked into committing suicide upon the appellant causing sixteen injuries on her body and under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, the onus to shake off the said presumption had remained on the appellant, which he had failed to discharge except for making a bald and a very implausible statement that he had no knowledge of the injuries suffered by the deceased.CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 15 of 54PC would demonstrate that his claim that after he and Madhu Bala had a fight, they had sat down to dinner and then gone to sleep at 3:00 AM, could not be corroborated by the medical evidence that reveals that the rectum of the deceased was found empty at the time of her post mortem.In support of the said submission, learned APP had referred to the deposition of Dr. Ashok Jaiswal(PW-12).He had argued that the evidence produced by the prosecution clearly reveals that repeated dowry demands had been made by the appellant and his family members on Madhu Bala, which would be borne out from the testimony of Smt.Darshana Suri (PW-9) and merely because she had not narrated specific instances of the demands made by the accused when her statement was recorded before the SDM (Ex.PW- 9/DA), could not be a ground to ignore her entire deposition.Learned APP urged that the Sessions court ought to have been mindful of the fact CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 16 of 54 that PW-9s statement was being recorded before the SDM one day after her daughter was found dead at her matrimonial home under unnatural circumstances and as a mother, she would have been overcome with grief.Therefore, she could not be expected to have provided details of the date, time etc. of the dowry demands made by the appellant and his family members on earlier occasions.CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 16 of 54Learned APP had also pointed out that the subject FIR was got registered at the instance of Madhu Balas father, who had unfortunately expired during the pendency of the trial and could not enter the witness box, but in his statement, he too had referred to the dowry demands made by the appellant on Madhu Bala and her family members.The attention of the Court was particularly drawn to those parts of the testimony of the other family members of the deceased that referred to the appellant and the deceased having shifted to their new house at Vikas Puri one and a half month prior to the date of the unfortunate incident, to urge that specific dowry demands had been made by the accused at that point in time.It was thus contended by the learned APP that although the Sessions Court had convicted the appellant under Explanation (a) of Section 498A IPC, the evidence on record would establish that Explanation (b) is also attracted to the facts of the present case.CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 17 of 54In his rebuttal arguments, learned counsel for the appellant had disputed the submission made by the learned APP that the appellant had falsely deposed that after he and the deceased had a serious altercation on the fatal night, they had sat down to dinner and then gone to sleep.He sought to explain the findings returned in the autopsy report to the effect that autopsy of the body of Madhu Bala had revealed that her rectum was empty, by submitting that when the evidence on this aspect is correlated with the sequence of events on the fateful night, it would reveal that her death had taken place on 19.07.1996 at about 8:30 AM, whereas the post mortem on her dead body was conducted on the following day at 2:30 PM.Thus there was a gap of about 30 hours between the two events and keeping a margin of two hours on either side, at best, her death could have occurred between 6:30 AM and 10:30 AM.He stated that if calculated backwards, it would emerge that the appellant and the deceased had gone to sleep at about 3 AM and ordinarily, after food is consumed, it takes 3-4 hours for it to get digested and hence there was nothing unusual in the observation made in the post mortem report that the rectum of the deceased was empty at the time of the autopsy.CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 18 of 54CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 18 of 54Learned counsel for the appellant had stressed that for the aforesaid reason, the appellants statement as recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC about he and the deceased having taken dinner before going to sleep at 3:00 AM, could not be discarded merely because the medical evidence indicated that Madhu Balas rectum was empty.It was further argued on behalf of the appellant that even the prosecution witnesses had deposed that the relationship between the appellant and his family and the deceased was cordial and therefore, the fact that the appellant had given beatings to the deceased on the fateful night ought to have been treated as an isolated incident and could not be taken as a ground for holding him guilty of having abetted Madhu Bala to have committed suicide under Section 306 IPC.The Court has perused the impugned judgment, examined the trial court record and carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties.The first argument advanced on behalf of the appellant was that the trial court had gravely erred in convicting the appellant under Section 306 IPC as he had not been charged for the said offence and nor was he confronted with the ingredients of the said offence before the Sessions court.In brief, the relevant facts of the said case were that the accused therein had been charged under Section 302 IPC for having committed the murder of his wife and two daughters.He was further charged under Section 304B IPC for causing the death of his wife and under Section 498-A IPC, for subjecting her to cruelty.CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 30 of 54It may be noted from the autopsy report (Ex.PW-12/A) that Dr. Ashok Jaiswal (PW-12) and Dr. Rajesh Gupta (PW-17) who had performed the post mortem, had found the following injuries on the body of the deceased :-"1. Abrasion " x ", " x " on back and outer aspect of left elbow joint with dried up blood.Bruise " x " on left forearm back and outer aspect.1" below elbow joint light blueish in colour.Irregular defused bruise pinkish blueish of size 1" x 1" on medial (inner) side of left arm middle portion.Linear scratch obliquely placed on left forearm ventral aspect, 3 cm long, seen on lower third portion of forearm.Tiny abrasions three in number with sizes 2 to 3 mm on back of right wrist.Three bruises light blue in colour placed below left knee, over upper and middle third of anterior aspect of left leg, having defused border of sizes 1" x ", " x " and " x ".Abrasion with dried up blood on back and outer aspect of left feet " x ".Light blueish bruises two in number on anterior aspect of right thigh lower third with difused border of sizes 1 cm x 5cm, 1.5 cm x 1 cm.CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 31 of 549. Blueish bruise on Medial size of right knee " x ".Blueish bruise on right leg anteriorly 1.5 cm x 1 cm placed below knee joint.Blueish bruise 2 cm x 1.5 cm on posterior aspect of middle of right leg.Abrasion with dried up blood on right foot " x ".Abrasion 3 mm x 3 mm on left Mandibular region just above its middle part with dried up blood.Cresentric abrasions placed 2 cm below lower lip left side of 3 mm and 6 mm (two in number).Light blue bruise 1" x " on outer aspect of left eye.Two pin point abrasion behind left ear with abrasion left ear lobule 3 mm to 4 mm.There was a ligature presence abrasion mark seen in front of neck over thyroid prominence in midline with width of 1.5 cm brown in colour from hair to definate layers of ligature pressure abrasion marks were seen on either side of neck with slight grooving in raised margins.Of the two ligature pressure abrasion marks on left side one leaf of it was seen going obliquely upward placed 5 cm below angle of mandible to anterior end of posterior hairline.It is light brown in colour width 0.5 cm.The second lower leaf was found running horizontally 7 cm below angle of mandible to back of neck below hairline.It is light brown in colour with a width 0.5 cm.No bruising of margin seen.On right side neck upper limb of ligature abrasion mark was light brown and was seen running obliquely upward placed 5 cm below angle of mandible to side of anterior end of posterior hairline.The lower second layer were seen almost horizontally placed 6 cm below angle of mandible to back of neck meeting with the horizontal loop from the left side.The skin at the junction of two limbs on left side anteriorly was abraded.No ligature material found around neck nor on the body.No other external injury seen on the body."The doctors had opined that all the injuries were antemortem in nature and injuries No.1 to 16 had been caused due to blunt object/force/friction against hard rough surface and were fresh in nature.CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 32 of 54 In their opinion, the probable duration of injuries No.1 to 16 was less than twenty four hours prior to the death and they were non fatal in nature.As for the injury mentioned at Sr.No.17 of the autopsy report, the doctors had opined that the said injury was caused by some hard ligature material and the death of Madhu Bala was caused due to hanging.They had also observed that having regard to the presence of injuries on the body of the deceased, which could not have been self-inflicted, homicidal hanging could not be ruled out.CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 32 of 54From the aforesaid autopsy report, it is apparent that Madhu Bala was severely and quite brutally beaten up before her death.The said medical evidence substantiates the appellants version to the extent that on the fateful night, he had thrashed his wife by giving her kicks, blows and punches.However, there is no independent witness produced by the defence to corroborate the story set up by the appellant, who is himself an accused, that after such a violent assault of his wife, they had partaken dinner and gone to bed.When admittedly, so much heat had been generated between the parties that a verbal wrangle had exploded into a physical assault of the deceased by the appellant, resulting in his inflicting as many as sixteen injuries on her body, the version put forth by the appellant that after such a serious and hostile showdown, he had made peace with the deceased and both had sat down to dinner and they went to sleep at 3 AM, is quite absurd and does not appeal to a logical mind.The word "instigation" has various connotations.In the case of Neeraj Gupta (supra), a suicide note was recovered from the body of the victim that indicated that he was upset with the petitioner/accused therein on account of a commercial transaction between the parties going sour.After examining the evidence on record, the Court observed that there was no active CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 36 of 54 engagement on the part of the petitioner/accused to encourage or incite the deceased to commit suicide and merely because the deceased had extended a loan to the petitioner for setting up a hotel, which he was unable to pay, could not be treated as an act of having incited the deceased to commit suicide, the crucial element of mens rea having not been alleged against the petitioner.CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 36 of 54"AMENDED CHARGE That on 9.7.96 at house No.ALTERNATIVE CHARGE That on 9.7.96, at House No.