Datasets:

Fawazzx

/

full

like 0

(26/03/2018) Rohit Arya, J This application under section 482 Cr.P.C., is presented seeking quashment of the challan (Annexure P/1 colly.), cognizance order (Annexure P/2) and the consequent entire criminal proceedings arising out of RCT No.97/2018 for the offence punishable under section 306 IPC pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore.Petitioner is working as a Manager with DCM Shriram Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") and posted at its Indore office.Sumit Vyas, the deceased; had joined the Company at Indore office in the year 2011 on the post of Accounts Officer and worked under the supervision of the 2 Mis.He was promoted to the post of Section Officer.2 Mis.Case No.5952/2018 team and people I met here.3 Mis.The organization has not only helped med to learn lots & grow as a professional, but has also helped me to build bonds that will always hold a special place in my heart.I would like to take a moment and thank everyone for their support, patience, and friendship over the past five year.It was wonderful to work with each one of you.Thanks to Mr. Sandeep Jain Sir & All My Team Members for their guidance.At Last but not least I am thank full to my Mentor Mr. SK Grover sahab who always wish to grow in my personal & professional career.Also thanks to all team members Zo-Indore.Lastly one thing I would like to say sorry if I hurted some one during the professional/personal talk."The superior officer, S.K.Grover responded to the email on 25/05/2017 itself giving the deceased to understand that he will be relieved after completion of all the pending work and cautioned that it was not the way to leave the Company.By another email of the same date, S.K.Grover further informed the deceased that he will be relieved by 15th June, 2017 by which time, his replacement in the Company is available.On the same date, i.e., on 25/07/2017 by yet another email, the deceased communicated to S.K.Grover that he has handed over the office key, laptop and data cord to his colleague Yadav with a request for grant of seven days leave to go for training in Mumbai.After training, he would come back and complete the remaining outstanding work.On 02/09/2017, the deceased again wrote email giving reference of email dated 28/04/2017 by the applicant (Abhay Kumar Katare) to S.K.Grover regarding his transfer or to take hard action with allegations of arrogant behaviour alleging personal abuses against the applicant.He further expressed his anguish for not being given promotion and even the increment granted which according to him was less than what was given in the last year.4 Mis."From: Sumit vyas [[email protected]] Sent: 11 September 2017 19:18 To : Abhya Kumar Katare Cc : All Kirtimahal Users; sk grover, Farm Solutions, ZO & RO Indore, Farm Solutions - RO Bhopal; Nitin Bachchavat Subject: Good BYE After more than 5-10 years of worked with Demshriram I have a lots of memories with Demshirram Ltd., I now bid adieu to the wonderful team and people I met here.The organization has not only helped med to learn lots & grow as a professional, but has also helped me to build bonds that will always hold a special place in my heart.I would like to take a moment and thank everyone for their support, patience, and friendship over the past five year.It was wonderful to work with each one of you.Thanks to Mr. Sandeep Jain Sir & All My Team Members for their guidance.At Last but not least I am thank full to my Mentor Mr. SK Grover sahab who always wish to grow in my personal & professional career.Also thanks to all team members Zo-Indore.Lastly one thing I would like to say sorry if I hurted some one during the professional/personal talk."As such, in this email as well, the deceased has not made any allegations of harassment, instigation or cruelty against any of the superiors and the co-workers, especially the present applicant.5 Mis.The deceased under his own signature has written a suicide note wherein it was alleged that Abhay Katare working in the Company of the deceased was responsible for his death by consuming poisonous substance as Abhaby Katare used to harass and humiliate him.The brother of the deceased Ram Vyas has produced the copies of official e-mails of the deceased prior to his death by consuming the poisonous substance in the police station.On 15/09/2017 the poisonous substance was consumed by the deceased at his residence, therefore, he was taken to the hospital for treatment by his brother's son and died on 17/09/2017 at 06.30 pm during treatment.During this period, on many occasions, he sought to be relieved of his duties for personal reasons.In email dated 03/11/2012 (Annexure P/4) while intending to resign, he has also expressed his gratitude to the Management for giving him opportunities and support during his service tenure.The request was accepted by S.K.Grover on the same day by an email dated 03/11/2012 assuring him to be relieved on 10/12/2012, however, he continued to work.Thereafter, on 12/09/2014, he sent another email addressed to the applicant with a copy to S.K.Grover expressing his intention for resignation as Section Officer wherein also he has expressed his gratitude for working in the Company.As a matter of fact, the deceased himself withdrew the resignation twice on the premise that his personal problem was solved and continued to discharge his duties.12 Mis.The communication dated 28/04/2017 was made by the applicant through email to the superior officer, S.K.Grover bringing to his notice the shortcomings in the day to day working of the accounting system with a copy to the deceased and another co-worker J.P.Yadav wherein, he has pointed out the lapses and negligence in the discharge of duties by both of them with a request to take some hard action or in the alternative they may be transferred to a different department.Though he worked with the Company for about six years but, he tendered resignation on number of times and thereafter withdrew the same.On 03/11/2012, the deceased sent an email and sought to be relieved of his duties for personal reasons and likewise in September, 2014 with a similar request but, at a later stage, he withdrew the same.In early 2017 since the petitioner noticed lapses and negligence in the discharge of duties by the deceased and another co-worker J.P.Yadav posing problems with the accounting system of the Company, the petitioner made a communication to the superior, S.K.Grover as regards account related issues with a copy to the deceased and co-worker J.P.Yadav by an email dated 28/04/2017 bringing to his notice the deficiencies and shortcomings to the effect that he is unable to control the accounting system due to negligence of the account staff and with a request to take some hard action or in the alternative the deceased and J.P.Yadav may be transferred to different department.S.K.Grover vide email dated 29/04/2017 called upon the deceased and Yadav for explanation.Thereafter, the deceased continued to work in the same office.On 25/05/2017, the deceased sent an email titled as "Good Bye" to S.K.Grover wherein he once again disclosed his intention to leave the Company with a note of thanks to the superiors and co- workers for their support in discharge of his duties in the Company and wishing them as well, which reads as under:"From: Sumit vyas [[email protected]] Sent: 25 May 2017 02.18 To : SKGrover Subject: Good Bye Dear Sir, After more than 5-10 years of worked with Demshriram I have a lots of memories with Demshirram Ltd., I now bid adieu to the wonderful 3 Mis.The deceased collected the email acceptance letter of resignation from the Delhi office and thereafter, he has circulated 4 Mis.Case No.5952/2018 the following email dated 11/09/2017:Thereafter, the deceased ceased to be employee in the Company and was not in contact with any of the Company officers or employees.On 15/09/2017, the deceased sent another email with a copy to the local police, etc., with reference to the email dated 28/04/2017 (supra) written by the applicant to his superior; Mr. Grover, stating that he is undergoing depression and intended to commit suicide.In the said email the deceased hurled abuses against the applicant, on the premise that he is responsible for the alleged act of committing suicide by consuming sulphas tablets.In the aforesaid factual backdrop, due to death of the deceased on 17/09/2017, initially merg No.76/2017 under section 174 Cr.P.C., was registered.During the course of investigation, the statements of Narayan Vyas s/o Kaluram (father) on 25/09/2017, Shyam Vyas s/o Narayan Vyas (brother) on 02/10/2017, Ram Vyas s/o 5 Mis.Case No.5952/2018 Narayan Vyas (brother) on 02/10/2017, Smt. Sunita Vyas (mother) on 04/10/2017, Rani Vyas (wife of the deceased) on 04/10/2017 and other witnesses; Ashuthosh s/o Omprakash Sharma on 04/11/2017 and Abhishek s/o Ghanshyam Sharma on 04/11/2017 were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., Thereafter after about two months, FIR No.0777 has been registered on 04/11/2017 at 17.48 hours by Police Station Lasudia, Indore against the applicant for the offence punishable under section 306 IPC with the prosecution story, briefly stated as under:On the basis of the statements of the witnesses, suicide note and the emails of the deceased, offence was made out under section 306 IPC against the accused/applicant. "This Court has enlarged the applicant on bail while disposing of Mis.(iii) a careful perusal of the email exchanges from 28/04/2107 to 11/09/2017, amongst the applicant, S.K.Grover and the deceased on their uncontroverted face value do suggests the communications primarily and predominantly were in the realm of office administration, official duties/responsibilities in the interest of the Company; as such could not be said to have been intended to instigate, incite or encourage with reasonable certainty suggestive of the consequences for commission of the suicide; and(iv) that apart, there existed an official relationship between the applicant and the deceased.Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State contends that the email dated 15/09/2017 addressed to one Pooja Mahndiratta and others, in fact, is a suicide note, sent by the deceased.This email finds reference in the alleged email suicide note dated 15/05/2017 while the deceased accused the applicant of causing him harm which led to commission of suicide.S.K.Grover vide email dated 29/04/2017 called upon the deceased and Yadav for explanation.That apart, if the subsequent email exchanges of the deceased, viz., 25/05/1997 and 11/09/2017 are perused, the deceased had not made allegations of harassment, cruelty or 13 Mis.Case No.5952/2018 incitement tantamounting to provocation by the applicant to take the extreme step of committing suicide.In fact, while tendering resignation by email dated 02/09/2017, the deceased sought to be relieved at the earliest (by 10th September) and expressed his gratitude and appreciation for all the members of the staff while discharging the duties.However, for the first time the deceased made allegations of discontentment in the day to day working, sarcastic comments, arrogant behaviour and induction of a new accounts officer, etc., against the applicant.13 Mis.After acceptance of resignation of the deceased by the Executive Director & Business Head, DCM Shriram with effect from 11/09/2017, he sent an email on 11/09/2017 addressed to the applicant and other officers recording his appreciation to the staff members during his service tenure but, there was no allegation of any kind against the applicant.Facts and circumstances do not suggest mental preparedness of the applicant with an intention to provoke, incite or instigate the deceased to commit suicide.As a matter of fact, the deceased committed suicide after four days of cessation from employment with the Company.The police did not record the statement of any members of the family on the said date.

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

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

Order Passed md.CRM No. 3293 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 4.6.2018 in connection with Kalighat Police Station Case No.82 of 2018 dated 26th May, 2018 under Sections 504, 505, 465, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, in Crl.2.The case of the prosecution is that on 11.09.2005 at about 1.15 pm, at Ramanathapuram-Rameshwaram Highways near Kumariah Koil Bus Stop, the deceased Ravichandran proceeded in TN-65-G-0183 Government Jeep from west to east and at that time, the accused drove the lorry TN-65-A-9426 in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the Jeep.In that process, the deceased and one Jeyamohan and the persons who were travelling in the lorry as load men sustained injuries.The deceased Ravichandran died in the Madurai Government Hospital, while he was taking treatment.The Inspector of Police attached to Kenikarai Police Station has filed a final report under Sections 279, 337(2 counts) 338 and 304(A) IPC against the accused examining the witnesses.http://www.judis.nic.in 33.In the trial court, 20 witnesses were examined and 17 Exhibits and 1 material object were marked.When the accused was questioned about the incriminating circumstances, he denied the same.The trial court convicted the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 279 IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment; for the offence under Section 337 IPC (2 counts), sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for each count; for the offence under Section 338 IPC, sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo two months of simple imprisonment and for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC, sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment.Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the revision petitioner filed an appeal in C.A.No.27 of 2015, which was heard by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.The first appellate Court modified the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court into one month SI for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC and confirmed in respect of other offences.Hence, this criminal revision.http://www.judis.nic.in 44.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients required for all the offences with which he stood charged and convicted him for the said offences and none of the witnesses have spoken that the accused has driven the vehicle either rashly or negligently and there is no specific allegation of negligence as against the accused in driving the vehicle and the eye witnesses are interested witnesses and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to acquittal and prays that the criminal revision may be allowed.5.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent/State submitted that the first appellate court appreciated the evidence in a proper manner and believed the evidence of the eye witnesses and having regard to the nature of the offence, convicted the revision petitioner for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and passed proper sentence, which does not require any interference by this court and the accused is not entitled for acquittal and prays that the criminal revision may be dismissed.http://www.judis.nic.in 56.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.7.The main contention raised on the side of the petitioner is that there was no evidence of rash and negligent on the part of the accused and when there was no evidence for rash and negligent driving, the accused is entitled to acquittal and further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused argued that PW1 is a chance witness and in his evidence, he categorically stated that the Jeep drove by the deceased came from west to east and the lorry drove by the accused came from east to west and the lorry dashed against the Jeep.But the rough sketch shows that lorry came from north to south which clearly established that he would not have witnessed the occurrence.Further, in chief examination, PW1 stated that he went to his house in a two wheeler, but during investigation, he stated that he went to house by foot.PW1 stated that the deceased Ravichandran is not his relative.But PW19 the Investigating Officer admitted that PW1 during investigation stated that the deceased Ravichandran is his Uncle.Therefore, PW1 informant in this case is not a reliable and trustful witness and his evidence cannot be relied upon and hence, prays for allowing the criminal revision.8.PW1 is the complainant and he gave Ex.P1 complaint.PW1 in his complaint stated that on 11.09.2005 at 1.15 pm, he proceeded on the Rameswaran National Highways and when he reached Kumariah Koil Bus Stop, at that time, the accused drove his lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Jeep, which was proceeded from west to east and the driver of the Jeep and Jeyamohan, who travelled in the Jeep sustained injury and two load men travelling in the lorry also sustained injury and then, he took the injured to the hospital and then, the driver of the Jeep died.9.PW1 during his evidence stated that on 11.09.2005 at 1.15 pm, he proceeded to his house in his two wheeler and when he reached Senthil Petrol Bunk, he saw that one Jeep proceeded from west to east and at that time, the accused drove his lorry and dashed against the Jeep and two persons travelled in the Jeep sustained injury and he took the injured to the Madurai Government Hospital and the driver of the Jeep died.PW1 has not stated during his evidence that the accused drove his lorry in a rash and negligent manner.10.PW1 in his complaint stated that at the time of occurrence, he proceeded on the road by walk.But during his evidence he stated that at the time of occurrence, he proceeded to his house in a two wheeler.PW1 during his cross examination stated that he is not the relative of the deceased Ravichandran.But during his investigation by the Investigating Officer, he stated that he is the relative of the deceased.PW1 either in his complaint or in his evidence stated that prior to the occurrence, he knew the accused.But on perusal of the complaint, he has stated the name of the accused.PW1 has not stated now he knew the name of the accused.Hence, it creates doubt about Ex.P1 (Complaint).Further, there are contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and the contents found in Ex.P1 Complaint.Hence, it is held that the evidence of PW1 cannot be relied upon.11.In this case, PW2, PW3, PW6 and PW7 are cited as eye witnesses.PW2 and PW3, PW6 and PW7 deposed that the accused drove his vehicle in a speedy manner.But they have not deposed that the accused drive his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.http://www.judis.nic.in 812.PW4, PW5, PW8 and PW9 are cited as hearsay witnesses.PW4, PW5, PW8 and PW9 went to the place of occurrence after they heard the occurrence.13.It is mainly argued on the side of the revision petitioner/accused that the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not proved the rash and negligent driving of the accused and there are contradictions between the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and there can be no general presumption that a person should have driven a vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, merely because there was an accident.accident where the accused was prosecuted under Section 304-A IPC, one of the witnesshttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 had stated that the bus drive came driven the bus at a high speed.The Hon'ble Apex Court held that it would not satisfy the requirement of the driver driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as required under Section 304-A IPC and acquitted the accused.”20.In this respect, the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SATISH (supra) are relevant here to note:-None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed"."High speed"http://www.judis.nic.in 10 is a relative term.It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case.Review Petition No.1317 of 2010 dated 4.3.2016 (Karnataka High Court)}, the Karnataka High Court held as under:“In this view of the matter, both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have not assessed the oral and documentary evidence in right perspective.Both the Courts should have navigated through the evidence of material witnesses cautiously.Glaring inconsistencies have been brushed aside as minor variations.They have adopted wrong approach to the real state of affairs and have not properly scanned the evidence.Both the Courts have forgotten that the initial burden was on the prosecution to establish the charge of rashness orhttp://www.judis.nic.in 12 negligence beyond reasonable doubt.Thus, the judgments of both the Courts suffer from perversity and illegality.Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the revision petition is to be allowed.”15.On coming to the instant case on hand, the prosecution witnesses have not stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused.16.For all the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.17.In the result, this Criminal Revision is allowed.The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence are set aside.The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted of the charge 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.21.08.2018 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No erhttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 T.KRISHNAVALLI,J er To,1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram.2.The Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Judgment made in Crl.R.C(MD)No.443 of 2017 21.08.2019http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 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 above Criminal Revision Case is allowed.07.09.2009Index : Yes / NoWeb : Yes / NosrkK.MOHAN RAM, J.,srkToMurthi, Personal Assistant,District Collector, Cuddalore ... Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1818 of 2004Muthiah, Father Name, not knownDeputy Superintendent of PoliceCuddalore Police Station, CuddaloreSekar, Father name, not knownEmployed as Inspector of PoliceCuddalore Police Station, CuddaloreUdayakumar, Father name, not knownEmployed as Sub Inspector of Police,Tirupapupiyur Police Station, Cuddalore  24.Sri Viswanathan, Father name, not known,Employed as Deputy Superintendent of Police,(Anti Corruption and Vigilance Department)Anna Nagar, Cuddalore ... Respondents in Crl.O.P.No.38502 of 2004Criminal Original Petition No.38502 of 2004 filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order passed in C.R.P.No.10 of 2004 dated 24.08.2004 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, in modifying the order in C.C.No.34 of 2004 dated 04.02.2004 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore and allow the Criminal Original Petition.Criminal Revision Case No.1818 of 2004 filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code to suspend the operation of the order made in Crl.R.P.No.10 of 2004 dated 24.08.2004 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Sessions Division, Cuddalore.For Petitioner in Crl.For Petitioner in Crl.C O M M O N O R D E R The petitioner in the above Criminal Original Petition has filed a private complaint against the first accused, namely, Narayanan, Proprietor of Ananda Bhavan Hotel, Cuddalore, Murthy, P.A., to the District Collector, Cuddalore, Mathiah, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore, Shekar (second respondent), Inspector, Udayakumar, Sub Inspector of Police (both were attached to Thirupapuliyur Police Station) and Viswanathan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Cuddalore, alleging that the first accused who is the Proprietor of Hotel Ananda Bhavan, had announced a prize scheme viz., that for every bill of Rs.50/- issued between 20.11.2003 and 14.01.2004, a prize coupon will be issued and in the draw of lots, persons selected will be given a prize.The said prize scheme was announced in connection with the first anniversary of the Hotel.R.C.No.10 of 2004 has confirmed the order of dismissal of the complaint in so far as accused 3 to 6 are concerned.Aggrieved by the same, the complainant has preferred this Criminal Original Petition seeking to set-aside the order of the Revisional Court, Cuddalore, in confirming the order of the dismissal of the complaint passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore.The second accused, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Revisional Court, has filed the above Criminal Revision Case.Mr. Muralidharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the above Criminal Original petition, submitted that since the prize scheme announced by the first accused had appeared in the newspapers, it should be presumed that the accused 3 to 6, the police officials, had knowledge about the commission of the offence by accused 1 and 2 and since they had failed to initiate criminal proceedings against them, they have committed an offence under Section 166 of the IPC.Since both the above Criminal Original Petition and the Criminal Revision Case arise out of the same cause, both of them are being disposed of by this common order.There is nothing on record to show that knowing that the prize scheme conducted by the first accused is prohibited under the Act, the revision petitioner participated in the function and received the prize coupon.As rightly pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the second accused, as a customer of the hotel had gone and consumed food and the price of which exceeded Rs.50/- and as a consequence thereof, has received the prize coupon and that itself will not amount to aiding or abetting the first accused in the commission of the alleged offence.This aspect has not been properly considered by the Revisional Court and thereby has committed an illegality in directing the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence under Section 6 of the Act as against the revision petitioner / the second accused.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, CuddaloreCrl.O.P.No.38502 of 2004& Crl.R.C.No.1818 of 200407.09.2009

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

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

under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code".On that same day the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate made an order directing the officer in charge of Baruipur police station to register an FIR under s.498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The FIR was registered.