(b) of Section 498A IPC, for the reasons elaborated hereinafter.On a perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that for arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to substantiate the allegation of demand of dowry by the appellant, or that he had harassed Madhu Bala in connection with dowry, the learned Sessions Judge had considered the testimonies of Madhu Balas family members but he had gone on to reject them on the ground that there were material discrepancies and improvements made by the said witnesses on the aspect of dowry demands made by the accused.The impugned judgment takes note of PW-9, Sushila Devis statement recorded before the learned SDM, the day after Madhu Balas death, but concludes that she had not mentioned the fact that any such demand of dowry was raised on her and her family members.For drawing the above conclusion, the Sessions court has also relied on the testimony of Ashok Kumar Kapoor, DW-2 (father-in-law of the co- accused, Sumit Suri) which was to the effect that neither had the deceased or her relatives ever complained to him about the conduct of CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 44 of 54 the appellant or the other co-accused in connection with any dowry demand and observed that no such mention having been made to him, would itself be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution version.The said conclusion appears to be erroneous.The Sessions court overlooked the fact that DW-2 was not residing in the same city and was a permanent resident of Srinagar, Kashmir and even as per him, he had met the father of Madhu Bala only on a couple of occasions.Having had very little and infrequent interaction with the family members of Madhu Bala, he could have hardly thrown any light on the aspect of dowry demands made by the appellant on his wife and his in-laws.Further, if the Sessions Judge was of the opinion that Madhu Balas family members were interested parties, then so was DW-2, whose daughter and son were the co-accused in the case, along with the appellant and his mother.They had also demanded cash amounts to enable the appellant to settle down in his business.The fact of a new double bed being purchased and presented to the appellant two weeks before the death of Madhu Bala and payment of cash amount of `10,000/- to the appellant was repeated by the said witness.The only improvement noticed in the statement of PW-5 is on the aspect of the demand a colour television and a catering van by the accused, which was not a part of his statement as recorded during the investigation (Ex.PW- 5/DA).Similarly, Amita Chhabra (PW-4), sister of the deceased had deposed that after the marriage of Madhu Bala, the accused persons had started demanding dowry and they used to abuse her for bringing less dowry and not fulfilling their demands.She had stated that at the time of CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 48 of 54 the marriage, the appellant and his brother, Sumeet Suri were doing business jointly but after the marriage, Sumeet Suri had separated from the appellant and the appellant started demanding money for starting his own business.He had also started to press the deceased to join some service to meet the household expenses, whereafter the deceased had joined service with a beauty parlour at Janakpuri.The said witness repeated the fact of her father having paid a cash sum of `10,000/- and having presented a new double bed to the accused after they had shifted from Mayapuri to the new house at Vikas Puri.She had stated that the accused had demanded a catering van from her parents, but they could not afford to purchase one.She had also stated in her testimony that two days prior to her death, Madhu Bala had telephoned her and informed her that the appellant had purchased a shop in Vikas Puri for a sum of `7 lacs for which he had paid the earnest money of `10,000/- and told her to bring the remaining sale price from her parents but they were not in a position to pay the said amount.CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 48 of 54It is undoubtedly true that there are chances of interested witnesses making exaggerated claims or embroidering the truth.However, when scrutinizing the evidence, the Court must use its legal acumen to separate the grain from the chaff and only in circumstances, where the exaggerations made by the witness are found to be so improbable or preposterous that would render him wholly untrustworthy, should the CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 49 of 54 Court refuse to rely on him.As has been observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Vajresh Venkatray Anvekar (supra), if the attendant circumstance and evidence on record clearly corroborates the witness, then merely because he is an interested witness, he cannot be disbelieved because of some exaggeration, if his evidence is otherwise reliable.CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 49 of 54In the present case, this Court has not found any such preposterous or outrageous statements made by the brothers of the deceased (PW-2 and PW-5), her sister (PW-4) and her mother (PW-9), for completely discarding their evidence.Some delay in recording the statement of a few witnesses produced by the prosecution, namely, PW-4, PW-5, PW-7 and PW-9 would no doubt put the trial court on guard while scrutinizing their statements but that by itself would not be a ground to overlook their entire deposition simply on the ground that they could not specify the details of the date, time and place when demands of dowry had been made by the accused.A perusal of the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses reveal that except for some exaggerations that can be easily be identified and discerned as improbable, the witnesses were consistent and had fairly withstood the test of cross-examination.The appending circumstances when correlated with the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses clearly brings out the fact that the version of the deceased as disclosed to her parents, brothers and sister, ought not to have been discarded outright as CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 50 of 54 has been done by the trial court, merely on the ground that at the time of her statement being recorded by the SDM, she did not furnish the details, the timings and the specific occasions when demands of dowry were made by the accused on them or on the deceased and consequently, all that she had stated in her testimony that was recorded in the year 2002, ought to be disregarded.The Sessions court ought to have been mindful of the fact that a helpless and grieving mother had lost a daughter only a day prior to her statement being recorded by the SDM and in such a stressful condition, she could hardly be expected to be lucid and capable of recalling each and every detail of the demands of dowry made on her including the specific dates, occasions and other particulars of the dowry demands made by the accused.Nor could it be expected that independent witnesses would be available and step forward to depose on the dowry demands raised by the accused or the torture suffered by the deceased on failure to satisfy their greed.It has been observed time and again that in cases, where a woman is ill-treated, assaulted, physically or mentally tortured within the four walls of her matrimonial home, such ill-treatment cannot be witnessed by an outsider but only by those, who commit such a crime and obviously, they would not come forward to depose about it.CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 51 of 54CRL.A. 27/2007 Page 51 of 54When examined in the light of the aforesaid sequence of events, the repeated threats of demands of dowry made by the accused on the deceased appears to be the common and live link that runs through the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, apart from that of physical threats that were extended to her by the appellant.It has also been brought out that due to failure on her part to meet the dowry demands, on one occasion, the appellant had left Madhu Bala at her parental home and had returned after a couple of weeks to take her back.So things were brewing in the matrimonial home for some time.The final straw on the camels back, was the severe beatings that the appellant had given to Madhu Bala on the night of 18.07.1996, that was by itself sufficient to have provoked her into taking the extreme step of committing suicide.The court may hasten to clarify here that the cruelty to which deceased was subjected by the appellant, who had made demands of dowry on her and her family members would however not be a circumstance for invoking the provisions of Section 306 IPC against him.

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

15.10.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) Crl.M.A. 2041/2018 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 334 of 2014 under Sections 323/354B/509 IPC registered at Police Station Farsh Bazar, Delhi, based on a settlement.She submits that she has settled her disputes with the petitioner and does not wish to press charges against the petitioner and prosecute the complaint any further.In view of the fact that the parties have fully and finally settled their disputes and the respondent No.2 has stated that she does not wish to press the complaint any further, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.It would be expedient to quash the subject FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.In view of the above, the petition is allowed.

['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Accused Mayaram and Bhag Bai are his parents.Accused Beniram is father of Ramwati.A gruesome incident took place in the house of Saraswati Bai in village Chhatod on 18.2.1998 at 9.00 p.m. Not only she set herself on fire but at the same time she poured kerosene on her three children and set them ablaze.JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J.The appellants have been convicted under Sections 498A and 306, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorou imprisonment for two years and seven years respectively.They have also been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each for the first offence and Rs. 1,000/- each for the second offence.Deceased Saraswati Bai was wife of Manrakhan (P.W. 6).Accused Ramesh is his brother.Accused Ramwati is wife of Ramesh.Accused Sushila Bai is wife of another brother of Manrakhan (P.W. 6).All the four have died.Saraswati Bai was then shifted from Tilda to Bhilai Hospital.On 20.2.1998 at 8.00 p.m. another dying declaration of Saraswati Bai was recorded by S.R. Mandai (P.W. 26), Naib Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, Durg.It was done at Bhilai Hospital.There is no dispute that Saraswati Bai committed suicide.The question is whether the appellants treated deceased Saraswati Bai with cruelty and abetted the commission of suicide by her.On this point the two dying declarations of the deceased have been pressed into service by the prosecution.After going through the judgment of the Trial Court and the evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the rest of the material is a heap of scrap.The dying declaration (Ex. P/47) recorded on 19.2.1998 is as under :"xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx"A close scrutiny of the two dying declarations shows that there used to be a quarrel between Saraswati Bai and other family members.There were abuses and exchange of hot words from both the sides.The deceased herself was hot-tempered.She used to get angry.The very fact that she poured kerosene on her three children and set them ablaze shows the type of woman she was.She was definitely of low tolerance.She has clearly stated in her dying declaration that she set herself on fire when she was raging with anger.The dying declarations show that there was quarrel between Jethani and Devranis.That is the usual feature amongst the persons belonging to the social and economic status to which the parties belong.The Supreme Court has observed in State of West Bengal v. Orilal jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 1418=I (1994) DMC 138 (SC)=IV 1993) CCR 393 (SC), that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide.If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hyper-sensitive to ordinary petulance discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.In the present case, on a dispassionate consideration of the material on record it is found that the charges against the appellants are not established.As mentioned above the deceased had lost her normal frame of mind and being overcome by unusual psychic imbalance, decided to end her life by committing suicide.The alleged acts of cruelty on the part of the appellants were of rot such a nature which could drive a normal woman to commit suicide.

['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.

It is specifically denied that he had received a payment of Rs. 4 lacs as stated at any point of time.JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J.This is an application filed by the defendant under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) against the plaintiff Kuldeep Kapoor and his accomplices viz. Girdhari Lal, Ashok Kapoor and Ms. Priya Kapoor.This application has been filed in the above suit during its pendency.According to the defendant after putting his signatures on the agreement to sell, he had left the blanks unfilled in clauses 1 and 2 of the said agreement.In clause 4 of the said agreement, he had put signatures just above the said clause and this was done to validate a correction i.e addition of the letter `d' in the word `mature'.The two witnesses attested this document.According to the applicant, the copy of the receipt dated 20th October, 2004 on which the plaintiff has based his suit, is a forged document.Photo copy of the agreement as well as the original receipt had been placed on record as Annexures R-1 and R-2 respectively.The plaintiff and his accomplices not only tampered the receipt by erasing typed word `cash' and written the same in hand but also the typed figure of Rs. 30,000/- and added in hand a figure of Rs. 2 lacs.Thus according to the applicant, Kuldeep Kapoor, Girdhari Lal and Ashok Kapoor have fabricated, tampered and forged the document with an intention to use the same in Court as evidence or otherwise.On this premise, it is prayed that the Court may direct initiation of appropriate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the plaintiff and his accomplices as afore noticed.Notice of this application was issued to the plaintiff who filed a reply.In the reply filed by the plaintiff, some of the paragraphs were denied as matter of record.While in others, the averments made in the application were denied and it was stated that the averments are false, frivolous and afterthought of the defendant.According to them, the applicant has misled the Court and no proceeding under various sections referred to in the application can be initiated against the said respondents.In addition to this, a preliminary objection was also taken stating that the application has been filed with ulterior motives to pressurise the plaintiff, without any rhyme and reason.The application has been filed for oblique motive and the same should be dismissed.Rejoinder to this reply was filed by the defendant, who reiterated the averments made in the application with more emphasis in relation to the facts of the case.This application was contested by the defendant.The factual controversy raised in the present application was also raised in that application.The facts giving rise to the suit and that application were decided by the Court vide its order dated 24th November, 2005 and the facts and determination of some of the controversies can thus usefully be referred to from that judgment at this stage itself.The relevant extracts thereof are reproduced hereunder :-The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery and damages of Rs. 21 lacs against the defendant.Along with the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short `the CPC') for grant of ad-interim injunction.When the suit and application came up for ex-parte hearing before the Court on 31st May, 2005, the Court passed the following order :-CS(OS) 821/2005 Register.IA 4640/2005 Issue notice.I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff in support of the prayer for an ad interim ex-parte injunction restraining the defendant from creating any third party interest in property situate at D-632, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi.Besides filing written statement to the plaint and reply to the application of the plaintiff, the defendant upon service also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 praying for vacation of the ex-parte ad- interim injunction granted by the Court in terms of the above order.Thus, it will be appropriate to dispose of both these applications by a common order.The averments made in the plaint are that plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell with the defendant on 8th October, 2004 for purchase of entire second floor and the terrace thereupon of property situated at D-632, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi, for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs.The defendant received part payment of Rs. 4 lacs from the plaintiff towards the sale of the said property and acknowledged the receipt thereof in clause 1 of the agreement.The defendant also received a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the plaintiff towards sale consideration.For this, the defendant executed a separate receipt on 20th October, 2004 In terms of clause 7 of the agreement to sell, the defendant was required to get the property in question converted into freehold from leasehold.On the property being converted, it was agreed between the parties that a sale deed would be executed.The plaintiff claims to have visited the defendant on number of occasions and requested him to execute the sale deeds in terms of the agreement to sell dated 8th October, 2004, but the request fell on deaf ears.Perturbed by the attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff claimed to have served a notice through counsel on 15th March, 2005 requesting the defendant to execute sale deed or in alternative, the plaintiff would proceed to recover the damages.The defendant did not reply to the said notice.The plaintiff visited the premises and noticed that the defendant had got the premises demolished, thus intention on the part of the defendant never to execute the sale deed became obvious.The plaintiff felt that he was cheated by the defendant and with ulterior motive had got the premises demolished.Vide notice dated 4th May, 2005, the plaintiff called upon the defendant to refund a sum of Rs. 6 lacs and pay as damages Rs. 15 lacs, thus claiming a total sum of Rs. 21 lacs.Copy of the notice has been placed on record.It is also averred in the plaint that fear of the plaintiff was established when he received letter from the defendant dated 19th May, 2005 on 20th May, 2005 stating therein that the amount allegedly lent to the defendant by the plaintiff had been received by the plaintiff and the notice dated 4th May, 2005 does not stand.In these circumstances, according to the plaintiff, the cause of action arose on 8.10.2004 when the parties entered into an agreement to sell, on 20th October, 2004 when additional consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff and on such dates when he visited and requested the defendant to execute the sale deed and then on 15th March, 2005 when the notice was got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant, when the premises were got demolished and on 4th May, 2005 when the plaintiff rescinded the contract and demanded the defendant to pay damages Along with refund of the part consideration and lastly the cause of action arose on 20th May, 2005 when the plaintiff received the letter dated 19th May, 2005 from the defendant.In these circumstances, the suit was filed by the plaintiff praying for the following reliefs :- ?In the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass the decree in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant -A. Directing the defendant to refund the part consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Six Lacs) and pay damages of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lacs) to the plaintiff, B. Directing the defendant pay interest on Rs. 6,00,000/- from the date of receipt till the date of payment at the rate of 18% per annum;C. Directing the defendant to pay the costs of the suit throughout;D. Pass such other and further orders in the circumstances and facts of the case.In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the suit was taken that plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands as plaintiff has forged and tempered with the documents on the basis of which the suit has been filed.It is stated that Ashok Kapoor was instrumental and he Along with the plaintiff has played a fraud upon the defendant.It is stated that defendant was suffering from severe financial problems and was also having ill health and had to undergo an open heart surgery on 26th August, 2004 During this time, he met Ashok Kapoor, who offered to help him financially by giving him loan of Rs. 1 lac.He came with a draft agreement to sell and instead of Ashok Kapoor, the plaintiff's name was mentioned and it