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

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

Certified xerox.In The High Court At Calcutta Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subal Baidya CRM No. 11901 of 2013 Amar Mondal @ Amarendra Nath MondalJayanta Kumar Biswas,J: The petitioner accused of an offence under ss.376/511 IPC and in custody from July 2, 2013 is seeking bail under s.439 CrPC.The court below has refused bail on August 5, 2013 referring to the incriminating materials in the case diary and the nature of the offence.We have heard advocates for the petitioner and the State and have perused the case diary.The case diary materials reveal the following facts.On July 1, 2013 an FIR was registered, inter alia, under s. 302 IPC.The petitioner and the de facto complainant were in an illicit relationship.When they were making physical relationship one Kala, a deaf and dumb person, saw it.The 2 petitioner and the de facto complainant with their associates beat Kala and killed him by administering poison.Considering the complex nature of the offence and the allegations made by the de facto complainant, we do not think it will be appropriate to grant the petitioner bail.For these reasons, we dismiss the CRM.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(08.02.2018)The present petition has been filed by the petitioners herein challenging the order framing charges dated 28-07-2017 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Betul in Sessions Trial No. 400180/16 ( State of M.P through Police Station Sarni District Betul Vs.Vimal Kumar Mishra and others).By the said order, the trial court has framed charges against the petitioners herein under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.Aggrieved by the said order, the present criminal revision has been preferred.The petitioner No. 1, is the husband of the deceased and the petitioner No. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the deceaased Nisha Mishra.At the time of marriage, the deceased was 15 years of age.She is stated to have committed suicide on 26-01-2016 by hanging herself.The police had filed the charge-sheet against the petitioners herein for the offence under Section 304-B and 498-A/34 of IPC.The learned trial court upon appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that as over seven years had passed since the performance of the marriage which was in the year 2007 and the deceased committed suicide in the year 2016 i.e, almost 9 years after the marriage, the offence under Section 304-B is not made out.There must be specific allegations in the 161 statement, which reflects that the -5- cruelty was of such an intensity or that the circumstances created by the petitioners was such, that besides committing suicide, the deceased had no other option.The impugned order dated 28-07-2017 stands modified to that extent and the petitioners shall stand trial for the offence under Section 498-A.

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

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

He and his family members threatened to divorce her.Lastly on 12.2.1999, Panchayat was held in the presence of both the parties and they started making pressure that they should keep to complain properly, whereupon his parents, brother and sister refuse to keep to complain and said that they will re-marry further and they will kill her.Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondents.The complaint when read as a whole discloses the fact that initially the marriage had been solemnized within the jurisdiction of learned Magistrate at Ballia, thereafter, the torture is alleged to have been made at Haridwar.

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

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

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the present petitioner was posted as a Ward Boy in Divya Prastha Diagnostic Hospital, Crl.Petition No. 236/2011 Page 1 of 8 Main Road, Palam, New Delhi.PW-3 Neetu Singh, the complainant had got admitted in the said hospital on 30.12.2008 on account of some calcium deficiency and consequent difficulty being felt by her in moving her limbs.It is the case of the prosecution that two months prior to the date of admission, she had delivered a baby which had resulted in this calcium deficiency.In the ICU, there used to be only one nurse apart from the present petitioner who used to visit as a Ward Boy.Through Mr.N.Sharma, APP CORAM:This is a Revision Petition filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 26.04.2011 passed by Shri N.K. Kaushik, learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, District Courts Dwarka, New Delhi, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate under Section 354 IPC and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs.1000/-PW-3 Neetu Singh lodged a complaint on 2nd January, 2009 and made a statement to S.I. Anish Sharma which is proved as Ex.PW-3/A on which he made an endorsement Ex.PW-5/B on the basis of which an FIR No. 3/2009, u/s 354 IPC in PS Palam Village was registered.Petition No. 236/2011 Page 1 of 8It was stated by PW-3 Neetu Singh that when she was in ICU on 30th and 31st December, 2008 the present petitioner used to come alone and used to pose that before the examination of the doctor, he has to conduct an examination and he would, under that pretext, touch the private parts of the complainant.She remained in the ICU till 1st January, 2009 and thereafter when she was shifted to the Private Ward, she made this fact known to her husband and at the time of discharge on 2nd January, 2009, she lodged a complaint with the police and her statement as stated above was recorded and the FIR was registered.Petition No. 236/2011 Page 2 of 8Petition No. 236/2011 Page 2 of 8After investigation, the charge sheet was filed and the prosecution examined six witnesses in order to bring the guilt of the petitioner home.Two of the material witnesses examined by the prosecution are PW-3 Neetu Singh and her husband PW-4, Lokesh Kumar.Both of them have supported the prosecution case and PW-4 has corroborated the testimony of PW-3 Neetu Singh that the present petitioner on the pretext of checking the lady while she was admitted in ICU, would come and touch her private parts.Later on, both the witnesses were extensively cross examined and nothing could be brought about in their cross-examination which would discredit either of the two witnesses.The remaining four witnesses including the doctor from the hospital, who were examined, have testified in favour of the prosecution although their testimony more or less is formal in nature.The learned Magistrate, after hearing the arguments, convicted the petitioner for an offence under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to a very lenient punishment of simple imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs. 1000/-.The petitioner still feeling aggrieved, has chosen to file the present revision petition against the concurrent finding of fact holding him guilty for an offence of molestation and outraging the modesty of a woman.Petition No. 236/2011 Page 3 of 8Petition No. 236/2011 Page 3 of 8I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP.The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised only two points before this Court.The first point urged by him is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case on account of the fact that the complainant and her husband PW-3 and PW-4, respectively had some dispute regarding billing with the hospital and in order to settle the score with the hospital, they have falsely implicated the present petitioner.In order to support his point, the learned counsel for the petitioner took the Court through the testimony of PW-6, Dr. Charu Shrivastava, who in her cross- examination admitted that there was some dispute regarding billing.The second point which has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that according to the prosecution case, the FIR has been registered on the basis of the complaint of the husband who has made a statement in this regard whileas the actual FIR No. 3/2009 shows that it has been registered on the basis of the statement of PW-3, the complainant herself and, therefore, an advantage was sought to be drawn that he has been falsely implicated.I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record including the judgments passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge.So far as the question of the identity of Crl.Petition No. 236/2011 Page 4 of 8 the petitioner and his presence in the hospital on 30/31 st December, 2008 including 1st January, 2009 is concerned, that has not been disputed.The plea of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated on account of some billing dispute of the complainant PW-3 and her husband PW-4 with the hospital, has already been dealt with by the learned Magistrate in detail and disbelieved.The reason for this disbelief by the learned Magistrate is on account of two grounds.Firstly, it has been observed by the learned Magistrate that this line of defence that he has been falsely implicated on account of billing dispute has not been supported by either the complainant or her husband in their cross examination, therefore, it seems that it is an after-thought.Even in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C., this defence of false billing and the consequent false implication taken by the petitioner has also although he makes an oblique reference to some dispute.This aspect has also been dealt with by the learned Magistrate and disbelieved.On the contrary, it sounds to me a ridiculous and absurd contention.Even if there was a billing dispute between the complainant PW-3 Crl.Petition No. 236/2011 Page 5 of 8 and the hospital, as has been sought to be brought about in the cross-examination of PW-6, Dr. Charu Shrivastava, this is only an after thought and a false defence on account of the fact that if at all there was such a dispute, there was no reason for implicating the petitioner falsely, who is only a IV class employee.The complainant would have named a doctor, or the owner or the accountant of the hospital rather than a ward boy with whom she could not be expected to have any kind of grievance much less would have been he responsible for inflating the bill.In addition to the non-putting of questions to the complainant PW-3 and her husband PW-4 as well as not even taking this defence in the statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C., corroborates that this is at best an after-thought in order to wriggle out from the case.Petition No. 236/2011 Page 4 of 8Petition No. 236/2011 Page 5 of 8So far as the cross-examination of Dr. Charu Shrivastava on these lines is concerned, I am of the view that she has admitted that she had no personal knowledge of the incident as she had joined 7-8 months later.So far as the dispute about the billing is concerned, there may have been some dispute regarding the bill but that is de hors the illegal conduct in which the petitioner is found to have indulged and it seems that he has tried to take an advantage of the same though that too belatedly.I do not, therefore, find any merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to upset the concurrent finding of fact holding the petitioner guilty of the most obnoxious crime of outraging the modesty of a woman, while she was in ICU, under the pretext of examining her.Petition No. 236/2011 Page 6 of 8Petition No. 236/2011 Page 6 of 8So far as the second ground of there being a variation in the registration of FIR is concerned, that is of not much consequence because the FIR has been admittedly registered on the basis of the statement Ex. PW-3/A given by the complainant PW-3 on which PW-5 Avnish Singh, SI had made an endorsement and sent 'rukka' which resulted in registration of FIR.As a matter of fact, the learned Magistrate has let off the present petitioner with a very moderate sentence of four months.Though, Crl.Petition No. 236/2011 Page 7 of 8 this Court has a feeling in this regard and this has been noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge also that undue leniency has been shown to the petitioner.Petition No. 236/2011 Page 7 of 8V.K. SHALI,J MAY 24, 2011 MA Crl.Petition No. 236/2011 Page 8 of 8Petition No. 236/2011 Page 8 of 8

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Co-accused Laxmi also poured hot oil on Hariom-son of complainant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case.Public Prosecutor.The case is listed today for admission.Case diary is available.Heard on the bail application.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.73/2015 registered at Police Station Govardhan, District shivpuri, for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 324, 506-B/34, 326-A of IPC.As per the prosecution case, on 14.08.2015 at about 05:00 applicant poured hot oil on the complainant-Updesh because she was talking to Kailu.The applicant is in custody since 03.09.2015 and trial is likely to take time.In such premises, applicant prayed for bail.The application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.C.C. as per rules.(Sushil Kumar Gupta) Judge neetu

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

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

According to the written report lodged by Akhilesh Jain on 15-7-2004, on getting information that his brother viz., R.K. Jain had been trapped by the SPE (Lokayukt) party, he went to the Lokayukt Office where he came to know that the officers of the department had taken him to some unknown destination which he failed to locate whole of the night and it was only around 9.30 A.M. that he came to know that R.K. Jain was admitted in Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal.When he alongwith other persons reached the hospital, he saw R.K. Jain lying on the strature in unconscious state.According to him, till the time he lodged the report he could not know as to who had brought Mr. Jain to hospital.In his police statement, which was recorded on 15-7-2004 he stated that his brother was tortured and mal-treated by the SPE Officers.In his second statement, which was recorded on 19-7-2004, he said that when he had seen R.K. Jain in the hospital and had come out and met with his brother Indrajeet, he informed him that he had met R.K. Jain in the Lokayukt Office and that R.K. Jain had informed that DSP Nain and other officials of Lokayukt had beaten him.After getting all this information he tendered a written report to the Police Kohefiza.However, the fact about his meeting with Indrajeet and gaining knowledge from him about the mal-treatment meted out to R.K. Jain at the hands of the lokayukt people was not disclosed by him in the aforesaid report.PC said that at about 8.30 P.M. he had gone to the office of Lokayukt and had found R.K. Jain sitting on a chair.By that time there was nothing abnormal with him.He had also requested Mr. Nain for releasing R.K. Jain on bail, but he was informed that it was not possible.Again he had gone to meet R.K. Jain at about 11.30 o'clock in the night alongwith Sales-tax Inspector C.B. Jain, but the police people had asked him to go out.However, at that time also his brother viz., R.K. Jain was all right.According to him, till 1.30 in the night he remained there and thereafter left for his house.Around 2.30 A.M. when his relatives Vikas Jain and Nilay came from Tikamgarh, he alongwith them again went to Lokayukt Office where he found Mr. R.K. Jain sitting on his bedding.According to him, R.K. Jain told him that Lokayukt Officials had tortured and beaten him and that he apprehended further harassment by them.By that time officials of Lokayukt Department again reached there and made them to go out and closed the channel gate of the door.In the morning, he was informed by the wife of R.K. Jain that he had fallen in the bathroom of Lokayukt Office and was got adnfitted in Hamidiya Hospital.Similar statement was given by witness Pradeep Bhadora and Nilay Satbhaiya.Indu Jain, wife of deceased, in her statement before the police stated that on 14-7-2004 at about 3.30 P.M. the officers of Lokayukt Department had come to her house and had informed her that they had trapped her husband and then they had searched her house.According to her, around 12-12.30 o'clock in the night DSP Nain had come to her house and had remained for about one hour.Rest of raiding party worked there till 4.00 A.M. From the evidence of Indrajeet Jain and Indu Jain it appears that the raiding party had worked at the house of R.K. Jain till the late hours in the intervening night of 14-7-2004 and 15-7-2004 and that till 8 o'clock in the night R.K. Jain had not suffered any serious injury at the hands of accused persons.At that time when Indrajeet Jain met R.K. Jain, he had informed that Lokayukt officials had given him mental and physical torture.In this state of affairs there appears no material on record to prima facie indicate that any of the accused had caused any injury to R.K. Jain which could have resulted in his death.Witness Saiyad T. Pasa, who happened to be the Inspector of Commercial Tax Department, said that on 15-7-2004 at about 8.30 A.M. when he went to Lokayukt Office taking tea and other articles for R.K. Jain, he saw him lying in the bathroom in unconscious condition.He and two officials of Lokayukt Department took him to Hospital.According to him, R.K. Jain was suffering with Asthma.He used inhaler for treatment.On consideration of the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation it prima facie appears that the deceased had been tortured and maltreated during the period he was in custody of the accused persons.ORDER Rakesh Saksena, J.Since all the three aforesaid revisions arise out of the one order, they are disposed of by this common order.All the three aforesaid revisions arise of the order dated 28-7-2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No. 212 of 2005 whereby charge under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC has been framed against the accused persons and they have been discharged of the offence under Section 330 of the IPC.Criminal Revision No. 1114 of 2005 has been preferred by the complainant contending that the charge under Sections 330 and 302 of the IPC be framed against the accused persons.Police Kohefiza filed the charge sheet against the accused persons, all officers of the SPE (Lokayukt), Bhopal, under Sections 330, 323/34 and 304(II) of the IPC.In brief, the prosecution story is that on 14-7-2004 officers of SPE (Lokayukt), Bhopal, trapped and arrested Mr. R.K. Jain, Dy.The raid was headed by accused B.P. Singh and M.S. Nain.After finishing the trap proceeding at about 10.30 P.M., R.K. Jain was kept in custody of S. P. E. Bhopal in its office and Head Constable Badri Nihale, Constables Ramashish and Silvanush Tirki were posted on guard duty.On the same day, the house of R.K. Jain was also raided.In the morning of 15-7-2004, R.K. Jain fell down in the bath room and became unconscious.Concerned security personnel viz., Badri, Ramashish and Silvanush Tirki took him to Hamidiya Hospital where, during the treatment, around 1 P.M. he died.On the report lodged by the Station House Officer of Police Station, Kohefiza First Information Report under Section 330 of the IPC was registered.A written report to Police Kohefiza was also submitted by Akhilesh Jain, brother of the deceased, on 15-7-2004 at 11.15 A.M., according to which, accused persons had arrested Mr. R.K. Jain and had taken him to some unknown place wherefrom he was got admitted in the Hamidiya Hospital in serious condition.According to him, accused persons had tortured him due to which he died.The case was committed to the Court of Session for trial.The Trial Court by the impugned order framed the charge against the accused persons under Section 304, Part-II of the IPC and discharged them from the offence under Section 330 of the IPC it also held that there was no material to frame charge under Section 302 of the IPC.Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant as well as accused both have preferred the revisions.Learned Counsel for the accused/petitioners contended that there was no prima facie material for framing the charge under Section 304 Part-II or 302 of the IPC, at the worst, it could be a case under Section 323/34 of the IPC.The cause of death was opined to be asphyxia.The injuries found on the body of deceased, when he was taken for the treatment, were only of simple nature, which were not the cause of death.The fractures of ribs of the deceased were opined to have occurred during his treatment in the hospital and had no connection with his death.It was also contended that there was no direct or circumstantial evidence that accused persons had caused any injury to him and that there was no purpose or motive also for them to have caused injuries to the deceased.As against this, Shri S.K. Kashyap, Dy.Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State and Shri A. Usmani, learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that from the evidence adduced by the prosecution a prima facie case under Section 302 of the IPC was made out.The deceased had suffered injuries while he was in the custody of accused persons, therefore, it was for the accused persons to explain as to how he suffered injuries, which could be done only at the time of trial.I have heard the Counsel of both the sides at length and perused the case diary and the material on record.For finding out as to what offence prima facie appears to have been committed by accused persons and whether they prima facie appear liable for causing the death of the deceased, consideration of medical evidence is necessary.In the post-mortem examination of the dead-body a team of three doctors had found following injuries:(1) Scalp internally ecchymosed (contusion) 16 x 12 cm - area on vault (vertex) sagitally.Skull bones healthy.Ecchymosis reddish blue.(2) Two lacerations, each 1 x 0.2 cm, sub mucosa deep, situated 0.5 cm.apart and parallel to each other on lower lip on left side against Lt. incisor teeth, nearly transverse.(3) Multiple small superficial abrasion.Lacerations of 0.2 to 0.3 cm.in size scattered on Rt. side of lower lip, mucosa deep, fresh.(4) Left side ribs 2nd to 6th ribs fractured between mid clavicular and anterior axillary line.(5) Rt.Side ribs 2nd to 6th ribs fractured between mid clavicular and anterior axillary line.On both side intercostal muscles and pleura diffusely ecchymosed between 2nd rib and 7th intercostal space in vertical plane, and between mid clavicular line to post axillary line in horizontal plane.Pleura trorn at fracture site of ribs.These findings are identical and symmetrical on both sides.No ecchymosis seen in the sub cutaneous tissues superficial layers of muscles.Costal cartilages partially calcified.(6) Superficial abrasion 5.5 cm long, transverse present on anterior aspect of neck, at upper margin of thyroid cartilage and in natural fold of neck.The mark is 0.4 cm.on left side and gradually tapering towards right side and merged in natural fold of skin of neck.Mark is reddish brown and partial dermal in depth underneath the cartilage and hyoid bone soft tissues.No injury is seen on lower part of abdomen.Duration of injuries within 12 hours.Death was due to asphyxia.A superficial abraised legature mark on ant.Aspect of neck, blunt injury on vertex (head), Emphysema of Lt. side of chest, neck and lower jaw present.Lung showed signs of obstructive lung disease i.e., obstructive airway disease.Signs of hospitalization and resuscitation present.Perusal of the O.P.D. case sheet of the Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal, reveals that immediately after R.K. Jain was taken to hospital prompt and immediate resuscitation and all life saving measures had been given to him.It was noted that he was suffering with chronic bronchial asthma.Since pulse beat and heart sounds were not audible and he was unconscious C.P.C.R. (cardiac pulmonary Resuscitation) was started alongwith other treatment by which for some time cardiac pulsation had started and the patient had regained cardiac activity.D.C. shock was also given during the treatment, but ultimately R.K. Jain died around 1.30 P.M. On query about the nature of injuries found on the body of deceased and about the cause of death, it was opined by Dr. D. K. Satpathi, Director, Medico Legal Institute, Bhopal, that injury Nos. 1 and 6 were simple in nature and were not sufficient for causing the death.Injury Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 found on the ribs of both sides were caused during the treatment of the deceased in the hospital and had no connection with the death of deceased.The death was caused due to asphyxia.Dr. V.K. Sharma, Professor and Head of the Department of Medicines, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, on query, gave his opinion that the injury Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were received by the deceased during the course of treatment.At the time of admission only an injury on the neck was recorded.Dr. Nirbhay Shrivastava, Head of the Department of Orthopedics had examined the deceased.In his clinical notes, there was no mention about any injury to ribs.Dr. D.S. Badkul had mentioned only about a legature mark on the neck.In the opinion of Dr. V.K. Sharma, the injury Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 (ribs injuries) were possible by the cardiac massage, artificial respiration, C.P.R. and chest compression etc. given during the treatment, before the death of the patient.On due consideration of the above medical evidence on record, it cannot be prima facie held that the injuries to ribs of the deceased were received by him before he reached the hospital.In view of the clear and positive expert evidence on record that the aforesaid injuries were resulted in the course of treatment, it cannot be held that they were caused by the accused persons while the deceased was in their custody.The other injuries found on the body were simple in nature and had no connection with the death of the deceased.Learned Counsel for the accused persons had referred to the guidelines given to students in the Book "Emergency Care" Third Edition by Harvey D. Grant Robert H. Murray, Jr. J. David Bergeron, wherein it has been mentioned that the injury to ribs are most common in the C.P.R. treatment.The complications of C.P.R. have been highlighted as under:Injury to the rib cage is the most common complication of CPR.When the hands are placed too high on the sternum, fractures to the upper sternum and the clavicles may occur.If the hands are too low on the sternum, the xiphoid may be fractured or driven down into the liver, producing severe lacerations (cuts) and profuse internal bleeding when the hands are placed too far off centre, or when they are allowed to slip from their position over the CPR compression site, the ribs of their cartilage attachments may be fractured.Other complications may result from improper CPR efforts, but most are easy to avoid by following AHA guidelines.Even when CPR is correctly performed, ribs may be fractured.In such cases, do Not stop CPR, Far better that the patient suffer a few broken ribs, than die because you did not continue to perform CPR for fear of inflicting additional injury.On examining the material and the evidence on record in totality in the light of the law laid down in S.B. John's case (supra), I am of the considered opinion that in view of the positive medical evidence that the injuries found on the ribs of the deceased had resulted in the course of treatment of the deceased and the other simple injuries found on the body of the deceased were not the cause of his death, the accused/petitioners cannot be prima facie charged for causing the death of deceased.As such, I find no material on record sufficient for framing charge against them for the offence under Section 304II or Section 302 of the IPC.However, there is sufficient material to hold that the simple injuries were caused to deceased while he was in custody of accused persons.For the above reasons, the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge, framing charge under Section 304-II of IPC against the accused persons is set aside, with the direction for framing of charge under Section 323/34 of the IPC against them and trial according to law.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision No. 1114 of 2005 filed by the complainant against the accused persons is dismissed and the Criminal Revisions Nos. 1203 of 2005 and 1204 of 2005 filed by the accused/petitioners are partly allowed as herein above observed.