was told to the defendant that they were brothers.A total sum of Rs. 1 lac was paid by Shri Ashok Kapoor on behalf of Kuldeep Kapoor as a loan and to secure this loan amount, an agreement for sale of the second floor was entered into.Because of dire need, he had signed the papers.Out of Rs. 1 lac, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid by way of cheque on 8th October, 2004, another amount of Rs. 20,000/- was given by way of cash on the same date for which a receipt was executed and on 20th October, 2004 balance amount of Rs. 30,000/- was given by Shri Ashok Kapoor to the defendant.The original signed copy of the agreement to sell was not given to the defendant, after taking signatures of the defendant.Original copy of agreement to sell was taken by Ashok Kapoor on the pretext that he would get it signed from Kuldeep Kapoor and will return the same to the defendant.This was never done.This document was never registered and later on has been tempered with and forged by the plaintiff.The photo copy of the receipt dated 20th October, 2004 again is stated to be a forged document and the defendant had enclosed Along with his written statement photo copy of the document which he had signed and wherein he had received a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and not Rs. 2,00,000/- as now shown by the said receipt, after it has been tampered with by the plaintiff.It is stated that the defendant visited the plaintiff on various occasions for getting the copy of the original sale agreement but Ashok Kapoor as well as plaintiff evaded it on one pretext or the other.It is admitted that the defendant had got the property demolished in March, 2005, but it is stated that Ashok Kapoor and the plaintiff were trying to usurp the property of the defendant by these illegal and unauthorised acts.A malafide offer was also made by Ashok Kapur to develop the property by offering a sum of Rs. 20 lacs which was an unrealistic figure and while rejecting the same the plaintiff had returned a sum of Rs. 1 lac to the defendant by paying a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of bank draft No. 024067 dated 14th February, 2005 drawn on United Bank of India, C.R. Park, and another sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid in cash on the same date.This was in terms of clause 4 of the agreement between the parties.The plaintiff though accepted the cash amount of Rs. 50,000/-, however, did not accept the demand draft dated 14th February, 2005 and instead asked for payment in cash.As such another sum of Rs. 50,000/- was given by way of cash to Kuldeep Kapur and on asking for receipt of these payments, the plaintiff said that the matter having been settled, there was no need of issuing receipts for Rs. 1 lac and original agreement would be destroyed.Later on Ashok Kapoor informed that the original documents had been destroyed and that as an abundant caution, the defendant vide his letter dated 4th April, 2005 informed the plaintiff that he had paid the full loan amount back.This was sent by registered post but was received back with the comments that the addressee had refused to receive the same.Notice dated 4th May, 2005 is admitted to have been received by the defendant which was replied and on 8th May, 2005 Kuldeep Kapur came Along with his brother Ashok Kapoor and his wife Mrs.Priya Kapoor.Mrs.Priya Kapoor signed as a witness on this receipt.According to the defendant, the plaintiff has filed the present suit primarily to harass the defendant who has already entered into an agreement with Smt.Anuradha Tandon and the possession of the property has been given in terms of the agreement between the parties.The authenticity of the documents filed by the plaintiff has been questioned and it is prayed that the suit and the application is liable to be dismissed.While referring to the papers filed during the course of hearing, it was also stated that various cases of cheating and misappropriation of trust have been registered against the plaintiff and his associates being FIR Nos.190-201 dated 27th February, 2005 in relation to fraudulent hypothecation of property to the State Bank of Patiala for obtaining loan there from.In view of the stand taken by the defendant, the plaintiff was directed to file original documents in Court during the course of the day and it was also considered desirable that statement of defendant is recorded in Court so as to narrow down the scope of controversy between the parties.In fact on 2nd September, 2005, the Court passed the following order :-Counsel for the plaintiff shall file original documents in Court during the course of the day and supply a copy thereof to counsel for the defendant.List this case for directions and recording of statement of defendant in Court on 5th September, 2005 as it appears to the Court that the controversy between the parties can be narrowed down to a very limited issue as it is a claim for recovery of money based on a written contract between the parties.In view of the pleas taken by the parties in their pleadings, nature of the documents filed on record and apparent manipulation with the documents, the Court with an object to narrow down the controversy as well as the issue which may arise in the suit, recorded the statements of the parties.Ashok Kapoor who was the attesting witness to the document.The documents were kept in a sealed cover.The plaintiff as well as the attesting witness have not only failed to comply with their assurances given to the Court, but even refused to answer the questions in relation to the receipt which according to the defendant had been tampered with by the plaintiff.A typed print which has been rubbed off of Rs. 30,000/- in cash was clearly visible to naked eye but was subsequently hand-written below as Rs. 2 lacs.But on these, plaintiff and the attesting witness refused to answer and even refused to read which could be seen by a naked eye in open Court.Vide order dated 10th September, 2005 keeping in view the blanks in the documents, over writing and rubbing off of the figures, documents were sent to the CFSL with a direction that the report be submitted before the next date of hearing.A letter was received from the Director, CFSL wherein it was stated that certain more signatures of the witness were needed for proper comparison which were sent.Unnecessary requests for adjournments were made on behalf of the plaintiff, which in the interest of justice were allowed.Time was then granted to the plaintiff to engage another counsel.On that date, report of the CFSL was received.The plaintiff insisted on stating incorrect facts before the Court and in fact misled the Court.Even in the plaint the plaintiff gave incorrect address and during his statement under Order 10 CPC failed to give any reason why he had given different addresses at different places.Not only this, the plaintiff also failed to file replication despite the fact that the written statement on behalf of the defendant was filed quite sometime back.Despite order dated 27th September, 2005 no replication was filed.The order being pre-emptory the obvious result would have been to close the right of the plaintiff to file replication.However, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff raised certain serious controversies with regard to supply of documents.The Court while declining to comment on the said controversy, still granted another opportunity to the plaintiff to file replication.The defendant had taken up the plea of the documents being tampered with and forged, which have been relied upon by the plaintiff.On this basis and probably keeping in mind the report of the CFSL, an application under Section 340 Cr.The arguments on the application under consideration were heard and judgment reserved on the same date.The computer printout of photocopied document i.e. agreement to Sell (C-1) running into pages 7 to 10 tally with the original Agreement to Sell `X-1' running into pages 2 to 5 at their corresponding pages 2 to 5 at their corresponding pages (parawise) on superimposition with specific enlargement.The two photographs, General Photograph marked `GP' and the photograph showing difference of luminescence of ink marked as `DW' are enclosed for ready reference.Scientific examination of the red encircled portion marked `Y' on a Receipt `X' observed physical disturbance of fibres on the surface of paper at certain places to remove the original writings.The original writings were partially deciphered using VSC-5000, Twin Video Comparator (TVC) and other scientific techniques which appear to be read as `Cash'.The photographs marked `A', `B' and `C' showing partially visible strokes are enclosed herewith for ready reference.V. Scientific examination of the red encircled portion marked Y-1 on Receipt `X' observed physical disturbance of fibres on the surface of paper at certain portions to remove the original writings.However, some strokes consisting of figures 000 at unit , tenth and Hundred place and vertical stroke after the figure 0 at unit place is partially observed.The photograph using VSC-5000 marked as `D' is enclosed for ready reference.This document was exhibited as Ex.This document was marked `X' when it was sent to the forensic laboratory.This order was set aside and the matter was remanded by the Sessions Judge to the Trial Court.However, he refused to answer the question.The application against Ms.

['Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

S. K. Mehta, M. Qamaruddin and K. R. Nagaraja for theAppellant.O. P. Sharma for the Respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA, J.-Balwant Singh, the sole appellant in thisappeal, was convicted under section 302 of the Penal Codeand sentenced to death by the Trial Court.His convictionand sentence have been confirmed by the High Court of Punjaband Haryana.Special leave to appeal was granted by thisCourt limited to the question of sentence only.We have,therefore, to see whether on the facts of this685case the High Court was right in confirming the deathsentence imposed upon the appellant or was is, a case wherethe lesser sentence of life imprisonment ought to have beenawarded.The appellant was aged about 60 years at the time ofthe occurrence.He was working as a Granthi of a Gurudwarain village Salihna District Faridkot.Mohan Singh thedeceased was a member of the Managing Committee of theGurudwara.He made certain complaints against the appellantto the President of the Managing Committee and asked for hisremoval from the post of the Granthi.The appellant,therefore, bore a grudge against the deceased.In the earlyhours of April 13, 1974 the appellant gave Karah Parshad ofGranth Sahib to Mohan Singh mixing opium it.As soon asMohan Singh took the Parshad he felt sick and his heartbegan to sink.In spite of the medical aid he could notsurvive and died about 4 hours after the administering ofthe poison to him by the appellant.On the facts found bythe learned Sessions Judge and as affirmed by.the HighCourt, the appellant was convicted under section 302 of thePenal Code.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The remaining offences are not so grave.The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicants.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA)Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.419/2015 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Narsinghpur for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizen of the locality, who have no criminal past alleged against them.The deceased was the daughter-in-law of the applicants, who died after 7 years of her marriage, and therefore prima facie no offence under Section 304-B of IPC is made out against the applicants.They assure that they will cooperate in the investigation.Nothing is to be seized from the applicants.Under such circumstances, they pray for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicants so desire, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.