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

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

The judgment impugned is also assailed on the ground that there are no eye-witness to support the prosecution story; that chain of circumstantial evidence is incomplete, and the FIR was not existing at the time inquest was made.Subedar Gulwant, P.W. 5, had informed the Kotwali Fatehgarh about the body of deceased Parvati Devi wife of Ram Singh in the evening of 18.4.1999 vide report no. 16 at 9.30 p.m. which was entered in the G.D. .However, the scribe of the FIR , Mukesh Dixit, who is alleged to have written the first information report of the father of the deceased as well as father of the appellant, has not been produced by the prosecution rendering the order of conviction illegal.The version of complainant, Kalyan Singh son of Sri Kunwar Singh, in the written report was that he had married his daughter, Parvati Devi with Ram Singh son of Sri Arjun Singh, about 10 years back and two daughters namely Km.Hema aged about 6 years and Km.Pooja aged about 3 years, were born out of wedlock.It was averred in the written report that Ram Singh had illicit relations with Km.Meena, daughter of his Mausi i.e. mother's sister about two years back and he had started to harass his wife Parvati Devi since then; that accused Ram Singh had taken away the two daughters from his wife Parvati Devi, on the pretext that he will provide good education to them at Fatehgarh, but their whereabouts are not known till date.It is further averred that father of Ram Singh came to Fatehgarh along with Parvati Devi to leave her with Ram Singh and he stayed there about 3 days, but Ram Singh did not agree to keep Parvati Devi as result of which father of Ram Singh had to leave Parvati Devi in her father's house.It is lastly stated in the written report that in the month of June, Ram Singh came to the village and he lived with Km.After great persuasion, Ram Singh brought his wife to Fatehgarh and then in a conspiracy with Km.Sri Kalyan Singh father of the deceased got the report written by Mukesh Dixit, Civil Lines, Fatehgarh and handed it over to police station Kotwali, Fatehgarh on 19.4.1999, on the basis of which, Case Crime No. 174 of 1999 under Section 302, 120-B IPC was registered and chick report was prepared on the same date.Two letters (Ext. Ka-5 & Ext. Ka-6 respectively) written by Ram Singh, are said to have been recovered from the place of incident.Meena, also denied the charges.According to her there were strained relations between Ram Singh and his father, as Ram Singh had helped her in getting service, whereas he has not helped her two brothers in getting the job.Kalyan Singh, P.W. 1, in his statement proved the contents of the FIR, stating therein that he was informed about the death of Parvati Devi by a constable who had come from Sikhlai Regiment Centre where Ram Singh was working on the basis of which he lodged the FIR.Dr. Yogendra Pratap Singh, P.W. 2, examined by prosecution, has stated that he had conducted the post mortem of dead body of the deceased, Parvati Devi wife of Ram Singh, R/o Aanandpur, P.S. Banvasa, District Udhamsingh Nagar, presently residing at Sikhlai Regiment Centre, quarter no. 20-B-2 Bareilly line, Fatehgarh, after verification of seal etc. and according to his opinion, the deceased was aged about 37 years who died about 12 hours before, her eyes were closed, but mouth was shortly opened.Both the wrists were closed.Hon'ble Anil Kumar Sharma, J.(Delivered by Justice Rakesh Tiwari) Heard Ibha Sinha, Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant, Syed.Ali Murtuza, learned A.G.A., and perused the record.This criminal appeal challenges the validity and correctness of the judgement and order dated 1.12.2000 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge , Farukkhabad, in S. T. No. 246 of 1999, convicting the appellant and sentencing him to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- U/S 302/120-B IPC.The judgment further provides that in case of default of fine, the accused/appellant will undergo 6 months additional imprisonment.The appeal has been filed on the ground that conviction of the appellant is liable to be set aside for the reason that the accused has been convicted without any evidence; that the deceased was allegedly murdered by the appellant and co-accused Km.Meena, is not worthy of conviction, in as much as, the co-accused has been acquitted, and that the motive assigned for murder being alleged illicit relations between the accused Ram Singh and Km.Meena, but there was no evidence on record to prove the same.The post-mortem report (Ext. Ka-3) of the deceased conducted on 18.4.1999 shows that before first information was lodged, an information of crime was given at Kotwali Fatehgarh by Nayab Subedar Guruwant, P.W. 5 which was entered in G.D. at 9.30 a.m.. On the basis of the report, inquest report of the deceased was prepared and sent for post-mortem along with related papers.The body carrier, Constable 848, C.P. Ram Bahadur Singh took the body of the deceased Parvati Devi for post mortem which was conducted on 18.4.1999 at about 3.20 p.m. It also appears from the papers that the Investigating Officer had prepared the site plan of the place of incident and had also recovered a letter written by the accused, Ram Singh.The accused, Ram Singh was charged under Section 302/120-B IPC and Co-accused, Km.Meena was charged under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 and under Section 120-B IPC.Both the accused abjured the guilt and claimed trial.Blood was oozing out from both the ear and nose.Nails of fingers and tongue became blue.The ante-mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased as narrated by the doctor in his statement, are as under:^^1- [kjkspnkj uhyxw fu'kku 3 lseh- x 1 lseh- ukd dh c`t ij nk;h rjQ dh fupyh iyd rd QSyk gqvk ekStwnk FkkA 2- [kjkspnkj uhyxw fu'kku 3-5 lseh- x 1-5 lseh- ukd dh uksd ij nksuksa uklk fNnzksa ds Åij rd QSyk gqvk ekStwn FkkA 3- [kjksp dk fu'kku 1-5 lseh- x 1 lseh- nk;h vka[k ds ckgjh dksus ij ekStwn FkkA 4- [kjksp dk fu'kku 2 lseh- x 0-5 lseh- eRFks ds nk;h vksj ekStwn FkkA 5- [kjksp 3 lseh- x 1-5lseh- Åijh vksB ij ukd dh uksd ds uhps ekStwn FkkA 6- [kjkspnkj uhyxw fu'kku 1-5 lseh- x 2 lseh- fupys vksB ij eqag ds nk;s dksus rd Syk gqvk ekStwn FkkA nksuksa vksBksa ds Hkhrjh E;sdkslk f>Yyh txg&txg QVh FkhA 7- [kjksp 7 lseh- x 2 lseh- esUMhcy ds Nk;h vksj BqM~Mh rd QSyh gqbZ ekStwn FkhA 8- v/kZ pUnzkdkj uk[ku ds fu'kku ftudh la[;k 4 Fkh xys ds nk;h vksj Åij o chp okys fgLls esa ekStwn FkhA ftudk vkdkj 1 lseh- x 0-2 lseh- ls ysdj 0-5 lseh- x 3 lseh- rd FkkA 9- [kjksp 1 lseh- x 0-2 lseh- ck;s iSj ds Hkhrj dh vksj ekStwn FkhA** From internal examination it appears that the skin & bones were found broken, brain and left chest was congested, right side of liver was filled with blood and left side was empty.He did not find any injury due to external cause and according to the doctor, death had occurred due to smothering and chocking of throat.Arjun Singh, P.W. 3, father of Ram Singh, father-in-law of Parvati Devi, stated that Parvati Devi was his daughter-in-law and she died at Fatehgarh in the residential quarter of Ram Singh; that after receiving information regarding death of Parvati Devi from some person, he had come to Fatehgarh on 19.4.1999 and had moved an application (Ext. Ka-4) at police station Fatehgarh.He was declared hostile witness as he made statement that report lodged by him was not read out to him and his signatures were obtained on the report.Constable Sanjiv Patil, P.W. 4, is a witness on whose evidence reliance has been placed by the defence.According to P.W. 4, he was on duty in Military Hospital from 17.4.1999 at about 7.30 p.m. to 18.4.1999 at about 7.30 a.m. He has further stated that on the relevant date, Ram Singh was admitted in Surgical Ward No. 3 at Bed No. 20 for the treatment of his back-ache, but he was not having any problem in moving around.Subedar Gurwant, P.W. 5, in his statement has stated that he was on duty on 18.4.1999 at Sikhlai Centre and he was directed by his superior officers to give information at police station Fatehgarh that wife of Ram Singh died in quarter, Bareilly.This information was given by him to the said police station in writing.The formal witnesses in the case i.e. Head Constable Jaskaran Singh, P.W. 6, proved G.D. entry, which was in his hand writing as well as carban copy and chick report.S.I. Rajesh Kumar, P.W. 7, witness of inquest has stated that he had prepared inquest report in his hand writing and proved it as well as other documents of inquest, Ext. Ka-11 to Ka-15 respectively.The trial court from the evidence came to a conclusion that prosecution could not prove illicit relations between the accused, Ram Singh and co-accused, Km.Meena or that she had been a partner in crime of killing Parvati Devi with the help of Ram Singh.There is no circumstantial evidence which could support her implication in the said crime, therefore, Km.Meena cannot be held guilty only on the basis of suspicion that she is said to have identified illicit relation with accused Ram Singh.In view of this, Km.Meena cannot be held guilty of charges under Section 120-B IPC on the basis of suspicion only.The Court also found that ingredients of Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, are not attracted for the reason that to hold a person guilty of charges, it is necessary that there should be meeting of mind and conspiracy for committing criminal act as well as actual participation in committing the crime which was lacking in this case.Therefore, Km.Meena as well as accused Ram Singh were liable to be acquitted from the charges framed under Section 120-B IPC.Charge under Section 302 IPC was found proved against the accused, Ram Singh to the hilt by the evidence, produced by the prosecution.He was awarded imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- by the judgment dated 01.12.2000 passed by Court of Sessions Judge.After hearing counsel for the parties, and on perusal of record, it appears that in the intervening night of 17/18.4.1999, incident of murder of Parvati Devi wife of accused, Ram Singh is said to have taken place in the residential quarter of Ram Singh.A report to this effect was lodged on 19.4.1999 by Kalyan Singh, father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 174 of 1999 under Section 302/120-B IPC at police station-Fatehgarh in which the appellant was arrayed as one of the accused.After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the matter was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, were it was registered as S.T. No. 246 of 1999: State of U.P. Vs.Ram Singh.The trial court vide its judgment and order dated 1.12.2000, convicted the appellant under Sections 302/120-B IPC with life imprisonment and fine to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.The said judgment was challenged in the present appeal in which accused Ram Singh, who was an employee of Indian Army, was released on bail by order dated 3.7.2001 and his services appears to have been terminated on his conviction.According to counsel for the appellant, it is a case of circumstantial evidence.She had strenuously argued that on the fateful night the incident took place, the accused, Ram Singh was admitted in surgical ward no. 3, bed no. 20 of military hospital.However, in his cross-examination, Sanjiv Patil has categorically stated that he had not gone to the said surgical ward no. 3 of military hospital at all in the night of 17/18.4.1999 between 1.00 a.m. to 6.00 a.m. where Ram Singh was admitted.The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that no other patient who was admitted in the said surgical ward no. 3, was produced to establish that the accused, Ram Singh was not in the surgical ward no. 3 on the night of 17/18.4.1999 between 1.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m., does not in any way help the case of the accused.No patient would keep vigilance upon any patient until and unless he is aware or has string suspicion about him.However the burden to prove alibi squarely lies on the accused, which he has failed to prove through reliable evidence.The counsel for the appellant further contended that Kalyan Singh, P.W. 1, has wrongly lodged the FIR against the accused, is not believable for the reason that S.I. Rajesh Kumar, P. W. 7 and his assistant S.I. Kaptan Singh, who are police constable, will have no intention to have falsely implicated the accused, Ram Singh in the said incident.Anti- mortem injuries show that the blood was oozing out from the left ear which establishes that the deceased was killed by smothering.The doctor has also opined that murder of Smt. Parvati Devi was committed by smothering.It is noteworthy that in evidence of Sanjiv Patil, P.W. 4, it has come that the accused had no walking problem at all due to said backache which indicates that the accused had got himself admitted in the hospital in a pre-planned manner only for creating an alibi.In this case the place of incident and the anti mortem injuries found on the person of deceased are sufficient to conclude that the deceased was done to death by accused-appellant and none else for the following reasons:The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

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

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

This is the first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for regular bail.The applicant submits that all other accused persons in this case including Indar Singh the co-accused alleged to have inflicted injury by fire arm, have been enlarged on bail.Therefore, the applicant be given the benefit of regular bail.The applicants will make themselves available or represent through their counsel on early date of proceedings(S.K. Palo) Judge Abhi

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Being excited, the petitioner had rushed in the office of the Commissioner but was chased by the security guard and shown his way outside.The petitioner thereafter was taken to the Azad Maidan Police Station.1-3 and 6 for similar deadly penances for incest and for drinking liquor and for theft.The Ap.JUDGMENT Sawant, J.The petitioner is a police constable attached to the Bombay City Police Force.As of today he has put in 19 years of service as constable.In 1981, he met with a road accident and suffered head injuries, and although he recovered from them, he became mentally ill continues to be so to some extent even till this date.Since January, 1982, he was under psychiatric treatment and his ailments were diagnosed in July, 1982 as "Giddiness Chabrat (fright), reduced sleep and appetite, nervousness, confusion, etc." In August 1982 he was diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia.He suffered from auditory and visual hallucinations.He used to sit lonely in bed, had a vacant look and was confused.He was given electric shock-treatment till September, 1982 and was also put on a doze of heave tranquilizers.He continues to take them even today.The incident in question which has given rise to the impugned criminal prosecution occurred on 27th April, 1985 on which day about 10 a.m. he tried to commit suicide outside the office of the Municipal commissioner, Greater Bombay by pouring kerosene on himself and by trying to light his clothes.The immediate cause of his attempt to commit suicide was the delay in disposal of his wife's application for licence for a stall for vending vegetable near Colaba Market.The delay in getting the licence was compounded by the fact that although an Honourable Minister of the State Government had given him a letter addressed to the Municipal Commissioner to look into his case sympathetically as he was mentally ill and the petitioner wanted to see the personally with the said letter, he was not allowed to do so by the security guard who was very rude to him on the occasion.Mr. V. D. Govilkar has since appeared on behalf of the Union of India.

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Record of the trial Court has been received.Heard on the point of admission.After perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix as well as other witnesses, this appeal is having an arguable point.Hence, it is admitted for final hearing.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State had already been filed objection.Also, heard on I.A.No.16637/2019, an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant Jitendra @ Sunil Rathore.The appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and fine amount of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 366-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and fine amount of Rs.1,000/-, Section 376 (2)(n) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 months and fine amount of Rs.2,000/- and 5(1) & 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.Having heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the statement of prosecutrix, she is living with the family members of the appellant and she delivered a child.After perusal of statements of the prosecutrix, this Court is inclined to suspend the further custodial awarded sentence of the appellant till final disposal of the appeal.Hence, I.A.No.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his appearance before the trial Court on 15.11.2019 and all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the trial Court in this regard, the remaining part of the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall stand suspended and he shall be released on bail.It is further directed that if the appellant is found indulged in any criminal activity during suspension of his jail sentence, the bail granted in this case shall stand cancelled.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge vai Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2019.09.30 10:32:58 +05'30'

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

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

Allowed md.The petitioner says that though the wife has deserted the petitioner after the alleged incident, the petitioner's minor son is with the petitioner at the matrimonial home.The State produces the case diary and refers to the serious injury suffered by the wife upon the petitioner striking her with an iron rod.In the event any appropriate forum passes any order for payment of alimony pendente lite or maintenance or the like, the payments made in terms of this order will be adjusted against the same.In addition, the petitioner 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.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 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 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.

Vide this order I shall dispose of the bail application filed by the petitioner Kashish Jain under section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in FIR no. 341/2018, PS Model Town u/s. 420/467/468/471/34 IPC.Thereafter both parties developed intimacy and the Jain family decided to buy the said BAILAPPLN.1131/2019 Page 1 of 10 floor for which deal was finalized for Rs. 2.75 Crores.As per the agreement, co-accused Naresh Jain was to pay first instalment of Rs. 90 lacs to the complainant on or before 30.5.2015 and rest of the amount was to be paid in 12 months from the date of execution of the sale-deed.However, at that time accused persons requested for some more time for remaining payment and accused persons handed over two cheques bearing nos. 473396 & 473397 of Rs. 10,00,000/- each drawn at ICICI Bank, Shalimar Bagh dated 24.11.2015 and 27.04.2015 issued by the co-accused Simi Jain qua the outstanding amount.Remaining amount of Rs.63,89,000/- was to be paid by co-accused Naresh Jain.BAILAPPLN.1131/2019 Page 1 of 10The complainant had thereafter approached co-accused Naresh Jain for the said remaining amount.It is, however, the case of the applicant that Naresh Jain sold the said floor to Sh.Manoj Sharma and Sh.He has submitted that in fact the petitioner is the beneficiary of the cheated amount of approximately Rs. 2.20 Crores.The amount has flowed to him being one of the beneficiary of the company.I have considered the rival submissions.The petitioner alongwith the co-accused namely Simmi Jain and Naresh Jain had jointly applied for loan from Cholamandalam Ltd. and petitioner provided his own email-id for all communications and he was in direct contact with Cholamandalam Ltd. to co- ordinate with them for releasing money.Another sale deed of shop no. 3815, Gali Barna, Sadar Bazar was also fabricated by his parents.The petitioner is alleged to be a beneficiary of Rs. 2.20 Crore after disbursement of loan in the account of one Shreya International as per the consent given in Cholamandalam Ltd. Out of this total amount, Rs. 95,00,000/-BAILAPPLN.1131/2019 Page 6 of 10were transferred to N.H. International, Allahabad Bank New Friends Colony.13.08.2012 shows that the petitioner is one of the partners along with his father Naresh Jain with 50% share each in the said partnership firm.However, upon verification from the Registrar Office the same was found in the names of Naresh Jain & one Mukti Nath Jha with equal shares and the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in that partnership deed; which shows the forgery in the partnership deed also.Two different PAN Card numbers of co-accused Naresh Jain has been used in those two partnership deed.The petitioner was even present in the subject property at the time of valuation and he was representing himself as the alleged co- owner of the property in question.The coloured copy has been checked/ seen, it is found that complainant Sanjay Garg is not on record the seller/ 1st Party and accused Naresh Jain is seen in alleged sale deed of said property as seller/1st party.After going through the certified copy of the sale deed, complainant came to know that same did not pertain to him and he replied the legal notice accordingly.However, he received summons on 10.07.2018 from the Court of Ms. Vandana, Ld.CSJ/RC (North) in case titled as 'Simi Jain v. Sanjay Garg and Others', which is the suit for BAILAPPLN.1131/2019 Page 2 of 10 possession and recovery of rent in respect of 2nd floor of Z-10, Model Town.From the details of sale deed, the complainant came to know that second floor of the property was registered in favour of Simi Jain on the basis of forged documents and same was not bearing his photograph and signatures.He came to know in July, 2018 that the accused persons had mortgaged the suit property to Cholamandalam Finance after submitting the forged sale deed dated 31.03.2015 as collateral security and did not pay the loan deliberately and hence, receiver was appointed to take possession of the property on 25.07.2018 and thereafter the property was seized by Cholamandalam Investment and Financial Company Limited ('Cholamandalam Ltd.' in short).BAILAPPLN.1131/2019 Page 2 of 10Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated.It is further submitted that petitioner had no role in the alleged mortgage and loan transaction.The petitioner has no criminal antecedents till date, except the allegations levelled in the present FIR alleging criminal conspiracy with his parents in alleged Loan transaction with M/S Cholamandalam Ltd. In fact, the petitioner has nothing to do with the dispute in hand with the complainant, nor the petitioner has any property transaction or dealing with the complainant.It is further submitted that allegations levelled in the FIR does not pertain to the petitioner and, thus, the BAILAPPLN.1131/2019 Page 3 of 10 petitioner is rightly not named in the FIR also.However, he has been wrongfully arrested by the Investigating Officer and was immediately taken into police custody on 24.11.2018 from his work place without any cause.The petitioner is only portrayed by the Investigating Officer as a co-borrower of the alleged loan taken from Cholamandalem Ltd. by his parents and has been alleged to be a beneficiary of the alleged transaction.BAILAPPLN.1131/2019 Page 3 of 10It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that as per prosecution, the alleged forgery is committed by his parents in year 2015 when the petitioner was only 21 years old.There is no evidence that petitioner committed the alleged forgery or was in conspiracy.No mandatory notice under Section 160 of the CrPC was ever issued to the petitioner for the purpose of asking the petitioner to join the investigation in pursuance to the present FIR.During the judicial custody of the petitioner, he came to know that in connected FIR No. 277/2018, PS Sadar Bazaar, in respect of the same loan transaction with Cholamandalam Ltd., the petitioner was allegedly involved on account of same alleged allegation being the co-borrower, upon which the petitioner filed an application u/s. 437 CrPC before the court of Ms. Shefali Barnala Tandon, MM, Delhi, and the same was allowed by the Ld. MM vide order dated 21.01.2019 and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail.It is further submitted that present FIR was registered at BAILAPPLN.1131/2019 Page 4 of 10 the instance of the complainant, only when the complainant failed to exhaust his relief from the civil courts and civil suit for possession and recovery is pending against the complainant filed by co-accused Naresh Jain & Simmi Jain.no. 572/2010 & Crl.I have gone through the above case law.There is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down therein.However, these authorities are distinguishable on the basis of facts and circumstances stated therein.Thus, the above factors must be taken into account while considering the bail application.BAILAPPLN.1131/2019 Page 5 of 10APP for the state has opposed the application.He has, therefore, prayed for rejection of bail application.After utilizing the cheated amount, aforesaid account was closed by the accused which prima facie shows the fact that the same was opened for sole purpose of receiving the cheated amount.While Rs. 1,72,00,000/- was transferred to different accounts of the petitioner.As per the record of Allahabad Bank, New Friends Colony, the registered partnership deed of N.H. International vide Regn.No. 2627 dtd.Another FIR 277/18 u/s. 419/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC is also registered against accused persons at P.S. Sadar Bazar, Delhi as by using the same modus operendi, the petitioner and co-accuseds alleged to have grabbed the property bearing no. 3815 area 33.68 Sq.Mtrs situated at Gali Barna, Sadar Bazaar, New Delhi.BAILAPPLN.1131/2019 Page 7 of 10Certified copy of alleged sale deed of property bearing No.Z-10, 2nd floor, Model Town, Delhi vide registration No.3140, in Add.Book No.1, volume No. 5589, on pages 169- 175 dated 31.03.2015 has been obtained from concerned Sub- Registrar, Pitampura, Delhi.The certified copy of loan document of mortgaged property Z-10, 2nd floor, Model Town, Delhi received from Cholamandalam Ltd., Karol Bagh, reveals that the Borrower and Co-borrower(s) i.e. Mr. Naresh Jain, Mrs. Simmi Jain, Mr. Kashish jain and M/s. N.H. International made representation before the Cholamandalam Ltd. for availing a loan against property for business expansion and after mortgaging two of their properties i.e. Z-10, 2nd floor, Model Town, Delhi and shop No. 3815, Gali Barna, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi.The Cholamandalam sanctioned loan of Rs. 3,04,70,411/- under loan account no. X0HEELD00001406684 against the said alleged immovable property.The loan agreement documents from Cholamandalam Ltd., Karol Bagh, Delhi has been obtained and same has been verified and the loan amount has been disbursed in the account of M/s. Shreya International i.e. 0124001800000017, PNB Bank, Delhi at the written request of applicant Naresh Jain, Simmi Jain, Kashish Jain and NH International.BAILAPPLN.1131/2019 Page 8 of 10Further, the alleged original sale deed of property Z-10, 2nd floor, Model Town, Delhi shows that on the front page of sale deed, the photographs of complainant Sanjay Garg and accused Simmi Jain were affixed but the seal of sub-registrar was incomplete on the photo of Sanjay Garg.Accused Simmi Jain had transferred Rs.77 lacs (apart from Rs. 95 Lacs NH International and Rs. 95 Lacs Kashish International) in the account of Kashish International and saving account of Kashish Jain.The applicant is the beneficiary of cheated amount of Rs.2.20 Crore approx.and is directly involved in this case which is clear from his presence at the time of valuation of alleged property No.Z-10, 2nd floor, Model Town, Delhi which was done by the instruction of Cholamandalam Ltd.In view of the above facts appearing on record, petitioner is beneficiary of the cheated amount of Rs. 2.2 Crores.The amount has flowed to him being one of the beneficiary of the company.Petitioner is co-applicant in the Loan which has been taken from Cholamandalam Ltd. and he has played an active role throughout the loan process by using forged documents.The investigation is under progress on the point of involvement of the staff of Cholamandalam Ltd.BAILAPPLN.1131/2019 Page 9 of 10Keeping in view the facts & circumstances of the present case and also in view that petitioner is involved in another case bearing FIR No. 277/18 u/s. 419/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC, PS Sadar Bazar as well as the fact that petitioner is ultimately beneficiary of Rs. 2.2 Crores and he has committed forgery and has been charged with Section 467 IPC which is punishable with the sentence up to the life and there are allegations against the petitioner that forged sale-deed of the property in question has been submitted to Cholamandalam Ltd. and a huge amount of loan has been taken on the basis of it with active connivance with the co-accuseds and there is an apprehension that petitioner can interfere or temper with the evidence and influence the witnesses including that of Cholamandalam Ltd., no grounds for bail are made out at this stage.The bail application is, therefore, dismissed.BRIJESH SETHI, J OCTOBER, 31, 2019 BAILAPPLN.1131/2019 Page 10 of 10BAILAPPLN.1131/2019 Page 10 of 10

['Section 467 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.(Jaysingh s/o Harisingh Chouhan v/s State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated : 03.01.2019:-Ms. Drishti Rawal, learned counsel on behalf of Shri Deepak Rawal, learned counsel for the applicant - Jaysingh.Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the Non-applicant/State.Perused the case-diary.This is first application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking bail in connection with Crime No.548/2018 registered at Police Station Excise Centre, Bhoi Mohalla, Indore for the offence punishable under Section 34 (1) A and 34 (2) of the M. P. Excise Act.At this stage learned counsel for the applicant submits that none of these cases pertain to Excise Act. The particulars of the cases registered against the applicant pertained to Section 25 of the Arms Act; Section 327 of IPC; three cases under Section 323 of IPC etc. and all these cases are triable by JMFC.Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and the quantity of the contraband alleged to have recovered from the applicant, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant -: 2 :- is allowed.The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000-00 [Fifty Thousand Rupees] with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his regular appearance before the Trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.-: 2 :-

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings inC.C.No.3 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1,Dindigul, pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties.It is seen that a case in Crime No.133 of 2015 for the allegedoffences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of TamilNadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, has been registered against the petitioners/accused.After completion of the investigation, the 1strespondent has filed a charge sheet, which was duly taken on file in C.C.No.3of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1,Dindigul.When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners/A1 to A3and the second respondent, appeared in persons and their identifications werealso verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identityof the parties by the Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through the respondentPolice, namely, Mr.R.Perumal, Sub-Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station.Learned counsel appearing for the parties also endorsed the identify of theirrespective parties.The counsel appearing on either side filed a joint memo ofcompromise dated 17.03.2016, duly stating that since the parties have arrivedat an amicable settlement by way of compromise among themselves, the second respondent has agreed for quashing of the above case in C.C.No.3 of 2016pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul..When such a situation arose in similarly placed matters inCrl.The antecedents of theaccused have also to be taken into consideration before accepting the memo ofcompromise and the accused, by means of compromise, cannot try to escape from the clutches of law.Taking note of the judgments referred to supra, considering thenature of allegations and in view of joint memo of compromise dated17.03.2015, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would beserved in keeping the matters pending.Therefore, the entire proceedings inC.C.No.3 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1,Dindigul in respect of all the accused are hereby quashed.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basis ofthe compromise entered into between the parties.The joint compromise memo dated 17.03.2016 shall form part of this order.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul.The Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Natham, Dindigul District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..

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

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

As per prosecution story, Patalia is a resident of village Chidiyapani, Police Station Nepanagar, District Burhanpur having some agriculture land.Rajaram was the son of his sister.Before two years from the date of incident i.e. on 21/08/2011, Rajaram was 2 shifted to the house of his maternal uncle Patalia for helping him in the work related to agriculture.Some part of the land of Patalia was encroached by Rama and Jagdish since two or three years back and they gave the aforesaid land for cultivation to appellant Gangaram.Before the date of incident, some altercation took place between Patalia and Gangaram and Gangaram beat Patalia by stone.Gangaram also gave the threat to Rajaram to leave the aforesaid place, otherwise, he will see him.On the date of incident i.e. on 21/08/2011, Patalia had gone to village market Nepanagar with his wife at about 10 A.M. to 11 A.M. When at about 5 P.M., they came back to the house, their son Mansharam told that he and Rajaram had gone to agriculture field for watching and also for grazing the cattles.Some cattles entered in the Agriculture field of Gangaram.Upon this, some altercation took place between Gangaram and Rajaram.Thereafter, Mansharam came back to the house for taking the meals.When he again reached to the Agriculture field after taking the meals, he found that Rajaram was not available there.He searched Rajaram nearby places.Patalia also searched Rajaram after getting the information from Mansharam but they could not find Rajaram till night.In the morning of 22/08/2011, Mansharam again went for grazing the cattles towards Khetnala Jhoonajhir forest.Patalia was also searching Rajaram at about 11:30 A.M. Mansharam called Rajaram and said that the dead body of Rajaram is lying in the water.Patalia and Doulya reached near the Nullah and saw that the dead body of Rajaram was lying in the bank of Junajhir Mohanikund with injuries upon the upper part of the eye and mouth.They have also 3 seen the injuries upon the ear.The blood was oozing from the injuries.After seeing the dead body, Patalia lodged the F.I.R. Ex. P-2 at Police Station Nepanagar, District Burhanpur on 22/08/2011 at 12:45 P.M. The police registered the Crime No. 248/2011 under Section 302 of I.P.C. It is stated in the report that the complainant having suspicion upon Gangaram because of land dispute.The police reached on the spot and issued the notice Ex. P-4 and in the presence of witnesses, the police prepared the Inquest Panchnama Ex. P-5 and spot map Ex. P-3 was also prepared.Another spot map was prepared by Patwari.Police sent the dead body for post-mortem from the spot.Statements of various witnesses were also recorded.The police arrested accused Gangaram from his house on the same day, prepared the Panchnama Ex. P-13 and also seized his clothes by Ex. P-14 because his clothes were having some blood stain.The police interrogated the accused and recorded a memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act Ex. P-16 and as per information given by the accused in the aforesaid memo, the police reached on the place with the accused where the murder was committed.The place was situated in the forest Chidiyapani.It means that the dead body even found in a water pond but the death was not result of drowning.(17/01/2019) As per B. K. Shrivastava, J:-By the aforesaid judgment, the learned Court convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and R.I. for two years with fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 201 of I.P.C.The aforesaid stone was sent to the Doctor (who conducted the post- mortem) for the opinion.All the seized articles were sent to the F.S.L. with the memo Ex. P-19 and P-20 and the F.S.L. report Ex. P-21 and 4 P-22 were received.After investigation, the police came to the conclusion that due to the land dispute, accused Gangaram committed the murder of Rajaram because Rajaram was doing the help of Patalia to look after his agriculture land.The appellant denied the charges and demanded for trial.Thereafter, the prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of its case.The accused did not examine any witness in his defence.After concluding the trial on 30/11/2012, the trial Court passed the judgment and convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. After hearing upon the sentence, the Court passed the sentence mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence, the statement of witnesses were not reliable.The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.Proper appreciation of evidence has not been done.In addition to the aforesaid argument, the defence counsel also argued that the offence if committed, than may come under Section 304 Part- 5 I or Part-II and not in the category of Section 302 of I.P.C. He places his reliance upon the law laid down in the case of Arjun and another Vs.On the other side, the State strongly opposed the appeal.The appellant committed the murder of deceased.He was last seen with the deceased.The trial Court did not commit any mistake and the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed.Mansingh Parmar PW-9 said that on 22/08/2011, he was working as 'Town Inspector' of Police Station Nepanagar.Thereafter, he reached on the spot and found that the dead body was lying in a pond situated in the forest of Chidiyapani.He prepared the spot map Ex. P-3 and issued the notice Ex. P-4 to the witnesses.Thereafter, the dead body was sent to the Civil Hospital Nepanagar for post-mortem.The Doctor proved his report Ex. P-8 and gave the opinion that the death was homicidal, which was the result of injury in brain matters and the excessive bleeding from the aforesaid injury.The Doctor also said that he found the injuries upon the dead body which are as under :-Lacerated wound 1x1 inch upon the right side of upper eye-brow and bone deep.Lacerated wound on the right side jaw 1x1 inch/bone deep upon which clotted blood was present and the front teeth were bent towards inner side of mouth.Fracture of left upper arm in upper 1/3 portion.Contusion 1.5x1 inch upon the right side of head.Lacerated wound 2x2 inch upon right Oxypital region.Right Oxypital bone, Temporal bone and parital bone were broken/fractured.The blood was oozing from the right ear having blackish colour.Aforesaid Dr. K.C. Khare PW-3 also said that to rule out the possibility of drowning death, he preserved the Tibia bone of the deceased for Diatom test.He reported that the death occurred within six to thirty-six hours.F.S.L. report Ex. P-21 and P-22 are received in this case.Ex. P-21 is the report of the Diatom test.As per the aforesaid report, the Article bone was found negative for Diatom test while Article water is found positive for diatom test.The deceased was not dead by drowning in the aforesaid pond.Patalia (PW-1) is the maternal uncle of the deceased.The witness said that he is residing in Chidiyapani Falya and having 10 acres of land, out of which two or three acres land have been encroached by Jagdish and Rama and they gave the aforesaid land for cultivation to Gangaram since three years back.The witness again said that Rajaram was his Bhanja (son of sister) who was the resident of Bhatia but was residing with the witness since two years back because the witness called him for the purpose to look after the agriculture work.As per witness, at the time of Akhati, Gangaram quarreled with the witness and caused the injury by stone.This matter was reported to the police.The aforesaid incident took place before five months back from the date of incident.Before the present incident, Gangaram also told to Rajaram that he should leave the place otherwise he will kill him.Witness Patalia again said that on the date of incident, he had gone to village market of Nepanagar with his wife.When he came back at about 5 P.M. , his son Mansharam told him that he had gone for watching the agriculture field with Rajaram.Gangaram came there in a drunken position.Some cattle entered in the agriculture 8 field of Gangaram.Upon this reason, he beat Rajaram by holding his collar and, thereafter, he took Rajaram with him.The witness was hungry, therefore, he came back to the house and after eating the food, he again reached to the agriculture field and called Rajaram, but Rajaram was not there.In the evening, Mansharam came to the house and narrated the incident to his father Patalia (PW-1).Patalia PW-1 again said that he searched Rajaram with Dolia and Mansharam etc. but could not find Rajaram.When the dead body was found in the Mohanikunda (water pond), then the witness lodged the report Ex. P- 2 in the police station.As per the aforesaid statement of Patalia, it appears that the accused was having enmity with Patalia because the accused was cultivating the land which belonged to Patalia but encroached by Jagdish and Rama who gave the aforesaid land to the accused.It also appears that the accused also wants the aforesaid land but Rajaram was the hurdle who was looking after the land of his maternal uncle Rajaram.The accused threatened to Rajaram for leaving the aforesaid place and gave the threat that if he will not leave the place, then he will kill him.As per statement of Patalia, he received the information from Mansharam.Mansharam is the son of aforesaid witness aged about 10 to 11 years who has been examined as PW-4 in this case.Mansharam PW-4 said that at about 12 P.M. , he was in the agriculture field with Rajaram, at that time, accused Gangaram was abusing Rajaram because cattle were entered in the field of accused.9 The accused took Rajaram in the agriculture field of Macca and he was beating Rajaram.The witness again said that Rajaram when not came back, the witness returned to the house because he was hungry.After taking the food, when he again reached to the agriculture field, then he could not find Rajaram.He raise an alarm and called Rajaram several times but Rajaram was not found.As per witness, his father and mother had gone to the market.At about 5 P.M., the witness returned to the house and narrated the entire incident to his father and mother.Thereafter, father Patalia also made a search but Rajaram was missing.In the morning, when the witness and his father and Dal Singh were searching Rajaram and the witness reached near to the Mohanikund, he saw the dead body of Rajaram which was floating in the pond.The witness called his father then he also reached on the spot.Therefore, it appears from the statement of Mansharam that Mansharam was present with Rajaram.At that time, some quarrel took place between the accused and Rajaram and the accused beat Rajaram and took him to another place and Mansharam came back to the house.Thereafter, Rajaram was not seen alive.His dead body was recovered in the morning of the next date with the injuries upon the body.The statement of Mansharam is also supported by the statement of Patalia.Both the witnesses have been examined at length but no any reason is found to disbelieve the testimony of aforesaid two witnesses.No any ground of false implication is found.As per the statement of Patalia, he left the house at about 11 A.M. after taking the food.The trial Court appreciated the evidence and held that the witness admitted the fact that Rajaram took the food with the witness but it is not said by the witness that they took the food at 11 A.M. As per Mansharam, he left the house at 8 A.M. in the morning and after sometime, the deceased also reached on the agriculture field.Looking to the status of 10 to 11 year child, the trial Court found his statement as a natural statement.The discussion made in para 11 and 12 by the trial Court is found satisfactory.As per the evidence of Mansingh Parihar PW-9, he arrested the accused on the date of incident and prepared the arrest memo Ex. P-The witness again said that the cloth (shirt) which was worn by the accused was also seized by Ex. P-14 because some blood stained was visible upon the clothes.As per the witness, he interrogated the accused after taking him into custody.Dr. K. C. Khare PW-3 also supported the aforesaid fact and said in para 5 that the police sent the sealed stone to him and made a query whether the injuries found upon the person of dead body may be caused by this stone or not ? The Doctor deposed that he replied the query upon the portion 'A to A' in Ex. P-9 and gave the opinion that the injuries found upon the person of dead body may be caused by the aforesaid stone.F.S.L. report Ex. P-22 also supported the case of the prosecution.A shirt of accused Gangaram and a Baniyan of the deceased was found with the spot of blood and the blood was human blood.The blood was also found upon the stone seized from the accused but the group could not be detected because the spot was disintegrated.The accused was arrested on the date of incident and at that time, he was wearing the shirt upon which the human blood was found.No any explanation has been given by the accused in this regard.The stone was also recovered upon the instigation of the accused and the blood stained was found upon the aforesaid stone.Therefore, it appears that the trial Court did not commit any mistake by relying on the statement of Patalia and Mansharam.The statements of witnesses are supported from the medical evidence.The incident took place in a sudden fight as such the appellants are entitled to the benefit under Section 300 exception (4) IPC.When and if there is intent and knowledge, then the same would be a case of Section 304 Part I IPC and if it is only a case of knowledge and not the intention to cause murder and bodily injury, then the same would be a case of Section 304 Part II IPC.The accused was well known to Rajaram.The accused was also having enmity with Rajaram because the land of Patalia was in the possession of accused 13 and was given by encroacher who encroached the land since two or three years back.The injuries found upon the body of deceased also indicate that more than one attack made upon the deceased.The accused committed the murder by the help of stone, therefore, the trial Court rightly held the appellant guilty under Section 302 of I.P.C.The accused after committing the murder, dropped the dead body in the water pond.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(a)P.W.1 is the second wife of deceased Devan.Devan's father had two wives and through the first wife, he had five children, including first accused and P.W.4 and through the second wife, Devan was the only son.The father-in-law of P.W.1 owned 5 acres of land.He retained 1 acre 70 cents for himself.There was a Panchayat convened, but, the first accused, refused to hand over possession and he was retaining the entire possession of 5 acres of land.When he applied for electric service connection, the same was objected to by the deceased and therefore, there ensued a quarrel between them.(b) On the date of occurrence, viz., 27.05.2004, at about 9.00 a.m., when the first accused was carrying on the agricultural operation by ploughing his land, the deceased along with other witnesses went there and raised objection for ploughing the land and thereafter, at about 12.30 p.m., they again went there and raised objection and hence, there arose a quarrel and at that time, when the objection was raised by the deceased for ploughing the land, accused Nos. 4 and 6 dragged P.W.1 and pushed her down and fisted her.The first accused attacked the deceased with Koduval on his head; Second accused attacked the deceased with Koduval on his back; Third accused attacked the deceased with Koduval on his left leg; Accused Nos. 4 and 5 stabbed the deceased with a long needle on the back; Sixth accused attacked the deceased with an iron rod on the eye-brow, as a result of which, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and he fell down and died on the spot.In the course of the said transaction, P.Ws 1 to 4 sustained injuries.Immediately, P.Ws 1 to 4 were taken to the Uthangarai Government Hospital.They were examined by P.W.10-Doctor.He noted the injuries found on them.and Accident Register copy for P.W.1 was marked as Ex.P.8; Accident Register Copy for P.W.2 was marked as Ex.P.6; Accident Register Copy for P.W.3 was marked as Ex.P.9; Accident Register Copy for P.W.4 was marked as Ex.From there, P.Ws 2 and 3 were taken to the Krishnagiri Government Hospital and they were given further treatment.(c) On receipt of the information, P.W.15-Sub-Inspector of Police of the respondent-police proceeded to the Uthangarai Government Hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1, marked as Ex.On the strength of the same, a case came to be registered in Crime No.214 of 2004 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 and 302 IPC.P.16, the Express first information report was despatched to the Court.(d)P.W.16, the Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., took up the the investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence, made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses and prepared Ex.P.2, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.17, the rough sketch.He proceeded to the place of occurrence and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.18, the inquest report.He also recovered material objects from the place of occurrence and from the dead body of the deceased.both the appeals.These criminal appeals are preferred under Section 374 (2) Cr.For Appellants : Mr.V.Gopinath Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Rajamohan For Respondent : Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian, APP- - - -2.The appellants, six in number, have challenged the judgment of the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, made in S.C.No.16 of 2005, dated 02.02.2010, whereby they stood charged as follows:At about 20.30 hours, on receipt of the complaint from third accused a case was registered in Cr.No. 215 of 2004 for the offences under Sections 323 and 324 IPC and First Information Report was despatched to the Court.Following the same, the dead body of the deceased was sent for the purpose of autopsy along with a requisition.(e) P.W.11, the Doctor attached to the Uthangari Government Hospital has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.11, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.(f)Pending investigation, on 28.05.2004, fifth accused was arrested in the presence of the witnesses.He volunteered to give a confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses.Pursuant to the confessional statement, he produced two koduval and one iron rod, which were recovered in the presence of witnesses under a cover of mahazar.Pending investigation, accused Nos. 2 and 3 were arrested and they were sent to the Court.All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of the deceased and the M.Os recovered from the accused were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department.Pursuant to which, Ex.P.14, the Biological report and Ex.P.15, the Serologist's report were received.The Investigator examined all the witnesses and recorded their statements.On completion of the investigation, he filed the final report in Cr.No. 214 of 2004 and he also filed "Referred Notice" in Cr.No.215/2004 closing the case as "Mistake of Fact", before the Judicial Magistrate Court.4.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution has marched 16 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 16 and also relied on 20 exhibits as Exs.On the side of the defence, two witnesses were examined viz., D.W.1 and D.W.2, through whom four documents viz., Exs.D.1 to D.4 were marked.On completion of the evidence on both sides, the lower court heard the arguments advanced by both sides and also scrutinised the materials available and took a view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and has found the accused 1 to 6/appellants guilty and has awarded punishment as referred to above.Hence, these appeals at the instance of the appellants.On the date of occurrence viz., 27.05.2004, at about 9.00 a.m., when the first accused was ploughing the land, it is the deceased Devan, who along with the witnesses went to the field of the first accused and raised objection, which shows that he was an aggressor.Added further according to the learned Senior Counsel, following the first incident, on the same day at about 12.30 p.m., the second incident, viz., the occurrence has taken place.On the strength of the complaint given by third accused, a case came to be registered by the very same respondent-police in Cr.No. 215 of 2004 under Sections 323 and 324 IPC.The prosecution did not file the First Information Report, 161 Statement or the Medical Report, in respect of accused Nos. 1 and 3 before the trial Court.Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that D.W.1 and D.W.2 are the Doctors and they gave treatment to accused Nos. 1 and 3 and their Accident Register Copy were marked as Exs.D.2 and D.1 respectively and Case Diary were marked as Exs.D.3 and D.4, which would clinchingly show that third accused sustained grievous injuries and first accused, though, sustained simple injuries, the injuries were caused on the vital organ viz., head.Thus, when accused Nos. 1 and 3 also sustained injuries in the very same transaction, the prosecution had no explanation to offer how they sustained those injuries.The prosecution in its fairness should have filed all the documentary evidence in respect of Cr.No. 215 of 2004, but failed to do so.Thus, the prosecution did not enable the Court to understand the genesis of the entire transaction, to render justice.Added further according to the learned Senior Counsel, in the instant case, it is true that some of the persons, who were actually the witnesses sustained injuries and one person has died.It is pertinent to point out that there was actually a previous clash between two parties and the deceased along with the other witnesses invaded into the person and right of the immovable property of first accused and in such circumstances, the occurrence has taken place.The prosecution miserably failed to bring home the genesis of the occurrence and the entire transaction and also the non-explanation of the grievous injuries sustained by accused 1 and 3 would go to show that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case.Under such circumstances, the appellants are entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court, but, the learned trial Judge has taken an erroneous view and rendered the judgment of conviction and sentence, which has to be set aside.6.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions.As a witness, he has also deposed before the Court that the deceased died out of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries sustained by him.Apart from that, the prosecution also marked the post-mortem certificate-Ex.P.11 in that regard in order to prove the said fact.The fact that Devan had died out of homicidal violence was never disputed by the appellants before the trial court and hence, no impediment is felt by this Court in recording so.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants, though the prosecution marched number of witnesses as eye witnesses and out of whom, P.Ws. 1 to 4 were shown as injured witnesses, it is needless to say that in a case like this, where the prosecution comes forward with the evidence of an eyewitness, who is also an injured witness, unless and until strong circumstance or reason is brought forth, the Court should not discard the said evidence.In the instant case, the Court is afraid, whether it can agree with the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 6 by the trial court for the following reason.Admittedly, during the relevant time, first accused was in possession of the entire 5 acres of land and on the previous occasion, when first accused made an application for electric service connection, it was objected to by the deceased and therefore, there ensued an inimical term between them.On the date of occurrence viz., 27.05.2010, at about 9.00 a.m., when first accused was ploughing the lands, it was the deceased, who along with witnesses went over there and raised objection.Following the same, the second incident had taken place at about 12.30 p.m. P.Ws 1 to 4 claim that they were all injured in the occurrence.When the deceased and witnesses were attacked by accused Nos.1 to 6, they were also attacked by the respective witnesses.At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that a case came to be registered in Cr.No.214/2004 on the complaint given by P.W.1, which is marked as Ex.It is also admitted by P.Ws. 15 and 16, that a case was registered in Cr.No. 215 of 2004 on the complaint given by third accused.It is pertinent to note that in Cr.No. 214 of 2004 and Cr.No. 215 of 2004, the place and time of transaction are same.If that be so, in its fairness, the prosecution should have placed all the materials and also records pertaining to Cr.No. 215 of 2004 before the trial Court.It is a matter of surprise to note that while it is an admitted position that both the transactions covered under Cr.214 and 215 of 2004 are one and the same, the Investigator has closed the investigation of Cr.No. 215 of 2004 on the very day.Insofar as Cr.No. 215 of 2004 is concerned, not even the First Information Report, 161 Statement or the Medical Report were actually filed before the trial court.From the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2-Doctors and also on a perusal of Exs.D.1 and D.2-Accident Register Copy and Exs.D.3 and D.4-Case Diary issued to Accused Nos.1 and 3, it is quite evident that in the same transaction, first accused sustained injuries on the head and third accused sustained grievous injuries and he was hospitalised for a period of one month and they were given treatment in the Krishnagiri Government Hospital.In the above circumstances, a duty is cast upon the prosecution to explain how accused Nos. 1 and 3 sustained injuries during the same transaction.PW 8 Dr. S.P. Jaiswal who had examined Brahmdeo deceased and had conducted the post-mortem of the deceased had also examined the accused Dasrath Singh, whom he identified in the court, on April 22, 1966 and found the following injuries on his person:1.Bruise 3" x = " on the dorsal part of the right forearm about in the middle and there was compound fracture of the fibula bone about in the middle.2.Incised wound 1" x 2 mm x skin subcutaneous deep on the lateral part of the left upper arm, near the shoulder joint.3.Punctured wound 1/2" x 2 mm x 4 mm on the lateral side of the left thigh about 5 inches below the hip joint.According to the doctor Injury 1 was grievous in nature as it resulted in compound fracture of the fibula bone.The other two injuries were also serious injuries which had been inflicted by a sharp-cutting weapon.Having regard to the circumstances of the case there can be no doubt that Dasrath Singh must have received these injuries in the course of the assault, because it has not been suggested or contended that the injuries could be self-inflicted nor is it believable.In these circumstances, therefore, it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to give a reasonable explanation for the injuries sustained by the accused Dasrath Singh in the course of the occurrence.The question whether the Investigating Officer was informed about the injuries is wholly irrelevant to the issue, particularly when the very doctor who examined one of the deceased and the prosecution witnesses is the person who examined the appellant Dasrath Singh also.In the case referred to above, this Court clearly observed as follows:The trial court as well as the High Court wholly ignored the significance of the injuries found on the appellants.Appellants/Accused Nos. 1 to 6 are acquitted of the charges levelled against them and the fine amounts paid in that regard will be refunded to them.14.In the result, both the appeals are allowed.