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

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

2. Facts germane to the appeal are that on 11.10.1999 Sanjay Kumar s/o Sri Praduman Kumar, r/o Bartala Yadgar, Saharanpur submitted a written report in Kotwali, Muzaffar Nagar stating that his sister Alpana Jain was married about 10 years ago with Sanjeev Jain son of Dharam Das Jain, r/o 3 Rainbow, Vihar.In the marriage they had given sufficient dowry but her in-laws were not happy and in order to fetch more money, her husband Sanjeev Jain, parents in-law and both brothers in-law Ajay and Sanjeev used to beat her.Non-fulfilment of demand resulted in physical torture on Alpana Jain.On 10.10.2009 at about 9.00 P.M. his sister informed them from Muzaffar Nagar by phone that all the accused persons are picking up quarrel with her, she suspects threat to her life and they should immediately rush to Muzaffar Nagar.The report further stated that when complainant along with his father and brothers reached at the house of his sister they found her dead.The complainant had charged the accused persons to have killed his sister.On the basis of this report case at crime no. 572/99, under section 302 IPC was registered against all the accused persons.The investigation was entrusted to SSI R K. Manik.He interrogated the complainant and his father at the police station and reached at the house of the accused persons.The dead body of the deceased was found on the floor by the side of the double bed on the upper storey of the house, however, on account of night inquest was not conducted.The mother, sister-in-law (Bhabi) and Sanchita (friend of the deceased) were interrogated.The two daughters of the deceased were crying so they were not in a position to make any statement.In the morning site plan of the scene of occurrence was prepared.Photographs were taken and the broken bangles of the deceased were seized.The inquest on the cadaver of the deceased was conducted and in sealed cover it was sent for post mortem examination along with usual papers.Dr. Pankaj Jain conducted autopsy on the corpse of the deceased on 11.10.99 at 3.00 P.M. He found that 35-years' old deceased was average built, her eyes and mouth were slightly open.Face was swollen and cynosed.Lines were blue.Conjunctives were deeply congested.Frothy blood was coming out from nostrils.Hands were clenched.The doctor found following ante mortem injuries on the persons of the deceased:Ligature mark of 19.0 cm x 3.0 cm on front and back side of neck (gap at back) 5.5 cm from chin, 5.5 cm from left ear and 4.5 cm from right ear.The base of mark is pale with reddish and echymosed margins.Mark is dry and hard.In internal examination the doctor found that brain and its membranes, both pleura, both lungs and pericardium were congested.Right chamber of heart was full while left was empty.In stomach about 250 ml.pasty odourless semi-digested found was present.The small intestines contained semi digested food and gases while in large intestines faecal matter and gases were found.Pancreas, spleen and both kidneys were congested.The uterus was non-gravid.In the opinion of the doctor the deceased suffered death due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation about 3/4 day before.During inquest the C.O. also reached at the spot and he inquired about the incident.Under his instructions section 498-A IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were added in the investigation.On 15.10.1999 the investigation of the case was taken up by Inspector Ajay Kumar who further interrogated the complainant and recorded statements of witnesses of inquest and dead body carrier.He also took in possession photographs of the scene of occurrence.On 17.10.1999 Investigating Officer searched the house of the accused and found two letters allegedly written by the deceased and a telephone receiver along with wire through memo.He had purchased a colour television in August, 1983 from his money.A telephone connection no. 432021 was installed at his residence and after marriage he obtained another connection no. 430320 in the name of his wife and she used to make calls from these telephones.He has denied the writing of his wife on the letters filed by the prosecution (Ex. Ka-3 to 11).According to him the deceased never wrote letters to her parents and whenever she wanted she used to talk with them on phone.The accused has further stated that after failure of business his father along with other family members shifted to Delhi and they used to carry on business by residing in house no. 61 Yadav Nagar, Delhi.The marriage of his two brothers Rajeev and Ajay was also performed from Delhi.Both of them had gone to their maternal grand parent's house at Saharanpur on 08.10.99 along with their mother.On 10.10.99 only Alpana returned back as her two daughters did not come on account of school holidays.He has further stated that Alpana was very much tensed as jewellery given by them was at Saharanpur with her parents which was not being returned by them.On account of this tension she hanged herself with the ceiling fan of the bed-room by tying her neck.He informed his in-laws in Saharanpur on telephone whereupon they along with his two daughters came from Saharanpur and put cadaver of the deceased on the floor.He has claimed that on his information his parents and two brothers also came from Delhi in the morning of 11.10.1999 and were arrested from their house.1983 is admitted to the defence.The parents of the deceased reside in Saharanpur while she was married to Sanjeev Jain of Muzaffarnagar.She suffered unnatural death on 10.10.1999 at about 9 p.m. in her matrimonial home.Her statement was recorded in the trial Court on 11.1.2005 and on that date she had given her age as 17-years.The date of incident is 10.10.1999 so at the relevant time her age comes to about 11 years 9 months.PW-2 has stated in his examination-in-chief itself that at the time of incident Ankita was aged about 14 years and Sanchita was 11-12 years old.No doubt it is prerogative of the prosecution to chose its witnesses to prove its case, but it is always desirable that the witness who is mature, understands things well and is capable to reproduce the events after many years of the incident in the Court should be examined to unfold the prosecution story.Sanjay Kumar Jain PW-1 giving introduction of all the accused persons has stated that the marriage of his sister Alpana @ Appi took place with accused Sanjeev Jain on 16.11.1983 wherein dowry was given according to their fiscal and economic condition, but it did not satisfy the rapacious psyche of the bridge-groom, his parents and brothers, who further demanded money and for this purpose they used to torture, beat and harass his sister.She had two daughters Ankita and Sanchita.She used to tell her miseries to them by phone as well as through letters.They tried to pacify the accused and often gave money to the accused persons.They started constructing a house for Alpana in Jain Milan Colony after purchasing a plot.The economic condition of the accused persons was not good.On 10.10.1999 at about 9 p.m. Alpana informed him on phone that her husband, parents-in-law and brothers-in-law Ajay and Rajiv are quarrelling with her and her life is in danger, so they should immediately reach there.On this call, he along with parents, brothers Anil and Vineet and sister-in-law Anuradha reached at the house of Alpana in Rainbow Vihar at about 1.00 a.m. and saw that she was lying dead on the floor of her room, her two daughters were crying and accused have absconded.There were injuries on her neck and face.At the time of marriage Alpana was a student of B.A. Final and he had seen her studying and is acquainted with her writing and signature.Thereafter he scribed report Ex. Ka-1 and handed over at the police station Kotwali Muzaffarnagar at 2.00 a.m. This witness has filed and proved five letters allegedly written by Alpana to them stating that their photo-copies and photographs were given by him to the investigating officer.He has concluded that in the room chappals and pieces of bangles of the deceased were lying.PW-2 Praduman Kumar Jain is the aged father of the deceased.Reiterating the facts stated by his son PW-1 he has deposed that all the accused resided in Rainbow Vihar, Muzaffarnagar and in the marriage he had spent Rs.5-6 lacs, but the accused were not happy.They used to harass and torture his daughter Alpana to bring more money and articles.She told them about it on phone and also through letters.They talked with the accused and their relatives, but they did not deter and continued harassing and maltreating his daughter.He owns groves of mangoes and lettuce.He used to give 10-20 to 50 thousands rupees to the accused from time to time.The daughter was blessed with two daughters named Ankita and Sanchita who were 14-years and 11-12 years' old at the time of incident.When the atrocities of the accused continued, he thought of building a house for his daughter in Jain Milan Vihar and purchased a plot measuring 434 sq. yards and has filed copy of the sale-deed.About 3-4 days before the death of his daughter he had given Rs. One lac for laying linter (roof).He has further stated that at his house telephone no. 645388 (earlier no. 745388) was installed and Alpana had telephone no. 432021 in her room.On 10.10.1999 at 9.00 p.m. Aplana's phone on their phone no. 645388 was attended by Sanjay and thereafter he told them that her husband, Sanjeev, father-in-law Dharam Dass, mother-in-law Memwati, Devar Rajeev and Ajay are quarrelling with her and she suspected threat for life and they should immediately come.At that time his son Anuj was not at home and when he returned they all left for Muzaffarnagar and reached at Alpana's kothi in Rainbow Vihar and found that his both the grand-daughters (dhevati) were crying on the ground floor.They went upstairs and found Alpana lying dead in her room.Her scalp hairs were dishevelled, bangles were broken and there were signs of injuries on her face and hands.Thereafter his son Sanjay prepared report and along with