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Page 1 of 35Page 1 of 35The Police officer contacted both of them a number of times on telephone and it was agreed that Rajesh Suchan would meet him at Outer Ring Road, near Munirka.Thereupon he organized a raiding party and reached the appointed place.Rajesh Suchan met him and negotiated with him.He contacted Rajesh Saxena who directed them to reach near Radisson Hotel.When the police official reached there along with Rajesh Suchan, the complainant Natwar Meena and his friend Virender Kumar approached them.The police officers disclosed their identity to the complainant and his friend Virender Kumar who explained all the circumstances and the complainant also showed his CAT identity card to them.Two police officers were deputed to inquire and verify at hotel Shanti Palace.Those police officials reported that CBI had already raided Hotel Shanti Palace and their action was still Page 2 of 35 going on.He received another call from Guruji at about 6.45 pm and was asked to come near Radisson Hotel at about 9.30 pm.He along with his friend Virender Kumar took chance to get the question paper of CAT and made telephone call to Guruji on his mobile, number of which had already given on the mobile of the complainant.Guruji asked for Rs. 1.00 lac for the question paper.When they were waiting for Guruji, 3 persons namely Mahender, Arvind Kumar and Bharat Bhushan reached there and asked the complainant whether he had brought Rs. 1.00 lakh for the question paper.When he replied in negative, they asked the complainant and his friend to wait till Guruji came there.In the mean time the police party reached there along with Rajesh Suchan.All the four persons, referred above were arrested.During interrogation by police Rajesh Suchan disclosed the name of Santosh Kumar, who, in turn, disclosed that Rajesh Saxena was residing in a hostel in Janakpuri.Rajesh Saxena was arrested from there.He informed the police that Rajesh Suchan had introduced him to one Ashutosh Kumar who during conversation revealed to him that Dr. Ranjit Singh of Patna had Page 3 of 35 the paper of CAT examination and that all the candidates will reach petrol pump, near Radisson Hotel from where they shall be taken to Hotel Shanti Palace where solved question paper of CAT examination would be shown to him.Page 3 of 35According to Delhi Police, it was established during investigation that Kumar Suman Singh @ Ranjit was the leader of the gang who got the question paper stolen and brought Ashutosh Kumar, Ashok Kant, both of whom could not be arrested, and Bharat Bhushan, Arvind Kumar, Rajeev Saxena, Rajesh Suchan and Rahul to Delhi for arranging candidates.Accused Arvind Kumar was also promised some payment.As per the chargesheet filed by Crime Branch, the accused persons made an attempt to cheat the complainant and other genuine candidates by stealing the question paper and then selling the same on hefty price.It has been further alleged that accused Rajeev Suchan tried to destroy the evidence by taking out the Page 4 of 35 SIM card of his mobile phone and concealing them in a verandah.Arvind Kumar and Alok Kant could not be arrested during investigation.Page 4 of 35In the charge sheet filed by CBI, it has been alleged that a reliable information was received to the effect that Suman Kumar Singh and his associates either pilfered during transit or misappropriated the question paper of CAT for admission to various Management Institutes during the period between printing and preparation of the question paper and were delivering the question paper to prospective candidates appearing for the exam to be held on 23.11.2003, in Hotel Shanti Palace, after taking lacs of rupees from each candidates.Page 9 of 35A few police officers also sustained injuries.The firing was opened by the police at two places, in the proximity of Town Hall on the Order of Executive Magistrate and DSP and in the vicinity of a police station on the order of Suptt.Of Police.State of Punjab (2009) 1 SCC 441, an advertisement was issued by Punjab Government for recruitment of 190 Panchayat Secretaries.Though written test was held, the posts could not be filled up.In the mean time, 545 Panchayat Secretaries were appointed on adhoc basis.One of the applicants, who had applied in response to the advertisement of 190 posts, challenged the ad-hoc appointments by filing a Writ Petition in Punjab and Haryana High Court, which directed completion of the selection process.Two more advertisements were issued for filing up 700 and 800 posts of Panchayat Secretaries.Another writ petition was filed in the High Court in which selection for the post of Panchayat Secretaries was directed to be completed within one month.190 candidates were selected after the interview.CBI collected a large number of materials.It had also recorded the statements of a large number of persons.Whereas the first FIR dated 14.06.2002, thus, contained the misdeeds of individuals, the second one depicts a crime committed in course of selection process of Panchayat Secretaries involving a large number of officers.Admittedly, FIR by CBI was registered on the same day on which FIR was registered by Delhi Police.In fact, a perusal of the chargesheet filed by Delhi Police would show that before registering FIR, two police official, who visited hotel Shanti Palace to verify information received by Delhi Police, Page 24 of 35 found that a CBI team has already raided the hotel and their action was still going on.The statement of the complainant Natwar Meena on which the FIR has been registered by Delhi Police was recorded only after these police officials had returned to the office of Crime Branch from hotel Shanti Palace.This aspect has not at all been investigated by Delhi Police.(ii) CBI found during investigation that accused Arun Kumar Singh accompanied Hari Shankar Choudhary, went to Mumbai on 27.10.2003 and stayed in a hotel where accused Sanjeev Kumar visited them and stayed with them overnight.This aspect has not been investigated by Delhi Police.(iii) CBI found that a sum of Rs.18 lakhs was paid by Arun Kumar Sinha to accused Sanjeev Kumar and another sum of Page 26 of 35 Rs.3.25 lakh to his father accused Yogender Prasad.Page 29 of 35This is a petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing RC-DA1-2003-A-0058 CBI/ACB, Delhi stated to have beenregistered by CBI under Section 120-B read with Sections 380/408/411/511 of IPC.Accordingly, he directed Rajesh Suchan to take the candidates to petrol pump, where Bharat Bhushan, Arvind Kumar, Rahul and Mahender etc. were to meet and take them to Hotel Shanti Palace.During further investigation, officers of the Crime Branch discovered that Kumar Suman Singh @ Ranjit had already been arrested by the CBI.Page 2 of 35The charge sheet by Delhi Police has been filed under Section 120 B of IPC read with Section 379/420/511 and 201/511 of IPC.A surprise check was conducted in hotel Shanti Palace and they found Arun Kumar Sinha, Kumar Suman Singh @ Ranjit, Manoj Kumar, Hari Shankar Chaudhary along with Sanish Kumar, Proful Chandra Jha, Anurag Thakur and K. Rishi were staying in room No. 122 and 123 of the Hotel.Different sections of question paper were recovered from the possession of Manoj Kumar, Hari Shankar Chaudhary, Sanish Kumar and Proful Chandra Jha, whereas identity cards of the candidates were Page 5 of 35 recovered from the possession of Kumar Suman Singh.The candidates confirmed that they were assured by accused No. 1 Arun Kumar, accused No. 2 Kumar Suman Singh, accused No. 3 Manoj Kumar and accused No. 4 Hari Shankar Chaudhary that question papers given to them was a copy of question paper of CAT 2003 examination to be conducted on 23.11.2003 for which they had to pay an amount of Rs. 2 to 4 lakhs to them.Page 5 of 35Original Admit Card of A.K. Thakur, Sanish Kumar, K.Rishi and Praful Chand Jha were found in right hand of accused No. 2 Kumar Suman.Four sheets from question No. 64 to 97, with tick mark on the answers, were found in the hands of Manoj Kumar.8 sheets from question No. 30 to 112, with tick mark on most of the answers, were found in the hands of Hari Shanker Chaudhary. 6 sheets from question No. 51 to 75 and photocopy of hand written sheet from serial No. 1 to 64 were found in the hands of A.K. Thakur. 9 sheets from Page 6 of 35 question No. 1 to 50, with tick mark on most of the answers, along with hand written photocopy of paper were, found in the hands of Sanish Kumar.4 sheets from question No. 130 to 150, with tick mark on most of the answers, alongwith one hand written photocopy of paper were found in the hands of Praful Chandra Jha.Page 6 of 35During investigation it was revealed that photocopies of question bank recovered during the course of surprise check was an exact replica of series 222 of question paper of CAT 2003 examination paper and was distributed to various candidates.Recovered question bank also matched with series 111, 333 and 444 of the question booklets, though the sequence of the question was different.During investigation, CBI found that question paper for CAT 2003 examination was printed at IBPS press in Mumbai.Accused No. 1 Arun Kumar Sinha, accompanied by accused No. 4 Hari Shankar Chaudhary, had visited Mumbai on 27.10.2003 and stayed in Hotel Highway Inn where he met accused No. 9 Sanjeev Kumar.Accused No. 9 was working in IBPS press as daily wager worker with the binding contractor Shri Vishal Shati Ram Gaurav.It was accused Sanjeev Kumar who handed over the question paper to Arun Kumar Sinha in a house in Kalyan Page 7 of 35 (East), District Thane, where he was staying with accused NO. 1 Arun Kumar Sinha and accused No. 4 Hari Shankar Chaudhary.Arun Kumar Sinha paid a sum of Rs. 18.00 lacs to accused No. 10 Yogendra Prasad who is father of accused No. 9 Sanjeev Kumar and paid another sum of Rs. 3.25 lacs to Sanjeev Kumar at Mumbai.Arun Kumar Sinha took the help of one Mohd. Shahin for solving the question papers.Statement of Moh.d Shahin has been recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. It was found during investigation that a number of persons were contacted by accused Arun Kumar Sinha and Manoj Kumar for selling the question paper and requested them to provide candidates who could purchase the question paper.On comparison with the hand written sheet recovered during investigation, it has been found that the specimen hand writing of accused Manoj Kumar and Arun Kr.Sinha tallied with the hand writing of those hand written sheets.It was also revealed that the rooms in hotel Shanti Palace were booked by accused Arvind Kumar in the name of Vimal Kumar.Page 7 of 35The CBI has, therefore, chargesheeted Arun Kr.Sinha, Kumar Suman Singh @ Ranjit, Manoj Kumar, Hari Shankar Chaudhary, Sanish Kumar, P.C. Jha, A.K. Thakur, Qutub Rishi, Sanjeev Kumar and Yogesh Kumar under section 120B of IPC Page 8 of 35 read with Section 380, 408 and 411 thereof read further with section 511 of IPC.Accused Sanjeev Kumar has also been charged for substantive offence under Section 380 and 408 of IPC whereas accused Sanish Kumar, PrafulChander Jha, Anurag Kumar Jhakar and K. Rishi have been charged for substantive offence under Section 411 of IPC.Page 8 of 35The petitioner Kumar Suman @ Ranjit Singh has sought quashing of FIR registered by CBI, and the proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground that since an FIR had already been registered by the Crime Branch of Delhi Police before registration of FIR by the CBI, and investigation had also been carried out by it, second FIR registered by CBI and the proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed.The plea taken is that petitioner can't be exposed only once to the criminal proceedings in respect of the same allegation and a second or successive FIR on the same allegation could not have been registered.The contention of the petitioner is also that the parallel proceedings in 2 different courts would culminate in double jeopardy, which is not permissible in law.Crime No. 353/94 was registered in respect of occurrence which took place near Town Hall and Crime No. 354/94 was registered in respect of occurrence which took place in the vicinity of the police station.The incidents having given rise to public outcry, an inquiry under Commission of Enquiry Act was ordered by the Kerala Government.It was found during inquiry that the police firing was not justified and three persons including Shri T.T. Antony, who was former Deputy Collector, were responsible for the firing.On receipt of the report of Enquiry Commission, the Govt. issued orders for registration of a case and investigation by a Senior Officer.Crime No. 268/97 was thereupon registered against the persons named in inquiry including Shri T.T. Antony.Three writ petitions were filed, Page 10 of 35 one by Mr. T.T. Antony, second by one Mr. Chandrashekhar and the third by some Constables seeking quashing of FIR registered vide Crime No. 268/97 or in the alternative for investigation by CBI.A learned Single Judge of the High Court directed re investigation by CBI.In appeal a Division Bench of the High Court directed fresh investigation by state police.The contention was that registration of fresh FIR in respect of the very same incident was not followed and therefore all the steps taken pursuant thereto were illegal and liable to be quashed.Page 10 of 35It was observed that some time more information than one are given to a police officer in respect of same incident, but, in such a case he need not enter every one of them in Station House Diary and such information received after commencement of investigation will be statements falling under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and cannot be treated as an FIR as treating such information as an FIR would, in fact, be a second FIR which is not in confirmity of the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It was observed that if in an FIR regarding the offence under Section 307 or 326 of IPC, the Investigating Officers received a fresh information that the victim has died, no fresh FIR under Section 302 needed to be registered and in such a case alteration of the provision of law of the First FIR is the proper course to adopt.Taking another example, the Hon'ble Court observed that in a situation where a person H having killed his wife W, informs the police that she had been killed by some unknown person but later on it is detected that the murder was committed by H, it does not require filing of fresh FIR against H. It was further observed that if after sending report u/s 173 of Cr.Page 11 of 35Page 12 of 35The Hon'ble Court, inter alia, held as under :From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154 155 156 157 162 169 170 and 173 of Cr.P.C. only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 Cr.P.C. Thus there can be no second F.I.R. and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences.On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the F.I.R. in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a Police Station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed as under: Page 13 of 35Page 13 of 35However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 Cr.P.C. nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case.In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is underway or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.In this case, the information was received by BIS Bureau of Indian Standard, from one D. Gupta, that the manufacturer of a water proof compound was using raising of product manufactured in the month of February, 2002, despite expiry of the certificate given to it by BIS.The complainant had also given some information to the police which had led to registration of an FIR resulting in filing of a charge sheet for the offence under section 11/33 of BIS act.It was noted by the learned Single Judge that the material collected by BIS were undisputedly used by Delhi Police and test report annexed to the charge sheet filed by the police also formed the Page 15 of 35 basis of complaint filed by BIS.Admittedly, no other incident relating to any other product had been mentioned in the complaint.In these circumstances, it was held that since charge sheet had already been filed by the police, a complaint by BIS could not be allowed to proceed since that would expose the petitioner to the rigorous of second trial on the same facts.Page 15 of 35In Nirmal Singh Kalhon Vs.Their selection was challenged by filing yet another writ petition whereupon an inquiry was ordered by the High Court into the selections made Page 16 of 35 by the department.It was recommended in the inquiry that matter required investigation by Vigilance Department.Pursuant thereto an FIR was registered against several persons including Sh.Nirmal Singh Kahlon u/s 420/467/468 and 120 B of IPC and Sections 13(1)(d)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. A charge sheet was filed against Nirmal Singh Kahlon and J.P. Singhla.Page 16 of 35The notifications issued by the Government were challenged on various grounds including that since an FIR has already been lodged by Vigilance Department, another FIR for the same cause of action could not have been lodged by the CBI in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony (Supra).It was noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the first FIR referred to the acts of omissions and commissions during the tenure of the appellant as a Former Minister, relating to recruitment of various posts of Tax Collectors, Patwaries, Clerks as well as with regard to filling up of vacancies in handicapped category of Gram Sewak in which appellants were said to have Page 17 of 35 accepted heavy amount of bribe, whereas the High Court, which directed investigation by CBI, was concerned only with appointment of Panchayat Secretaries and the only allegation in the Public Interest Litigation before the High Court was with regard to appointment of favourites who did not have the qualifications.Page 17 of 35The second FIR lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), however, was on a wider canvass.It was lodged after holding a detailed preliminary inquiry.The second FIR dated 26.06.2003 enumerates as many as fifteen categories of irregularities committed by various persons involved in the said selection process.Responsibility has not only been fixed upon the appellant but also upon Shri Mandeep Singh, Shri C.L. Premmy, Shri Page 18 of 35 J.S. Kesar, Shri Joginder Singh as also the then Additional Deputy Commissioners of Bhatinda, Ropar and Muktsar.The number of accused who were involved as per preliminary report of the CBI were as many as fourteen.Page 18 of 35The first FIR pointed out offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1)(d)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act but no allegation of conspiracy was made.In the second FIR dated 26.06.2003, the persons involved were not only the then Minister but also the then Director, the then Division Deputy Director, the then Deputy Directors, the then Additional Deputy Commissioners, the then Block Development Officers, etc It may be true that in both the FIRs Kahlon was named.He was considered to be the prime accused.But, it is one thing to say that he acted in his individual capacity and it is another thing to say that he conspired with a large number of persons to facilitate commission of crime by him as a result whereof all of them had made unlawful gains.Even in Ram Lal Narang (supra), we have seen that two of the accused, viz., Mehra and Malik, were common.When two conspiracies are alleged; one is larger than the Page 19 of 35 other, there may be some common factors but the nature of offence would differ.An offence committed would not be judged by mere mentioning of the sections but the mode and manner in which the same was committed as also the nature thereof.Page 19 of 35We must also bear in mind the distinction between crime committed by an individual or a group of persons vis- `-vis a scam which means "to get money or property from, another, under false pretences, by gaining the confidence of the victim, also includes; swindle; defraud.versions but when new discovery is made on factual foundations.Discoveries may be made by the police authorities at a subsequent stage.Discovery about a larger conspiracy can also surface in another proceeding, as for example, in a case of this nature.If the police authorities did not make a fair investigation and left out conspiracy aspect of the matter from the purview of its investigation, in our opinion, as and when the same surfaced, it was open to the State and/ or the High Court to direct investigation Page 20 of 35 in respect of an offence which is distinct and separate from the one for which the FIR had already been lodged."One NN Malik took custody of those antiques on the pretext of making their detailed study.After about 3 months, he deposited those antiques back in the court of the Magistrate.It was thereafter discovered that antiques deposited by him were not original but were fake ones.An FIR was registered against Malik and one Mehra at whose instance the antique were delivered to Malik.Charge sheet was filed by CBI after carrying out investigation.Ultimately the case was withdrawn on the request of the public prosecutor and the accused was discharged.Later on, the original antiques were found in London which led to registration of an FIR in Delhi against three persons.The charge against them was that they, along with Mehra and Malik conspired together to obtain custody of genuine antiques and got duplicates made and had them substituted with a view to smuggle out the original antiques to London.Quite possibly, inquiry by CBI had started before Delhi Police swung into action.Delhi Police has, on the other hand, chargesheeted Ashutosh Kumar, Alok Kant, Kumar Suman Singh, Rajesh Suchan, Rahul, Bharat Bhushan, Arvind Kumar and Rajiv Gupta.Out of 10 persons chargesheeted by the CBI, no one except petitioner Kumar Rajesh Singh @ Ranjeet Singh has been chargesheeted by Delhi police.Out of the persons chargesheeted by the Delhi Police, no Page 25 of 35 one except petitioner Kumar Suman has been chargesheeted by CBI.Page 25 of 35Vilas Shantaram for binding and accused Sanjeev Kumar, who was working in IBPS Press as a daily wage worker with the Binding Contractor, committed theft of the question paper and handed it over to the accused Arun Kumar Sinha at house No. 13, D-Wing, Amrut Kumbh Cooperative Group Housing Society in Kalyan where accused Sanjeev Kumar was staying.If chargesheet filed by Delhi Police is quashed, the same would be the position in respect of those except Kumar Suman Singh, who have been charge-sheeted by it.

['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.1505 of 2020arb Crl.O.P.No.1505 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.904 of 2020 29.07.2020This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.843 of 2019 on the file of the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, G.T.Chennai, thereby having been taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 143 and 188 of I.P.C., as against the petitioners.The case of the prosecution is that on 16.04.2019, after completion of the election campaign at 10.00 p.m., the petitioners knowing fully well they could not assemble unlawfully after the campaign assembled at 1.15 a.m, even after cautioned them to disburse violating the election rule and regulations the government for not doing their work.On the basis of the above said allegation, the respondent police registered the complaint and filed a charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 143 and 188 of IPC in C.C.No.843 of 2019, on the file the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, G.T.Chennai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.1505 of 2020The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner is the Secretary of DMK Party 57th Division and the other petitioners are members of the said party.However, the officials of the respondent police had beaten the petitioners.When there was lot of members involved in the protest, the respondent police had registered this case, under Section 143 and 188 of IPC as against the petitioners.Therefore, he sought for quashing the proceeding.Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.Therefore the respondent police levelled the charges under Sections 143 and 188 of I.P.C. as against the petitioners.h) The Director General of Police, Chennai and Inspector General of the various Zones are directed to immediately formulate a process by specifically empowering public servants dealing with for an offence under Section 188 of IPC to ensure that there is no delay in filing a written complaint by the public servants concerned under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.In the case on hand, the First Information Report has been registered by the respondent police for the offences under Sections 143 and 188 IPC.He is not a competent person to register FIR for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.As such, the First Information Report or final report is liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.Further, the complaint does not even state as to how the protest formed by the petitioners is an unlawful protest and does not satisfy the requirements of Section 143 of IPC.Therefore, the final report cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.1505 of 2020Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.843 of 2019 on the file of the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, G.T.Chennai, is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.The VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, G.T.Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.1505 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

As per the undertaking given by counsel on behalf of the appellant, it is hereby directed that appellant shall plant 5 saplings (2 of Peepal, 2 of Neem and 1 of Gular) alongwith tree guards or has to make arrangement for fencing for protection of the trees because it is the duty of the appellant not only to plant the saplings but also to nurture them. " o`{kkjksi.k ds lkFk] o`{kkiks"k.k Hkh vko';d gS A" He shall plant saplings/ trees preferably of 6-8 ft., so that they HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 Cr.A. No.6284/2019 (Monu Rawat Vs.State of M.P. and Another) would grow into full fledged trees at an early time.Appellant is further directed to visit Community Health Center, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 Cr.A. No.6284/2019 (Monu Rawat Vs.State of M.P. and Another) Sabalgarh, District-Morena in Outdoor Patient Department (OPD) and serve the patients on every Monday and Tuesday between 09:00 am to 1 pm from the date of release of appellant (for next six months), so that he may learn the lesson to believe in peaceful co-existence in the society and become a better citizen.Chief Medical Health Officer (CMHO), District -Morena /Hospital Superintendent as the case may be, shall permit the appellant to work in the Outdoor Patient Department only while assisting the male nurses to serve the patients.He would not be allowed to move in the Wards and ICU etc. CMHO, Morena / Hospital Superintendent shall use the service of appellant in maintaining cleanliness in the building and serving the patients and doing work like First Aid etc., so that appellant may inculcate some basic knowledge of First Aid or Emergency Care of patients which may be helpful for unforeseen exigencies or natural calamities wherein appellant may be helpful as a volunteer.It is made clear that appellant shall not be a source of any infection and discomfort to the patients and would confine himself in the work of cleanliness, registration of patients or those works which may not endanger the interest of any patient.Certified copy as per rules.Shri A.K. Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.2- complainant.With consent heard finally.The present appeal has been filed under Section 14 (a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity 'the Act') against the order dated 09/07/2019 passed by Special Judge (SC & ST) Act, Morena whereby application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail has been rejected by the trial Court.It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that a false case has been registered against him.The dispute erupted prior to the incident as alleged in the FIR and thereafter matter has been resolved at Police Station, but later on, at the instigation of some other persons, false case has been registered.Learned counsel for the appellant refers the marks-sheet cum certificate of High School Examination issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal to bring home the fact that he is a meritorious student and scored distinction in English and would have good career prospects and confinement would be detrimental to his prospects.He learnt the lesson hard way and would make an attempt to become a better citizen.He undertakes to perform community service with an undertaking that he would not be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the complainant party in any manner.2 Cr.A. No.6284/2019Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the application.Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer and prayed for its dismissal.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.For ensuring the compliance, he shall have to submit all the photographs of plantation of trees/ saplings before the concerned trial Court alongwith a report within 30 days from the date of release of the appellant.The report shall be submitted by the appellant before the trial Court on 1st of every month.4 Cr.A. No.6284/2019The appellant is directed to plant these saplings/ trees in his vicinity, if he intends to protect the trees on his own cost by providing tree guards or fencing, for which appellant shall have to bear necessary expenses for plantation of the trees and their measures for safeguard.5 Cr.A. No.6284/2019A copy of this order be sent to CMHO, Morena/Hospital Superintendent for information and ensuring compliance of this order.On the other hand, appellant shall also have to submit a report about his experience of community service before this Court, which shall be placed before this Court under the caption "Direction".6 Cr.A. No.6284/2019The natural instinct of compassion, service, love and mercy needs to be rekindled for human existence as they are innately engrained attributes of human existence.Copy of this order be sent to the District Judge, Morena, CMHO, Morena /Hospital Superintendent of concerned Hospital for information and necessary compliance.

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The allegation against the present applicant is that he alongwith co-accused Rahees Khan had assaulted the respondent Hamida by axe.However, she was saved but her daughter Aaliya who was in her arms died due to injury sustained.Learned counsel for the applicant contended that there is no allegation in respect of the present applicant for the complaint made by the complainant.The prayer is opposed by the learned counsel Shri Jitendra Kushwah for the complainant.No weapon was seized from the applicant.The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge Prachi

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

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

Item No. 55And In the matter of: Mujibar Mondal & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Prabir Majumder Mr. Sudip Guha For the Petitioners Mrs. Debjani Sahu Banerjee For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Krishnaganj Police Station Case No. 212 of 2013 dated 21.07.2013 under sections 341/325/326/34 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.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) 2

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

C.C. as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkjHeard the learned counsel for the parties.They do not have any criminal past alleged against them.Initially, named FIR was lodged against 7-8 persons but name of the applicants was not mentioned in the FIR.Thereafter, some witnesses have stated against the applicants.However, if the applicants were the main accused in the case then, there was no problem to the complainant to mention the name of the applicants in the FIR.No common intension or common object can be presumed with the main accused persons.No offence under Section 307, 324, 452 of the IPC is made out against the applicants either directly or with the help of Section 34 or 149 of the IPC.The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicants.Under these circumstances, they pray for anticipatory bail.Learned Panel Lawyer 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 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Judgment on : June 12, 2020 Sahidullah Munshi, J.: This appeal is against the judgment and order of conviction dated 19th August, 2015 and order of sentence passed on 20th August, 2019 by the learned Additional District and -2- Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in Sessions Trial No. 33(iv)of 2015 arising out of Sessions Case no. 5(03)15 (Special) convicting the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act').Prosecution case in brief is that on 18.09.2013 one Rejaul Sekh (PW3) lodged a written complaint with the Officer-in-charge, Chapra Police Station lodging, inter alia, that since three months back from 23rd March, 2015 the appellant took the victim girl (PW1) of 13 years to a bank of river on a ploy to catch fish, committed rape on her and thereby committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim.After receipt of the complaint from grandfather (PW3) of the victim.Chapra PS case no.253/2015 dated 23.03.2015 was registered under Section 376(2)(i)/506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. After investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted charge-sheet no.309/2015 on 30.03.2015 under Section 376(2)(i)/506 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act against the appellant.After receipt of such charge-sheet and upon compliance of necessary formalities the case was committed and transferred to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Krishnagar, Nadia.Charges were read over and explained to the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In order to prove its case prosecution examined 14 witnesses and also relied on some documentary evidence.Defence adduced no oral evidence and pleaded a total denial of the occurrence of the alleged offence and that he was forcefully implicated in the case.Learned Trial Judge on perusal of evidence on record and also after examining the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after hearing the submissions made on behalf of the parties, passed his judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed respectively on 19.08.2015 and 20.08.2015 convicting the appellant and sentenced him under Section 376 (2)(i)/506 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.In the complaint PW3 made out a case that his grand-daughter, the victim (PW1) aged about 13 years who was also student of Class-VI at Pathardaha Junior High School, was subjected to physical violence by the accused about three months ago.The accused whom the victim used to call 'Nana' (grandfather) duped her taking advantage on a fact that the victim lost her father at her early stage and her mother was a physically challenged lady married second time to some other person and in such a situation the victim is being looked after only by the complainant (PW3).The accused took the victim to a bush near river Jalangi.After the incident, victim was first treated at Chapra hospital and thereafter, to Saktinagar Hospital.PW7 is the first doctor who examined the victim and PW11 is the second doctor who conducted ultrasonography of the victim.In order to prove the offence complained of, prosecution has examined PW1 and relied on other corroborating witnesses.PW1 in her examination stated that while she was playing at her Para (area), her 'Nana' Boga Biswas the accused called her to the bank of a river and took her to a bush at that time, the accused committed rape on her and thereby she became pregnant.She had been threatened by the accused that if she disclosed the fact to her mother he would kill her by Hansua.Even after a thorough cross-examination by the defence PW1 remained un- shaken and she deposed that "At first, I raised objection for not going with accused to the bank of river and started to shout.Nobody came there as the place is lonely.My two friends did not accompany me to go to the bank of river.I voluntarily accompanied with accused to the bank of river.When I went to the spot, I found nobody present there.I tried to resist the accused, when I was taken to bush.I cannot say the area of the bush where I was taken by the accused.After committing rape by the accused, I went to my house.Due to such incident, my wearing apparels were not torn.I sustained injury on my body."Since the victim stated that she voluntarily accompanied by the accused to the bank of river, learned advocate for the appellant submitted before this Court firstly, that it was because of her consent the rape was committed.Secondly, that the victim attained the age of consent and therefore, the offence complained of cannot be held to be an offence under Section 376(2)(i) IPC read with Section 4 of POCSO Act, having regard to such consent.In support of the submission that the victim has attained majority, that is, 18 years, the learned advocate for the appellant relied on the deposition of the victim where she has stated "After death of my father, my mother married for the second time with one Latif Sheikh.I have one step sister, namely, Soraya Khatoon.My father died about 17/18 years back.While I was aged about one year, my father died.At present, I am residing with my step father.According to learned advocate for the appellant the charge -6- which was framed against the accused cannot be sustained.On the point of age in her cross-examination the victim was asked whether she was aged about 19-20 years on the day of the incident.She clearly refused to agree to the suggestion put by the defence.She has also denied the suggestion that she had been deposing falsely as per dictation of her Nana (PW3).She also denied the suggestion that the case was framed for collecting money.Victim's statement before the Court has been duly corroborated by her statement recorded under Section 164 which has been proved by the learned Magistrate in her deposition before the Court.Commission of the offence gets further corroboration.PW7 is the first doctor who examined the victim on 23.03.2015 and opined that the patient was pregnant for three months while PW7 referred the patient to Nadia District Hospital, Krishnagar for opinion of gynecologist.So far the age is concerned, the doctor was informed by the mother that the victim was 13 years old on the date of occurrence.The victim was -7- brought before the doctor by a police constable attached to Chapra P.S. From the examination of PW11 who is another doctor conducted USG of the victim on 25.05.2015 and found that she was carrying 21 weeks.This Exbt.6 and testimony of PW11 further corroborates the statement of the mother (PW2) who deposed before Court that her daughter was carrying three months when she first came to learn of the incident.From evidence it appears that when the victim was asked by her she disclosed the name of the accused.The statement of PW2 has also been recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Therefore, the complaint as regards the offence committed by the accused is difficult to be disbelieved.On the point of age of the victim it is the consistent stand of the victim PW1, her mother (PW2), FIR maker (PW3) that the victim would be of 13 years of age and further that there was no birth certificate available from the end of the victim or her mother or her grandfather.And particularly, when the mother of the victim (PW2) in her cross-examination stated that she is a beggar by profession and she had no paper to show the date of birth of her daughter.On a comparison of the opinion of doctor (PW7) with his report (Exbt.3) and the testimony of the doctor conducting ossification test of the victim and her report (Exbt.6), we do not find any contradiction in between the victim's statement with that of her mother's testimony and that of the FIR maker (PW3).The evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 and the post occurrence witness PW6 reveals the correctness of the complaint case.Making a scrutiny of the evidence of PW13 the Investigating -8- Officer who deposed that during investigation he visited the place of occurrence and examined available witnesses and recorded statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.He took steps for examination of the victim as well as the accused by doctors for their medical test and collected medical report.The victim girl was sent before the learned Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the same is placed before the Court.Investigating Officer appears to have seized the school certificate where the victim's date of birth has been mentioned in the seizure list specifying that the date of birth was recorded in the admission register of the school to be 07.05.2002 and this seizure list containing entry of the date of birth of the victim as per the school admission register has been marked as Exbt.10 without any objection raised on behalf of the defence.On the point of age apart from the seizure list (Exbt.10) defence cross-examined the Investigating Officer and in reply the IO stated "Not a fact that I purposefully concealed ossification test report of the victim though it was held by doctor.Not a fact that in the ossification test report, age of the victim was written as 19 to 20 years.I did not collect the birth certificate of the victim from the competent authority." In the cross-examination of the Investigation Officer he further stated "Not a fact that victim is more than 18 years of age..."From such cross-examination it is found that the seizure list has been admitted into evidence without any objection and particularly the date of birth has been mentioned in the seizure list to -9- be 07.05.2002 and more so, it is mentioned that such noting has been made as per the admission register maintained by the school.In such circumstances unless any objection was raised by the defence regarding admission of the seizure list into evidence and being marked as exhibit.We are not inclined to travel further to ascertain whether the girl was a minor or major.We further do not agree with the suggestion of the learned advocate for the appellant that the girl attained the age of consent simply because it was in the evidence that she had cohabitation with the accused on repeated occasions.The only question arises why the victim did not disclose the occurrence to her mother or grandfather immediately.We have perused the evidence of the victim (PW1) and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which reveals that the accused threatened the victim to kill her mother if she disclosed the fact to her.Even the victim gives description of sharp cutting weapon with the accused while he took her to violate.inasmuch as the victim herself in her evidence stated that there was repeated intercourse with the accused/appellant and further medical report (Exbt.5) where it has been recorded by the doctor on the basis of the statement made by the victim that she had been physically violated for about 5-6 days consecutively.