Khannaji and few relatives they went to Kotwali where he handed over the report at about 1.45-2.00 a.m. He and Sanjay were interrogated by Darogaji.The same day her inquest and autopsy was done and then they performed her last rites at the river cremation.On 17.10.1999 he came to Muzaffarnagar with Vineet and Sanjay as they were called by Kotwal.They went at the spot along with him for inspection.The police officer searched the almirah of Alpana and seized two letters which were in the handwriting of Alpana to which he is acquainted.The investigating officer also took in possession a telephone wire and receiver.He has concluded that Pushap Kumar Jain is his son-in-law who was Joint Commissioner Customs & Central Excise at the time of incident.Sanchita PW-3 is the younger daughter of the deceased who was aged about 11-12 years at the time of the incident.Smt. Alpana Jain deceased was not a career woman but she was a house wife, wholly dependent on the income of her husband.The economic condition of the parents of the deceased was very good.They owned many groves and separate businesses.In district Saharanpur fruit groves' business particularly mango and lettuce is quite profitable.At the time of marriage of the deceased the fiscal condition of her in-laws was also good, but their factory in the name and style of 'Rainbow Industrial Corporation', as admitted by PW-2 in his cross-examination that at the time of marriage it was a big concern which had to be closed.Accused Sanjeev Kumar Jain has stated in his written statement that at the time of incident his two daughters were studying in S. D. Public School, Muzaffarnagar and the school was closed from 9.10.1999 to 20.10.1999, so they had gone to Saharanpur along with their mother.In the evening of 10.10.1999, the deceased came alone to Muzaffarnagar and the daughters remained at Saharanpur.The parents of the deceased were not returning jewellery of Alpana which was given by them (accused in-laws) and in his absence she committed suicide by hanging from the fan.On his information by phone the parents of the deceased and his both the daughters came at his residence and put down the dead body from the fan and kept on the floor.The accused has not stated that the spot position was changed by brothers of the deceased.He has not informed the police or his neighbours about alleged suicide of her wife, which was quite natural.This conduct of accused Sanjeev Jain creates strong doubt about truthfulness of his story.The autopsy of the deceased was conducted by a team of two doctors and Dr. P. K. Jain, PW-4 has proved the autopsy notes.On external examination he has found her eyes and mouth slightly open.Face was swollen and cynosed.Lines were blue.Conjunctives were deeply congested."(b) Appearances due to Asphyxia: The face puffy and cyanosed, and marked with petechiae.The eyes are prominent and open.In some cases, they may be closed.The conjunctivae are congested and the pupils are dilated.Petechiae are seen in the eyelids and the conjunctivae.The hands are usually clenched.The genital organs may be congested and there may be discharge of urine, faeces and seminal fluid."Abrasions and echoymosis round about the edges of the ligature mark common.No evidence of sexual assault 4 Sometimes evidence of sexual assault.Subcutaneous tissues under the mark white, hard and glistening .Scratches, abrasions and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body, usually not present.Scratches, abrasions finger nail marks and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body usually present.Face, usually pale and petechiae rare.Face, congested, livid and marked with petechiae.Neck, stretched and elongated on fresh bodies.Neck, not so.External signs of asphyxia usually not well marked.External signs of asphyxia, very well marked (minimal if death due to vasovagal and carotid sinus effect).Bleeding from the nose, mouth and ears very rare.Accordingly, sometimes inflated and exaggerated allegations are made.Hon'ble Anil Kumar Sharma, J (Delivered by Justice Anil Kumar Sharma) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 04.10.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Muzaffar Nagar in S.T. No. 317 of 2000 (Case Crime No. 571/99), P.S. Kotwali, District Muzaffar Nagar, whereby the appellants have been convicted under section 302/149 IPC and 498-A IPC and each had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each under section 302/149 IPC, 3 years' R.I. and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under section 498-A IPC with default stipulation.Accused Dharm Das Jain had died during pendency of the appeal, hence his appeal stood abated.On dissection the subcutaneous tissues under the above mark are dry, white glittering.The muscle ruptured.Trachea congested and hyoid bone fractured.Abraded contusion of 1.0 cm x 0.4 cm at right hand lateral 2.0 cm above wrist.3. Contusion of 3.5 cm x 2.0 cm on back of left upper arm.9 cm above elbow.Contusion of 6.0 cm x 3.5 cm on back of left upper arm, just above elbow.Two scalp hairs were entangled with wire of the telephone receiver.Thereafter Investigating Officer recorded statements of other witnesses and the investigation culminated in charge sheet against accused-appellants.Charges for the offences punishable under section 498-A and 302/149 IPC were framed against the accused persons who abjured their guilt and claimed trial.In order to prove its case the prosecution had examined complainant Sanjay Kumar Jain as PW-1, Praduman Kumar Jain PW-2, Km.In their separate statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. all the accused persons have admitted the marriage of the deceased with accused Sanjay Jain and birth of two daughters out of their wedlock.However, they had denied the other part of the prosecution story.Accused Ajay, Rajeev, Smt. Mem Lata and Dharam Das Jain have stated that on the day of incident they were in their house at Delhi and on getting the news about death of Alpana they have reached Muzaffar Nagar.Accused Sanjeev Jain and Dharm Das Jain have filed separate written statement under section 233 (2) Cr.P. C. Accused Sanjeev Jain has stated therein that on 16.11.1983 he was married with Smt. Alpana and at that time his father was having 50% partnership in a famous Iron Industry named as Rainbow Industrial Corporation and he also had a factory in Saharanpur.At the time of the marriage his father-in-law was having an ordinary shop dealing in sale of iron bars.His marriage was solemnized in an ordinary manner within 15 days of its settlement.9. Accused Dharm Das Jain in his written statement under section 233 (2) Cr.P.C. has reiterated the facts stated by the accused Sanjeev Jain in his written statement.He has filed his ration card issued at Delhi and photo copy of his father's death certificate as also the marriage invitation cards of his two sons Rajeev and Ajay.After hearing the parties' counsel the trial court had convicted and sentenced all the appellants as indicated above.We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the original record of the case carefully.At the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Chaturvedi learned senior Advocate, appearing for the accused-respondent, has forcefully contended that conviction on the basis, of circumstantial evidence cannot be based unless the circumstances clearly proved and established by reliable and convincing evidence adduced in the case, make a complete chain of events from which no other inference, except the inference about the complicity of the accused in committing the offence, is possible.He further submitted that the deceased was married with appellant no. 1 about 16 years ago before the incident and they were blessed with two daughters who were quite young.There was no demand of money by the accused persons from her or her parents and ere that there was no complaint or dispute on this count, therefore, the learned trial Court has erred in convicting the accused appellants.He further submitted that accused appellant no. 2 to 5 resided in Delhi at the time of incident and they came to Muzaffarnagar in the morning of 11.10.1999 after being informed about the incident and were arrested from their residence.Lastly it has been argued that the deceased has committed suicide in her matrimonial home out of depression and frustration as her jewellery was not being returned by her brothers.Per contra Mr. V. M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the complainant has submitted that there is oral and documentary evidence on record about the atrocities committed by all the accused on the deceased, who lived jointly in Muzaffarnagar on account of demand of money.All the accused on the fateful day were quarrelling with the deceased, she suspected threat to her life, so she made a telephone call to her parents at Saharanpur at about 9.00 p.m. requesting them to come immediately to her rescue but before they could arrive, she was done to death by the accused persons by strangulation.The deceased used to write letters to her parents narrating her miseries at the hands of all the accused persons in her matrimonial home.The accused were last seen in the company of the deceased by her two daughters in her bed room picking up quarrel and they were further seen coming out from the said room by them and till that time their mother had died.He further submitted that the medical evidence on record rules out all possibilities of suicide and clearly prove that she suffered death due to asphyxia on account of strangulation.The date, time and place of death of Smt. Alpana is not disputed to the defence.She was found dead in the bed room of accused Sanjeev Jain.Only two points require consideration in this case, firstly whether she committed suicide or she was strangulated to death by all the accused-appellants as alleged by the prosecution? And secondly, whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused-appellants?The case of the complainant is that since marriage Alpana's in-laws started demanding money in dowry and she was harassed, beaten and tortured to fetch money form her parents.They were blessed with two daughters named Anchita and Sanchita who were aged about 14 years and 11-12 years respectively at the time of incident.The prosecution has not given any explanation for her non-examination, although she was present in Court.However, this fact does not affect the prosecution case adversely.The trial Court has framed charges for the offences punishable u/s 498-A and 302/149 IPC against all the accused-appellants.No charge u/s 147 IPC had been framed against the accused at all.The trial Court has thus committed an illegality in not framing the charge for the offence u/s 147 IPC against the accused, because without finding the accused persons guilty for forming an unlawful assembly to achieve their common object in prosecution of which they have committed the offence, no aid of Section 149 IPC can be taken to convict them for the offence punishable u/s 302/149 IPC.The prosecution has placed reliance on the testimony of complainant Sanjay Kumar Jain PW-1 who is brother of the deceased, his father Praduman Kumar Jain PW-2 and Km.Sanchita PW-3 (daughter of deceased and accused Sanjiv Kumar Jain) to prove its case.Describing and recognizing all the accused in the Court she has stated that at the time of incident all accused, her mother and sister Ankita resided together in 3, Rainbow Vihar, Muzaffarnagar.She was studying in 7th standard, while elder sister Ankita in 9th class in S.D. Public School, Muzaffarnagar.Her mother resided in the room on upper storey.Her relations with the accused persons were bad as they used to harass and torture her for bringing money from Saharanpur.On 10.10.1999 at about 9.00-9.15 p.m. her mother was in her room and she along with her sister were studying in room on ground floor.They heard shrieks and weeping voice of mother.They went upstairs and found all the accused persons in her room.There was electric light.The accused persons were quarrelling with her and they rebuked them to go away.They got down scared.Thereafter mother's screams vanished and when they again went upstairs they saw all the accused coming out from the room nervously.In the room they found her mother lying dead on the floor.She has concluded that 3-4 hours later her maternal grand-father (Nana) Praduman Kumar Jain, Nani Smt. Santosh Jain, Mama Vineet Jain, Sanjay Jain and Anuj Jain and Mami Smt. Anuradha Jain came from Saharanpur and she along with the sister remained on the ground-floor.The circumstances proved should be such as to exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved.But this does not mean that before the prosecution case succeeds in a case of circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever extravagant and fanciful it might be."Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the deceased and accused Sanjeev Kumar Jain were married on 16.11.1983, two daughters were born out of the wed lock and till the day of incident there was no complaint from the side of the deceased or her parents regarding any kind of demand as dowry or torture/ maltreatment/harassment of the deceased on this score.The case of the defence is that the marriage was solemnized in an ordinary manner and it was settled on account of beauty of the deceased.On the contrary PW-2 has stated that he had spent about rupees 5-6 lacs in the marriage.In cross-examination he has stated that in the marriage they had given gold-jewellery weighing about 40-50 tolas apart from a set of Kundan and diamond each.He had further stated that there were hundreds of baratis, the halwai was arranged from Meerut and about rupees one lac was spend on food.Since this purchase was made only few months before marriage, so it can be assumed that it was taken out of the money given by the parents of the deceased.Although he has stated that the marriage took place within 15-days of its settlement, but he has not given any date of engagement, lagan or Teeka etc. PW-2 has further stated that he had purchased a plot in Muzaffarnagar for separate residence of the deceased and house was being constructed thereon.The copy of the sale deed had been brought on record.The accused persons have simply denied all these facts in their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In cross-examination of PW-2 it has been suggested that he has purchased the plot for earning profit.However, this plea appears to be false, because PW-2 has admitted that he got the map sanctioned from the MDA, the house was under construction and after the incident he has disposed it of.From testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 and the written statements filed by accused Sanjeev Kumar Jain and his father, if read together it is clearly borne out that the family of the deceased was much more affluent than the accused persons.Both the aforesaid accused persons have stated that after failure of their factory, Dharam Das Jain along with his two other sons have shifted their residence and business to Delhi.In these circumstances, it is clearly proved that the husband of the deceased demanded money from his wife and her parents to quench his thirst and to press his demand he used to harass and torture the deceased.Further from the letters of the deceased it is also spelt out that accused Sanjeev Kumar Jain was having bad habits of gambling, drinking and socialising.The next core question for decision is whether the deceased suffered death on account of hanging or strangulation.It is not disputed that on 10.10.1999 at about 9.13 p.m. a call was made from accused Sanjeev Kumar Jain's residence to the parents of the deceased.The contention of the defence is that accused Sanjiv Kumar Jain informed his in-laws about the suicidal death of the deceased, while the case of the prosecution right from the inception of FIR is that at about 9.00 p.m. the deceased rang up her home telling them that the accused persons are quarrelling with her and she suspected threat to her life, so they should immediately come.Both PW-1 and PW-2 have spoken about this telephone call of the deceased, which also finds corroboration from the testimony of Inspector Narendra Singh PW-10, who has collected and proved the call details.On getting information on phone about the atrocities being committed by the accused on the deceased, her family members rushed to Muzaffarnagar by road in the night itself and they reached at the residence of accused at about 1.00 a.m. and found the deceased dead in her bed room.They also found both the daughters of the deceased crying on the ground floor of the house.Hands were clenched.Prominent ligature mark of 19.0 cm x 3.0 cm on front and both sides of neck with gap at back, 5.5 cm from chin, 5.5 cm from left ear and 4.5 cm from right ear was found.The base of mark was pale with reddish and ecchymosed margins.Further scratches, abrasions finger nail marks and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body are usually present, but in hanging these symptoms are usually not present.From the symptoms, which have been pointed out by Modi and statement of Dr. Jain PW-4 it is crystal clear that in the present case most of the symptoms found (highlighted by us in the table para-32 aforesaid) correspond to the symptoms of strangulation as noted by the doctors in the post-mortem examination report of the deceased, and they clearly rules out the possibility of self hanging by the deceased without any contrivance and the prosecution has successfully proved that the deceased was done to death by strangulation in her bed room in the night of 10.10.1999 by the accused.The most important witness examined by the prosecution in the case is Km.Sanchita PW-3, who is daughter of deceased and accused Sanjeev Kumar Jain.She was aged about 11-12 years at the time of the incident.Statement given by her in examination-in-chief had been mentioned in para-20 above.Her testimony is criticized on the ground that after the incident she is living with her maternal grand parents at Saharanpur and she had been tutored by them.Her statement was recorded in the trial Court on 11.1.2005 and 17.1.2005 and at that time she was aged about 17 years i.e. quite mature young lady.She must be having hatred emotions against the accused persons.The defence has disputed her presence on 10.10.1999 at the time of alleged incident, and accused Sanjeev Kumar Jain has stated in his written statement that she came to Muzaffarnagar after the incident along with her maternal grand parents.The defence has also examined DW-1 Suresh Kumar a senior official of S. D. Public School, Muzaffarnagar who has filed the 'school diary' Ex. 29 for the academic year 1999-2000 and has stated that from 9.10.1999 to 20.10.1999 the school was closed.However, Sanchita PW-3 has pleaded ignorance about closure of school on account Dushhera holidays on the above dates.The school diary shows that from 11.10.1999 to 20.10.1999 it was Autumn Break in the aforesaid school, on 9.10.1999 (Saturday) it was 'Pitra Visarjani Amawasya' holiday and 10.10.1999 was Sunday.During this period there was Dushhera festival, which is an important festival and everybody likes to celebrate it at his home.Thus, the trial Court has rightly held that it was not proved that Sanchita along with her sister and mother had gone to Saharanpur during the aforesaid period.Sanchita PW-3 had stated in her deposition before the trial Court that on the day of incident all the five accused were quarelling with her mother and on hearing her screams she along with her elder sister Ankita went upstairs where her mother was also present in the room, but they were sent back by the accused.They were frightened and climbed down.After some time the cries of the mother stopped and then again they went on the 1st floor, saw all accused persons coming out nervously from the room and found the mother lying dead on the floor.She has admitted in her cross-examination that she had not seen any weapon in the hands of the accused persons.Accused Dharam Das Jain in his written statement has stated that after he suffered loss in the business, except Sanjiv he shifted with his family to Delhi, where