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

The deceased in this case one Chinnasamy was working as a coolie in the P.W.1's agricultural land.In the year 2017, P.W.1 had purchased an extent of 24 = acre of agricultural land from one Arumugapillai.The appellant/A1 was working as a farm servant under the above said Arumugapillai and after purchase of the land by P.W.1, the accused refused to vacate the premises and civil cases are pending between them.On 08.07.2008, at about 6.30 a.m., when the deceased was working in the field, all the accused came there and A1 attacked him with a wooden reaper and caused serious injuries.one Shanmugaraj, who belongs to the same village, informed the same to P.W.1 and P.W.1 rushed to the scene of occurrence and he took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Udumalaipet, where he was referred to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore.Since the condition of the deceased was getting worse, he was admitted in a private hospital, Coimbatore and on 10.07.2008, at about 5.45 a.m., the deceased succumbed to injuries.While the deceased was taking treatment in the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, on receipt of a memo from the Government Hospital, Udumalaipettai, P.W.13, Head Constable, attached to the respondent police, went to the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore and recorded the statement of the deceased at about 3.00 a.m., on 09.07.2008 and based on the said statement, P.W.13 registered a case in Crime No.186/2008 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC and sent the First Information Report, Ex.P.9 to the higher officials and to the judicial magistrate concerned.P.W.14, Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the First Information Report, commenced investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P.1 and drew a rough sketch, Ex.P.10, in the presence of the witnesses.A1 in S.C.No.325 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court,Fast Track Court-II, Coimbatore, is the appellant herein.Totally there are 3 accused.A1 stood charged for an offence under Section 302 IPC and A2 and A3 stood charged for an offence under Section 302 r/w. 109 IPC.The trial court, by judgment dated, 28.04.2009, convicted A1 under Section 304(ii) IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.The trial court, acquitted A2 and A3 from all the charges.Subsequently, on 10.07.2008, the deceased succumbed to injuries.Hence, he altered the charge into 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) IPC and the alteration report is Ex.P.W.15, Inspector of police, on receipt of the alteration report, continued the investigation, and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the panchayathars.P.W.16, Inspector of police, attached to the respondent police, continued the investigation and he took A1 for police custody, who has already surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Udumalaipet and A1 has voluntarily given a confession, and based on the disclosure statement, P.W.16 recovered wooden reaper(M.O.1).In the mean time, P.W.11, Doctor, working in the Government Medical College Hospital, conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and gave a postmortem certificate, Ex.P.6 and he opined that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him in his stomach.Then, P.W.16 after recording the statements of the doctor, who conducted postmortem and on completion of investigation he laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment against the accused.The accused denied the same.In order to prove its case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 17 witnesses were examined and 14 documents were exhibited, besides one material object were marked.Out of the witness examined, P.W.1 is the owner of the land, where the deceased was working.According to him, he has purchased the property from one Arumugavel Pillai in the year 2007 and A1 was working as a farmer servant under Arumugavel Pillai and staying in the said land.After purchase, P.W.1 requested A1 to vacate the premises.Since A1 refused to vacate the premises, P.W.1 filed a civil suit against him and the same was pending.On the date of occurrence, all the accused attacked the deceased with wooden reaper and caused serious injuries to him, on coming to know about the occurrence, P.W.1 took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Udulmalaipet, there, he was referred to Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore.Since the condition of the deceased became worse, he was taken to Ramakrishna Hospital, where the deceased succumbed to injuries.9. P.Ws.2 and 3 have turned hostile.P.W.4 is the witness to the Observation mahazar.P.W.5 is the father of the deceased and he is only a hearsay witness.According to him, after coming to know about the occurrence, he went to the hospital and the deceased told him that all the three accused attacked him with a wooden reaper.She has deposed that after hearing about the occurrence, she went to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore and saw her father.10. P.W.7, Doctor, who admitted the deceased in the Government Hospital, Udumalpet has deposed that at the time of admission, the deceased informed him that 5 persons attacked him with wooden logs and he also found alcoholic smell emanating from the deceased.P.W.8, Doctor, working in the Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore, treated the deceased and after the death of the deceased he has given death memo to the respondent police.P.W.9, is the person who was working in the field where the deceased was working.Even though in his chief-examination, P.W.9 has stated that he saw all the 3 accused attacking the deceased, in his cross examination he has stated that he reached the place of occurrence only after getting information about the occurrence.P.W.10 is a witness to the arrest and confession statement given by A1 and also recovery of the Wooden Reaper(M.O.1).P.W.11, Doctor, working in the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, conducted postmortem/autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and gave a report.He also opined that the deceased appears to have died of the injuries sustained by him.P.W.12, Head Constable, who accompanied the dead body of the deceased to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore, identified the same for postmortem to the doctor.P.W.13, Head Constable, on receipt of intimation, went to the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, and recorded the statement of the deceased and registered the First Information Report.P.W.14, Sub-Inspector of Police, commenced investigation and after the death of the deceased, he altered the charge into 302 IPC and handed over the investigation to the higher officials.P.W.16, Inspector of Police, arrested the accused and recorded the statement of the Doctor, who conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and other witnesses and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.P.W.17, is an eye-witness to the occurrence.According to him on 08.07.2008, at about 6.00 p.m., all the 3 accused quarreled with the deceased and A1 attacked the deceased with a wooden reaper and the deceased shouted and he, along with others rushed there.But, in his cross examination, he has admitted that only P.W.1 took him to the court for giving evidence and also stated that he was working in the field and only after hearing the noise, he reached the scene of occurrence.In the meantime all the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.13.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did not chose to examine any witness or marked any documents.Challenging the same, the appellant/A1 is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.Mr.S.Gunalan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence.P.W.9 and 17, who claims to have seen the occurrence, P.W.9 turned hostile and P.W.17 has deposed in his cross-examination that when he reached the scene, all the 3 accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.Hence, P.W.17 may not be taken as an eye-witness to the occurrence and the trial court only convicted A1 on presumption without any legal evidence and acquitted A2 and A3 and he sought for acquittal of the appellant.Per contra, Mrs.M.F.Shabona, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State would submit that even though P.W.9 turned hostile, during the cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, he has stated that all the three accused attacked the deceased and P.W.17 also categorically stated that A1 attacked the deceased with a wooden reaper and two other accused also attacked him with a wooden reaper and hence, the trial court rightly convicted the appellant/A1 and sought for dismissal of the appeal.I have considered the rival submissions and also perused the records, carefully.According to P.W.1, he came to know about the occurrence, after P.W.9 informed him about the same, he rushed to the scene and took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Udumalaipet. P.W.7, Doctor, who admitted the deceased in the Government Hospital, Udumalalaipet, has deposed that at the time of admission, the deceased has told him that 5 known persons attacked him.Then, the deceased was taken to the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, where he has given a statement implicating only 3 persons.P.W.9 and P.W.17 are said to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence.P.W.9 even though has stated in the chief examination he saw the occurrence, in his cross examination he has stated that the deceased fell down in the cart-track, and he was treated as hostile by the prosecution.Another eye-witness, P.W.17 in his cross examination has stated that only P.W.1 has took him to the court to give evidence and further stated that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused and at that time A3 came there and he only heard the noise, and when he rushed there, all the 3 accused were ran away from the scene of occurrence, hence, he also cannot be considered as an eye-witness to the occurrence.Considering all the above materials and partly disbelieving the evidence, the trial court has acquitted A2 and A3 but convicted only A1 that to under Section 304(ii) IPC.Considering all the above material, I find, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and there is no other circumstance available to establish the guilt of the accused.In the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant/A1 beyond any reasonable doubt.Hence, he is entitled for acquittal.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/A1 in S.C.No.325/2008 dated 28.04.2009 is set aside and the appellant/A1 is acquitted.Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant, shall be refunded to him.Bail bond, if any, executed by him, shall stand cancelled.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Coimbatore.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.V.BHARATHIDASAN.J., mrp Crl.A.No.241 of 200919.01.2017

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In short, the prosecution case is that in the town of Chhindwara, in front of a liquor shop, there was a Mangoda shop of complainant Ashok (PW-5).Laxman (deceased) and his son Baba used to work in that shop.On 17.11.2001, at about 6.30 O'clock in the evening, when deceased and his son were selling Mangodas, appellants Suresh, Ashok and Naresh passed from the front of the shop of Ashok after taking a liquor bottle from the liquor shop.Suddenly, liquor bottle slipped from the hands of Suresh and broke down in front of the shop.When deceased asked appellant Suresh to remove pieces of glass scattered in front of the shop, he got annoyed and saying that he would kill him, pierced the spear in his abdomen, which he already had in his hand.When Ashok (PW-5) tried to save deceased, all the three appellants grappled with him and Suresh inflicted a blow of spear on his abdomen also.Baba (PW-6) was also beaten by them.Ashok immediately went to Police Station, Chhindwara and lodged first information report (Ex.P/22) at 7.00 pm.Deceased and injured Ashok were sent to District Hospital, Chhindwara where deceased expired in the night.The injury was caused by some sharp object.His general 5 condition was very weak.Therefore, he admitted deceased in male surgical ward for check up and further treatment.The injury report of deceased (Ex.P/20-A) was recorded and signed by him.On 18.11.2001, when dead body of deceased was brought to him, he conducted autopsy and found one incised injury on the left side of abdomen just below the rib of the deceased.The size of would was 3 x 5 x 1.5 cm.On internal examination, omentum and left lobe of liver were found cut.The size of cut of liver was 3 x 05 x 1 cm.About 1 litre of blood was found present in the abdominal cavity.As already pointed out, eyewitnesses viz. Ashok Parteti (PW-5), Baba (PW-6) and Ashok Kumar (PW-11) did not support the 6 prosecution case at trial.They were declared hostile.The trial court, however, relied on the evidence of investigating officer J.S. Bisen (PW-15), who recorded the statement of deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C. According to PW-15, on 17.11.2001 he went to hospital and recorded the statement (Ex.P/24) of deceased wherein he disclosed that he and his son used to sell Mangoda in front of liquor shop.At about 6.30 pm when he and Ashok were selling Mangoda, appellants came at liquor Bhatti to fetch liquor.After fetching liquor, when they were passing from the front of Mangoda shop, the bottle of liquor slipped from the hands of appellant Suresh and broke down.The pieces of glass scattered in front of the Magoda shop.When he asked Suresh to clean the pieces of glass, he got excited and dealt a spear blow, which he already had in his hand, in his abdomen.When Ashok tried to save him, all the three appellants scuffled and assaulted Ashok.Per: Rakesh Saksena, J.Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 8.9.2003, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Sessions Trial No.12/2002, convicting them under Section 302/34 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1000/- and rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500/-, on each count respectively.After his death the case was converted into an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Investigating Officer J.S. Bisen (PW-15), after recording first information report, went to hospital and recorded statement of deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He went to the place of occurrence, prepared spot map and seized broken pieces of glass from the spot.After the death of deceased, he conducted inquest proceedings, recorded memorandum (Ex.P/2) and referred the body of deceased for postmortem examination.Dr. R.K. Gohiya (PW-13), who had examined 3 the injuries of deceased while he was alive, conducted the postmortem examination and found injuries on the body of deceased caused by sharp cutting weapon.Investigating officer arrested appellants and seized their clothes stained with blood.He also seized a spear on the information furnished by appellant Suresh.All the articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was committed for trial.On charges being framed, appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication.They also examined Ashok Yadav (DW-1) and Vinod Kumar (DW-2) in their defence to show that nobody knew how the deceased suffered injuries.Prosecution examined Ashok Parteti (PW-5), Baba (PW-6) and Ashok Kumar (PW-11) as eyewitnesses of the case, but these witnesses did not support the prosecution story.Learned trial judge, however, placing reliance on circumstantial evidence and the evidence of dying declaration (Ex.P/24) recorded by investigating officer, held the appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above.Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, appellants have filed this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial court committed error in holding the appellants guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.According to him, the conviction of appellants Ashok and Naresh was illegal since they did not cause injury to deceased.Learned counsel submitted that the incident occurred suddenly on the 4 spur of the moment and without premeditation.Therefore, the conviction of even appellant Suresh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was not justified.Appellant Suresh has already remained in jail for a period of about 11 years.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment of conviction of appellant and submitted that the statement of deceased recorded by investigating officer amounted to be a dying declaration.It has not been disputed that deceased died a homicidal death.Baba @ Lakhan, the son of deceased, aged about 13 years, admitted that his father Laxman had died.He however stated that he did not see the occurrence and the injuries of his father.Investigating officer Inspector J.S. Bisen (PW-15) stated that he recorded first information report (Ex.P/12) on being lodged by Ashok Kumar.On the same day, he recorded the statement of deceased Laxman in which he disclosed that appellant Suresh inflicted a blow of spear in his abdomen as a result of which he suffered injury.Injuries of deceased were examined by Dr. R.K. Gohiya (PW-13), Assistant Surgeon in District Hospital, Chhindwara.Dr. Gohiya deposed that on 17.11.2001 when deceased was brought by police constable Ramesh in injured condition, he examined his injuries.There was one incised wound admeasuring 4 x 1 cm x ? deep on the left side of abdomen of deceased.His intestine was coming out from the wound.He also found an abrasion 2 x 1 cm on left elbow and a superficial abrasion 6 x 4 cm on his left gluteal region.In the opinion of Dr. Gohiya, the injury No.1 to deceased was caused by sharp edged cutting weapon.Second and third injuries were caused by some hard and blunt object.The death of deceased resulted due to shock produced by the excessive haemorrhage from the injury of liver.Postmortem examination report (21-A) was written and signed by him.From the aforesaid evidence, it stood amply established that deceased met with a homicidal death.Dr. R.K. Gohiya (PW-13), on examination of Ashok, found two incised injures on his body, one on the left side of abdomen and another on left hand's little finger.Both the injuries were ultimately found to be simple in nature.Suresh dealt a spear blow to him also.Alongwith Ashok he went to police station where Ashok lodged report and carried him to hospital for treatment.Since Ex.P/24 happened to be a statement made by deceased as to the cause of his death and also about the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, it amounted to be a dying declaration of deceased, relevant and admissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. In view of the fact that it has not been challenged that the investigating officer, who recorded the statement of deceased, was in any manner interested in bringing about the conviction of appellants by concocting the said statement, it could not be held that the aforesaid statement was doubtful or suspicious.Since the injury of 7 deceased was serious in nature and there appeared no time to call a magistrate for recording regular dying declaration, the recording of the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer was proper and natural.The statement (Ex.P/24) seems natural, consistent, cogent, coherent and reliable.After arrest of the accused persons, their clothes were seized by investigating officer and on the information given by appellant Suresh, a spear was also recovered and seized.As per chemical examination report (Ex.P/25) by Forensic Science Laboratory, blood was found on the spear and the clothes of appellant Suresh.Human blood was detected on the clothes of other two appellants.Vide FSL report Ex.P/26 cut marks found on the clothes of deceased and Ashok tallied with the blade of the spear recovered from appellant Suresh.From the above circumstances, in our opinion, it was established that all the appellants were present at the spot when appellant Suresh inflicted spear blow in the abdomen of deceased and caused hurt to Ashok (PW-5).The evidence of defence witnesses viz. Ashok Yadav (DW-1) and Vinod Kumar (DW-2) being inconsistent, contradictory and vague did not appear trustworthy and acceptable.The question, however, would be whether appellants Ashok and Naresh were also vicariously liable for causing injuries to deceased and Ashok (PW-5) by appellant Suresh.As far as Ashok (PW-5) and Baba (PW-6) are concerned, none of them stated that any injury was caused to them by appellants.From the statement (Ex.P/24) made by the deceased, it appears that appellants Ashok and Naresh grappled with 8 Ashok Parteti (PW-5) and manhandled Baba (PW-6), but the fact remains that the injury by spear to Ashok (PW-5) was caused by appellant Suresh only.On minutely examining the circumstances in which the incident occurred, it seems that there was no premeditation or intention on the part of Suresh to assault the deceased.It was just by chance that the bottle of liquor slipped from his hand and broke down in front of the shop of deceased.It was also by chance that deceased asked Suresh to remove pieces of glass from the front of his shop and on getting excited appellant Suresh dealt single blow of spear into his abdomen and caused an injury to Ashok Parteti (PW-5) also.Even if appellants Ashok and Naresh grappled with Ashok Parteti (PW-5), it does not appear that they shared the common intention of appellant Suresh of causing spear injury to deceased or to injured Ashok.Since the incident occurred suddenly wherein appellant Suresh assaulted deceased with spear, which he already had in his hand, Ashok and Naresh, in our opinion, cannot be held liable for the act of appellant Suresh vicariously with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Since the genesis of the incident, as brought out by the prosecution, is traceable to a patty quarrel which sparked off merely on deceased's asking appellant Suresh to clean pieces of glass from the front of his shop, it is not possible to hold that appellant Suresh intended to commit murder of deceased, but, since he inflicted the blow of spear on the abdomen of deceased, it can be held with certainty that he acted either with the intention of causing death or of causing such bodily injury 9 to deceased as was likely to cause his death.His case, therefore, in our opinion, clearly fell within the ambit of Section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code.For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that it was appellant Suresh only who could be convicted for causing death of deceased and for causing simple hurt to Ashok Parteti (PW-1) by a deadly weapon like spear.Accordingly the conviction of appellant No.1 Suresh under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside, instead he is convicted under Section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years.His conviction and sentence under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed.Appeal partly allowed.

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

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

JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.This Revision Petition is directed against the order of charge dated 21.3.2005 and charge framed on that date itself by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi.The charges framed against the petitioner are as under:That during the period 4.4.2002 till 31.3.2003, at L-78-B, Janta Flats, Saket, New Delhi, you committed rape upon Indu D/O Lt. Shri N.L. Pasrija, to wit you had had sexual intercourse with Indu without her consent or with her consent obtained on misconception of fact that you were her legally wedded husband and you, thereby committed an offence Under Section 376 IPC and within my cognizance.Secondly, that during the period 4.4.2002 till 31.3.2003, at L-78 B, Janta Flats, Saket, New Delhi, you above named accused, deceitfully caused a woman named Indu D/o Lt. Shri N.L. Pasrija, who you accused Pankaj Malhotra had divorced, to believe that she was married to you accused and in that belief to cohabit with you accused Pankaj Malhora or have sexual intercourse with you accused Pankaj Malhotra and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 493 IPC and within my cognizance.And I hereby direct you to be tried by this Court of Session of the said charge.It is alleged that in March, 2001, the complainant Indu made a complaint against the petitioner in the Crime against Women Cell.It is alleged that in the morning of 31.3.2003, the complainant (Indu) was shocked when 9-10 persons knocked at the door with a lady named Pooja who claimed that the petitioner had been illegally living with the complainant (Indu) because, according to them, on 9.12.2002 the said Pooja got married with the petitioner and that the petitioner had already divorced the complainant (Indu).Apparently, an ex parte divorce order had been obtained by the petitioner on 4.4.2002 in respect of the marriage with Indu.It is alleged that the complainant (Indu) was unaware of the ex parte proceedings and did not know of the alleged divorce.It is further alleged that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the complainant (Indu) and she consented to the same being under the impression that she was lawfully married to the petitioner and that their marriage subsisted.It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner obtained the ex parte divorce by subterfuge; he did not inform the complainant (Indu) of this divorce proceedings or the ex parte order passed on 4.4.2002 but continued to have sexual intercourse with her as she was under the misconception that their marriage subsisted.It is, therefore, alleged by the prosecution that the petitioner has committed rape.The second allegation is of having committed an offence under Section 493 IPC.After the registration of the FIR No 363/2003 under Section 376/493 IPC at Police Station Malviya Nagar on 5.5.2003 on the basis of the statement made by the complainant (Indu), the petitioner was arrested by the police on that date itself.Subsequently, after about two months i.e. on 5.7.2003, the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.After completion of investigation the Investigating Agency submitted the charge sheet.Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 21.3.2005 the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges mentioned above.It was submitted by Mr R.N. Mittal, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the complainant was aware of the divorce proceedings and the process server had affected service of summons on her.Mr Mittal referred to the provisions of Section 375 and 376 IPC.He then submitted that Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code refers to offences relating to marriage.This order was referred to by him to attempt to demonstrate that the summons in the divorce petition filed by the petitioner in the family court in Jaipur against the complainant (Indu) had been duly served upon her and that she had notice of the divorce petition but did not choose to appear before the said Court.In the said bail order, it is recorded that the process server, in his statement recorded before the Court had specifically stated that he personally went to the complainant (Indu) and delivered a copy of the summons to her.It is also noted that it was specifically mentioned in the summons itself that a copy of the divorce petition was enclosed with the summons.It is also noted in the said bail order that no application for setting aside the ex parte decree had also been filed till date.Mr Mittal also referred to the record of the proceedings made by the ACP at the Crime against Women Cell wherein it is indicated that the complainant was well aware of the decree of divorce given by the Jaipur Curt but she had the hope that her husband would return to her.However, on 31.3.2003 when the fact was disclosed to her that the petitioner had already married another lady all her hopes disappeared.In the meanwhile, however, the complainant filed an application being Crl.M.A. 8848/2006 for taking on record certain additional documents.On 28.8.2006 this Court noted that although the application had been filed after arguments have been heard and orders have been reserved, in the interest of justice, so that no papers which are necessary are overlooked, the application was entertained and, therefore, the matter was listed for further arguments thereafter.According to Mr Mittal, the documents filed by the complainant, in fact, support his case.He referred to Annexure "B" which is a copy of the notice purportedly served on the complainant.In view of the evidence in the case it can be safely inferred that the charged official has marked the summons in his own name and has manipulated the service of summons received from the Jaipur Court with incomplete address and has prepared a false report.In view of above discussion and in view of facts and circumstances, it is clear that charges against the charged official are proved by preponderance of probability.Let report be sent to Ld.District & Sessions Judge, Delhi, for appropriate action.Referring to the above paragraph Mr Mittal submitted that although the process server who had allegedly served the summons on the complainant, had been found guilty of the charge of having interpolated the word "Saket" on the address portion of the summons, this did not detract from the position that the summons were actually served on the complainant (Indu).He pointed out the portion of the order where it is recorded that despite service the complainant was not present and, therefore, the matter was heard ex parte.The Complainant's counsel was also heard.The counsel for the complainant further submitted that on 25.9.2001 the petitioner filed a divorce petition but he did not disclose this fact to the complainant.The very next day on 26.9.2001 the petitioner and the complainant applied for admission of their son in School.Two days latter, on 28.9.2001 the petitioner applied for a ration card indicating his family as himself, his wife (Indu Malhotra) and the son and giving the Saket address as his address.The learned Counsel for the complainant also submits that before the Family Court at Jaipur, the petitioner had stated that he had no physical relations with the complainant after the birth of their child.All these circumstances, according to the counsel for the complainant, go to show that the petitioner never wanted the complainant to know about the divorce proceedings.The petitioner even went to the extent of correcting the address on the divorce proceedings from "LIC" to "LIG" but consciously did not mention "Saket".Mr Malik the learned Counsel who appeared on behalf of the State supported the order on Charge entirely.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