he started business and resided in House No. 61 in Yadav Nagar.He has filed the original ration card wherein the names of Dharam Das, his wife Memlata, son Rajeev with his wife Babita and infant son Babaloo and Ajay s/o Dharam Das are mentioned.PW-1 to PW-3 have also admitted in their cross-examination that Mangey Ram father of accused Dharam Das had died in Delhi and the marriage of accused Rajeev and Ajay also took place from Delhi.The cross-examination of the witnesses of fact further show that the relations between the two families were not cordial, which may be due to matrimonial disturbance of the deceased.Sanchita PW-3 has stated in her cross-examination that she had told the investigating officer about presence of all accused in the house stating that they all lived jointly, but Inspector Ajay Kumar PW-8 has stated in cross-examination, as under:" xokg lafprk us eq>s vius c;ku esa ;g ugha crk;k Fkk fd---------iwjk ifjokj mlh ?kj esa bdB~Bk jgrk gSA bl xokg us eq>s vius c;ku es ?kVuk ls iwoZ eEeh ls >xM+k gksus okyh ckr ugha crk;h FkhA xokg us eq>s ;g ugha crk;k fd eqyfteku ml le; esjh eEeh ls >xM+k dj jgs FksA vt [kqn dgk fd ;g crk;k Fkk fd lHkh eqyfteku eEeh ds dejs esa Fks vkSj dejs ls jksus ph[kus dh vkoktsa vk jgh Fkh----A "Thus we find that there is material omission in the statement of PW-3 given by her to the police, which amounts to contradiction and it is duly proved as per provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C. and Section 145 Evidence Act.. The trial Court fell in error in holding otherwise.Mode of contradicting a witness in respect of his former statement is that the former statement of the witness in writing must be shown to him for contradicting him.If the witness disowns to have made any statement which is inconsistent with his present stand, his testimony in court on that score would not be vitiated until the cross-examiner proceeds to comply with the procedure prescribed in the 2nd limb of sec.The evidence of that witness regarding the said improved fact is of no significance.However, later he has admitted the marriage invitation card of Ajay's marriage.This witness has stated that he has not attended the marriage of Ajay.However, she does not remember whether any one from her maternal uncle's side attended the marriage.She has further stated that marriage of uncle Rajeev was solemnized at Delhi 2-2½ years before this incident.Although she had reiterated that accused Dharam Dass and others lived with them in Muzaffarnagar, but the other evidence on record belies her statement.Thus, it is proved that at the time of incident only accused Sanjeev Jain, with his wife and two daughters resided in Muzaffarnagar and his parents and brothers Rajee and Ajay with their families were staying in Delhi and pursuing their business.Inspite of stringent laws prohibiting dowry demand and atrocities on women such cases are rising alarmingly.Young brides are being done to death on account of dowry demand at the hands of their in-laws.But on the other hand lately, a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases in order to browbeat and pressurise the immediate family of the husband."Common object" may also be developed at the time of incident."In view of the above principles as well the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the deceased was strangulated to death in direct prosecution of the common object of unlawful assembly of all the five accused persons.Even the case does not fall under second part of Section 149 IPC, as the presence of all accused except Sanjeev Jain could not be proved, so the question of their knowledge that murder of the deceased was likely to be committed does not arise at all.In the totality of the circumstances, in our considered view the prosecution has not proved its case against appellants no. 2 to 4 who are entitled to acquittal on account of benefit of doubt.Thus, the trial Court has fell in error in finding them guilty for the offences punishable u/s 302/149 and 498-A Indian Penal code.These appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them giving them the benefit of doubt.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 07.02.2020 in connection with Baishnabnagar P.S. Case No. 616 of 2019 dated 22.11.2019 under sections 143/325/326/307/333/353 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Ananda Ghosh Ms. Soma Chowdhury (Bandhu) ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Sudip Kumar ... ... for the State Having considered the materials on record prima facie disclosing involvement of the petitioner as a member of a group one of whom assaulted police personnel who were discharging official duties and as the allegation of assault is supported by medical evidence, we are of the opinion this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

,P.W.8 has taken up investigation, examined connected witnesses and also made arrangements to conduct inquest and accordingly, the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer viz., P.W.6 has conducted inquest and filed his report.The Investigating Officer has made arrangements for conducting autopsy on the body of the deceased and accordingly, Dr. Somasundaram, P.W.5 has conducted autopsy and he found the following external and internal injuries:While so its condition show Rigor mortis present in all the four limbs.The general condition tally wiht Police report.The Rigor mortis present in all the four limbs.Max of 3 cm right side minimum 1.5 cm left side skin over ligature light brown cut section - sub cutinuous also congested, muscle, vessel congested.Abdomen - distented, not trachre ribs, Heart- 50 ml & clotted blood.The right and left legs congested.The intestine disgested with Gas, Bladder empty, Uterus empty, Skull - No fracture of bone.The first accused has married the deceased Chithra prior to two and a half years from the date of occurrence and both of them have been blessed with a child.The first accused is a drunkard and very often in drunken mood, used to attack the deceased.The second accused being younger brother of the first accused has lent his support to the first accused.On 21-08-2003 at about 12:30 p.m., the deceased has committed suicide in the house bearing Door No.37, Sadaiyappan Koil Street, Tiruppur.On receipt of the complaint, the Investigating Officerviz.Sub-conjuctial Haemorrhage seen.Nose bleedings.Tongue kept inside, jaw clenched.Facial matter comes out.Over all expression Ligature mark start from Rt upper neck 7 cm below and 5 cm behind (right) EAr lode, runs upwards above, the thyroid cartilage ends, 3 cm left earlobe.Memb intact, Brain congested.The skin and underlying tissue, Hyboid bone were preserved and sent for analysis.Opinion: The deceased would have died of Asphyxia due to the external compression of the neck."After completing investigation, P.W.8 has laid a final report on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.The Judicial Magistrate No.The Trial Court after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusal of the relevant records has framed a charge against the accused under Sections 498-A read with 34, IPC and 306 read with 34,IPC and the same has been read over and explained to them.The accused have denied the charge and claimed to be tried.On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 8 have been examined and Exs-P1 to P6 and M.O.1 have been marked.When the accused have been questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C., as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against them, they denied their complicity in the crime.No oral and documentary evidence have been let in on the side of the accused.The Trial Court after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing the relevant evidence available on records has found both the accused guilty under Section 498-A,IPC and sentenced them to undergo two years' R.I., and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) each, with usual default clause.Further, they have also been found guilty under Section 306 read with 34, IPC and sentenced them to undergo 10 years' R.I., and imposed a fine of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) each, with usual default clause.Against the convictions and sentences passed by the Trial Court, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the accused, as appellants.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused has raised the following points:The specific contention put forth on the side of the prosecution is that the second accused has given his support to the first accused at the time of torturing the deceased.The Trial Court without considering lack of evidence on the side of the prosecution against the second accused has erroneously invited convictions and sentences against him under the said Sections.Therefore, the convictions and sentences passed by the Trial Court against the second accused are liable to be interfered with.Now, the Court has to look into the contentions put forth on the side of the prosecution against the first accused.It is true that P.Ws.1 to 3 have not stated about the conduct as well as torture of the first accused to the Revenue Divisional Officer.Fine amount, if any paid by him is ordered to refunded forthwith.(ii) The conviction and sentences passed against the first accused under Section 498-A r/w 34, IPC are confirmed.Likewise, the conviction passed under Section 306 r/w 34, IPC against him is also confirmed.However, the quantum of sentence imposed against him under the said Section is modified as follows:"The first accused is sentenced to undergo five years' R.I., instead of ten years.No modification in respect of fine amount."If the first accused is not in duress, the Trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps to immure him in prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence.20-01-2016Index: yes/noglpToToDeputy Superintendent of PoliceTiruppur Sub-DivisionCoimbatore DistrictA.SELVAM,J.glpCriminal Appeal No.488 of 200820-01-2016

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']

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