State of M.P.) otherwise, at the instance of wife of applicant No.1 another case under Section 376 of IPC has been registered vide Crime No.13/2020 at same police station.Charge-sheet has already been filed.Confinement amounts to pretrial detention.They undertake to cooperate in the investigation/trial and make themselves available as and when required.They would not be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the prosecution witnesses in any manner.C. No.8285/2020 (Mukesh and two others Vs.State of M.P.) mls vius vkl iMksl esa isM+ksa dh lqj{kk ds fy, ckM+ yxkus dh O;oLFkk djuh gksxh rkfd ikS/ks lqjf{kr jg ldsA vkosnd dk ;g drZO; gS fd u dsoy ikS/kksa dks yxk;k tk,s] cfYd mUgsa iks"k.k Hkh fn;k tk,A ^^o`{kkjksi.k ds lkFk] o`{kkiks"k.k Hkh vko';d gSA^^ vkosnd fo'ks"kr% 6&8 QhV Waps ikS/ks@isM+ksa dks 3&5 QhV ds xM~<s djds yxk;sxk rkfd os 'kh?kz gh iw.kZ fodflr gks ldsaA vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djus ds fy,] vkosnd dks fjgk fd;s tkus dh fnukad ls 30 fnuksa ds Hkhrj lacaf/kr fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k o`{kksas@ikS/kksa ds jksi.k ds lHkh QksVks Lrqr djuk gksxsaA rRi'pkr~] fopkj.k ds lekiu rd gj rhu eghus esa vkosnd ds }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k izxfr fjiksVZ Lrqr dh tk,xhA o`{kksa dh xfr ij fuxjkuh j[kuk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk drZO; gS D;ksafd i;kZoj.k {kj.k ds dkj.k ekuo vfLrRo nkao ij gS vkSj U;k;ky; vuqikyu ds ckjs esa vkosnd }kjk fn[kkbZ xbZ fdlh Hkh ykijokgh dks utj vankt ugh dj ldrk gSA blfy, vkosnd dks isM+ksa dh xfr vkSj vkosnd }kjk vuqikyu ds lac/a k esa ,d fjiksVZ Lrqr djus ds fy, funZsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa vkonsd }kjk fd;s x;s vuqikyu dh ,d la{kfIr fjiskVZ bl U;k;ky; ds le{k izR;sd rhu ekg esa vxys N% eghuksa ds fy, j[kh tk;sxh ftls fd ^^funsZ'k ^^ 'kh"kZ ds varxZr j[kk tk,xkA o`{kkjksi.k esa ;k isM+ksa dh ns[kHkky esa vkosnd dh vksj ls dh xbZ dksbZ Hkh pwd vkosnd dks tekur dk ykHk ysus ls oafpr dj ldrh gSA vkosnd dks viuh ilan ds LFkku ij bu ikS/kksa@isMksa dks jksius dh Lora=rk gksxh] ;fn og bu jksis x;s isMksa dh Vh xkMZ ;k ckM+ yxkdj j{kk djuk pkgrk gS] vU;Fkk vkosnd dks o`{kksa ds jksi.k ds fy, rFkk muds lqj{kk mik;ksa ds fy, vko';d [kpsZ ogu djuk gksxsaA bl U;k;ky; }kjk ;g funsZ'k ,d ijh{k.k izdj.k ds rkSj ij 7 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8285/2020 (Mukesh and two others Vs.Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant.Heard on I.A. No.2078/2020, an application for assisting the prosecution.On due consideration, the same is allowed.Shri Gupta, Advocate is permitted to assist the prosecution.I.A. No.2078/2020 stands disposed of.With consent heard finally.The applicants have filed this second application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail, who have been arrested and are in custody since 08.01.2020, in connection with Crime No.11/2020, registered at Police Station Kolaras, District Shivpuri (MP), for the offence punishable under Sections 378-D and 506 of IPC.It is the submission of counsel for the applicants that the false case has been registered against them at the instance of prosecutrix who happens to be their cousin.Because of family dispute regarding land, this device has been adopted.Contents of FIR and statements of witnesses indicate an improbable events.Even 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8285/2020 (Mukesh and two others Vs.They further undertake to do some community service to purge their misdeeds.Under these grounds, they prayed for grant of bail to the applicants.Learned PP for the State opposed the prayer made by the applicants and he prayed for dismissal of this application.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.C. No.8285/2020 (Mukesh and two others Vs.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions:-1- vkosndx.k Loa; }kjk fu"ikfnr can i= dh leLr fuca/kuks ,oa 'krksZ dk vuqikyu djssaxsA 2- vkosndx.k vUos"[email protected] esa izdj.k ,oa funsZ'kkuqlkj lg;ksx djsasxsA 3- vkosndx.k ekeys ds rF;ksa ls ifjfpr fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks izyksHku] /kedh vFkok opu nsus esa Lo;a dks fyIr ugha djsasxs] tks fd mudks ,sls rF;ksa dks U;k;ky; ;k iqfyl vf/kdkjh ls izdVhdj.k djus ls izofjr djs] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks( 4- vkosndx.k ftl vijk/k ds fy, nks"kh gaS ml izdkj dk lekUk vijk/k dkfjr ugha djasxs vkSj vkosndx.k] Qfj;knh i{k ds fy, fdlh Hkh rjg dh ijs'kkuh vkSj mRihM+u dk fdlh Hkh izdkj ls dkj.k ugha cusaxs( 5- vkosndx.k fopkj.k ds nkSjku vuko';d LFkxu dh ekWx ugh djsasxsA 6- vkosndx.k fopkj.k U;k;ky;@vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh dh iwoZ vuqefr ds fcuk Hkkjr ugh NksMasxsA tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks ,oa( 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8285/2020 (Mukesh and two others Vs.State of M.P.) 7- blds vfrfjDr mijksDr of.kZr tekur dk ykHk bl 'krZ ds v/khu gksxk fd vkosnd dzekad 1 izR;sd lkseokj] vkSj eaxyokj] vkosnd dzekad 2 izR;sd cq/kokj vkSj xq:okj rFkk vkosnd dzekad 3 izR;sd 'kqdzokj vkSj 'kfuokj dks lqcg 9 cts ls nksigj 2 cts rd vkxkeh ,d o"kZ ds fy, izkFkfed LokLF; dsanz dksykjl] ftyk f'koiqjh@lkeqnkf;d LokLF; dsanz dksykjl] ftyk f'koiqjh/ftyk vLirky] f'koiqjh esa viuh lsok,sa nsaxs ,oa mudh Hkwfedk ckg~; foHkkx ds ejhtksa dks] MkWDVjksa ,oa dEikmUMjksa }kjk nh tkus okyh lsokvksa esa lgk;rk djus dh gksxhA mUgs uk rks "kY; d{k vkWijs'ku fFk;sVj vkSj uk gh futh okMkasZ esa tkus dh vuqefr gksxh vkSj uk gh fdlh izdkj dh nokbZ ;k batsD'ku bR;kfn ejhtksa dks yxkus dh vuqefr gksxhA og fdlh Hkh izdkj ls vius }kjk ejhtksa dks ladze.k vFkok vlqfo/kk ugh nsasxs vkSj MkWDVj bl ckr dks lqfuf'pr djssaxs] rkfd vkosndx.k mDr vLirky ds fy, ,d lgk;d dh Hkwfedk fuHkk, uk fd vius fdlh d`R; ls ejhtksa vFkok MkWDVjksa@vLirky iz'kklu dks fdlh izdkj dh vlqfo/kk dkfjr djsA ;g funZ's k vkosnd dh vk;q ,oa Hkfo"; dh laHkkoukvksa dks ns[kdj fn;k x;k gS rkfd mUgss lekt dh eq[; /kkjk esa vkus dk ,d volj izkIr gks ldsA eq[; fpfdRld ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh CMHO f'koiqjh@vLirky v/kh{kd ftyk] f'koiqjh] vkosndx.k dks ckg~; foHkkx esa dk;Z djus dh vuqefr iznku djsaxs vkSj vkosndx.k dks fpfdRlk lsok,sa tSls %& lkQ lQkbZ dh O;oLFkk cuk, j[kuk] izkFkfed mipkj esa lg;ksx djuk] jftLVs'ku dk;Z ,oa ejhtksa dh lqfo/kkvksa dks /;ku esa j[kdj fd, tkus okys dk;Z nsaxsA bu dk;ksZa dks djus ls laHkor% 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.8285/2020 (Mukesh and two others Vs.State of M.P.) vkosndx.kksa dks izkFkfed fpfdRlk vFkok izkd`frd vkinkvksa ls fuiVus dh izkFkfed f'k{kk fey ldsxh] rkfd og lekt dh eq[; /kkjk esa vkus ds lkFk&lkFk vius {ks= esa vkink izc/a ku Loa;lsod volunteer) ds rkSj ij dk;Z dj ldsA ;gkWa ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd vkosndx.k vLirky@vLirky iz'kklu ,oa jksfx;ksa ds fy, fdlh Hkh izdkj ds lae.k@vlqfo/kk vFkok ijs'kkuh dk dkj.k ugha cusaxsa ,oa vLirky iz'kklu }kjk mlds nqO;Zogkj vFkok voKkiw.kZ vkpj.k dh tkudkjh feyus dh fLFkfr esa ;g rF; muds tekur vkosnu dks [kkfjt djus dk vk/kkj cu ldsxkA vkosndx.k }kjk lq/kkj ds fy, lq>ko vkSj muds }kjk fd, x, dk;Z dk izfrosnu] ekpZ 2022] esa izLrqr fd, tk;saxsA bl U;k;ky; }kjk ;g funsZ'k ,d ijh{k.k izdj.k ds rkSj ij fn, x, gSa rkfd fgalk vkSj cqjkbZ ds fopkj dk izfrdkj] l`tu ,oa izd`fr ds lkFk ,dkdkj gksus ds ek/;e ls lkeaktL; LFkkfir fd;k tk ldsA orZeku esa ekuo vfLrRo ds vko';d vax ds :i esa n;k] lsok] izse ,oaa d:a.kk dh izd`fr dks fodflr djus dh vko';drk gS D;ksafd ;g ekuo thou dh ewyHkwr izo`fr;ka gSa vkSj ekuo vfLrRo dks cuk, j[kus ds fy, budk iquthZfor gksuk vko';d gSA eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLFk vf/kdkjh f'koiqjh dks lwfpr fd;k tk, ,oa fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks ,d ewyizfr vuqikyu ds fy, Hksth tk,A 8- ,rn~ }kjk ;g funZsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd izR;sd vkosnd 05&05 ikS/kksa dk Qy nsus okys isM+ vFkok uhe@ihiy jksi.k djsxk rFkk 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.

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

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

The applicant has filed this criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 being aggrieved by the order dated 29 th September, 2018 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Rewa in Criminal Appeal No. 170/2018 whereby affirming the order dated 23.08.2018 passed in Criminal Case No. 136/2018 by the Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Rewa.Case of the prosecution against the juvenile in conflict with law, in short, was that at the time of incident child was aged below 18 years.On the pretext of marriage, he allure the girl aged about 16 years and took her into the Surat where he committed forcibly rape against her.On 14.03.2018 her mother reported the matter before the Police Station Raipur Karchuliyan, District Rewa where a Criminal Case No. 136/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the IPC has been registered.The child in conflict with law has been taken into custody and sent before the Juvenile Justice Board.On behalf of the juvenile in conflict with law, his parents filed an application under Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015 for taking custody of the child.Thereafter on behalf of the juvenile in conflict with law, his parents have filed second application under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 which was dismissed by the learned Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 23.08.2018 on the ground that vide order dated 07/05/2018 first bail application was dismissed on the ground that the release of the juvenile in conflict with law is likely to suffer moral, physical or psychological danger.

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

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

The substantive sentences were to operate concurrently.2. Allegations against the appellants were that on 12.06.2009 at about 06.30 A.M. in front of Phad no. A-264, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, they in furtherance of common intention with their associate - Bablu (not arrested) committed robbery and deprived Prem Chand of mobile phone and cash ` 3,000/- at the point of knife.In the process of committing robbery, injuries were inflicted to Prem Chand and Raju.The police machinery came into motion when information was conveyed by PCR regarding a stabbing-cum-robbery incident and Daily Diary (DD) CRL.A.Nos.907/2013, 1395/2012 & 703/2013 Page 2 of 12 No. 12A was recorded at 07.05 A.M. at PS Adarsh Nagar.The investigation was assigned to ASI Attar Singh who with Const.Suresh went to the spot.After coming to know that the injured had already been shifted to hospital, he went to Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital and collected Prem Chand's MLC.He was declared unfit for statement.The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording Raju's statement (Ex.PW-1/A).Further investigation was taken over by SI Madan Mohan.The occurrence took place on 12.06.2009 at around 06.30 A.M. when PW-1 (Raju) and PW-2 (Prem Chand) had arrived near Phad no. A-264, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur in truck No. RJ 32G-2187 from District Sikar, Rajasthan to sell onions.After parking the truck there, when they were going out, four assailants committed robbery and inflicted injuries to them.PW-16/B) and MLC of Raju (Ex.PW-16/A) record their arrival time at 07.25 A.M. and 07.40 A.M., respectively.In the statement (Ex.PW-1/A), Raju gave detailed account of the occurrence as to how and under what circumstances they were robbed by the assailants.Both PW-1 and PW-2 had travelled from Rajasthan for a specific work to sell their onions in New Azadpur Market and had no ulterior reasons to fake the incident of robbery.They did not nurture any grievance against the assailants as none of them was known to them.The complainant did not implicate any of the assailants by name in the complaint (Ex.PW-1/A).A-3 had given beating to him (PW-1).PW-2 (Prem Chand) also corroborated the testimony of the complainant on vital facts and implicated the appellants and assigned similar role to them.The fourth boy, who was unable to be arrested was described an individual aged about 10 / 11 years.Despite searching cross-examination, no material discrepancies could be elicited or extracted to disbelieve or discard the version narrated by them in the Court.The accused persons did not assign any extraneous motive to them to falsely rope them in the occurrence.Both, PW-1 (Raju) and PW-2 (Prem Chand) had sustained injuries and were not expected to spare the real culprits and to implicate innocent ones, particularly when they had no prior acquaintance with any of the assailants and none of them was named CRL.A.Nos.907/2013, 1395/2012 & 703/2013 Page 6 of 12 in the FIR.In the absence of prior animosity or ill-will, the victims who were not even resident of Delhi and had come in the course of their routine business were not imagined to falsely depose and identify the appellants.He is also the first offender.Anand @ Jat (A-1), Satish @ Madrasi (A-2) and Parmod Mandal @ Dhukho Mandal (A-3) impugn their conviction by a judgment dated 23.04.2012 of learned Addl.Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 221/09 arising out of FIR No. 124/09 PS Adarsh Nagar.By an order on sentence dated 23.05.2012, A-1 was awarded RI for five years with fine ` 3,000/- under Sections 394/307/34 IPC; RI for seven years with fine ` 5,000/- under Section 397 IPC. A-2 and A-3 were awarded RI for five years with fine ` 3,000/-, each, under Sections 394/307/34 IPC.On 15.06.2009, on the basis of secret information, A-1 and A-2 were apprehended and pursuant to the disclosure statements, crime weapon was recovered.They also led the police team to the residence of A-3 for his arrest.During investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants; they were duly charged and brought to trial.The prosecution examined 19 witnesses to substantiate the charges.In 313 statements, the accused persons pleaded false implication.They, however, did not examine any witness in defence.The trial resulted in their conviction as aforesaid.907/2013, 1395/2012 & 703/2013 Page 2 of 12I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record minutely.The prosecution was unable to establish that the assailants were armed with 'deadly' weapons.Non-recovery of the crime weapon is fatal to the prosecution case as both PW-1 (Raju) and PW-2 (Prem Chand) did not identify the knife (Ex.P1) to have been used in the occurrence.In the alternative, prayer was made to modify the sentence order as the appellants have already remained in custody for substantial period.Soon after the occurrence Daily Diary (DD) No. 12A was recorded at 07.05 A.M. at PS Adarsh Nagar.It records that an individual was stabbed and the articles were robbed.The police swung into action and First Information Report was lodged without inordinate delay after CRL.A.Nos.907/2013, 1395/2012 & 703/2013 Page 4 of 12 recording Raju's statement (Ex.PW-1/A) by sending rukka (Ex.PW-8/A) at 10.00 A.M. Both, Raju and Prem Chand were taken by PCR to Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital.MLC of Prem Chand (Ex.Both, PW-1 (Raju) and PW-2 (Prem Chand) had sustained injuries in the occurrence.Suggestion was put in the cross-examination to PW-2 (Prem Chand) that he had got injuries due to a quarrel with the driver of other truck and the appellants were falsely implicated in this case.There were no cogent reasons for the complainant to name the assailants for any such quarrel with any other truck driver as alleged.907/2013, 1395/2012 & 703/2013 Page 4 of 12While appearing as PW-1, (Raju) proved the version given to the police on material facts.He identified A-1 to be the assailant who had CRL.A.Nos.907/2013, 1395/2012 & 703/2013 Page 5 of 12 a knife at the time of occurrence.He deposed that at about 06.30 A.M., four boys came, one of them caught hold Prem Chand from his neck, the second started beating them and the third one brought out a knife and told them to give him whatever they had.When they opposed, the boy having the knife inflicted a blow on the left foot of Prem Chand.The fourth boy took out mobile phone and ` 3,500/- from the pocket of Prem Chand and thereafter, they all fled the spot.He assigned specific role to A-1 who inflicted injuries to Prem Chand by a knife.A-2 was identified to the assailant who had caught hold of Prem Chand by his neck.907/2013, 1395/2012 & 703/2013 Page 5 of 12907/2013, 1395/2012 & 703/2013 Page 6 of 12During investigation, after apprehension of the appellants, application for conducting Test Identification Parade was moved by the Investigating Officer.PW-11 (Ms.Shunali Gupta, MM) conducted Test Identification Proceedings on 27.06.2009 in which the appellants declined to participate in the TIP proceedings alleging that they were shown to the witnesses at the police station.PW-1 (Raju), in the examination-in-chief, admitted that after 2 - 3 days of the occurrence, he was called at Police Station Adarsh Nagar to identify the accused persons.He not only identified the assailants in the Court but also assigned definite role to each of them in the occurrence.He CRL.A.Nos.907/2013, 1395/2012 & 703/2013 Page 7 of 12 was fair enough not to identify the knife (Ex.P1) and the currency notes as it had no specific mark of identification.In the cross-examination, no suggestion was put to him if any time, any of the assailants was shown to him by the police.It has come on record that from the inception, this injured witness remained admitted in the hospital.PW-17/A (discharge report) reveals that he was admitted on 12.06.2009 and was discharged on 15.07.2009 in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital.Since PW-2 (Prem Chand) was confined to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, throughout, there was no occasion for him to identify the assailants in the police station after their apprehension.He also examined Prem Chand's MLC (Ex.PW-16/B) prepared by Dr.PW-17 (Dr.907/2013, 1395/2012 & 703/2013 Page 8 of 12907/2013, 1395/2012 & 703/2013 Page 8 of 12I find no substance in the appellants' plea that Section 397 IPC is not attracted or proved as the prosecution was unable to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the 'knife' used in the crime was a 'deadly' one.Both, PW-1 (Raju) and PW-2 (Prem Chand) have categorically deposed that on their refusal to part with the cash, A-1 who was armed with a 'knife' inflicted a blow to Prem Chand.The injuries have been opined 'grievous' in nature.It has further come in evidence that due to the said injuries the victim remained admitted in the hospital for about one month and three days and his leg had to be amputated.Elaborating it, PW- 2 (Prem Chand) stated that the main vein which supplied blood was cut with the knife and could not be repaired by operation.Declining to identify Ex.P1 (knife) to be the weapon used, he was categorical to assert that he was inflicted injury by a 'big' knife whereas Ex.P1 was a 'small' one.907/2013, 1395/2012 & 703/2013 Page 10 of 12907/2013, 1395/2012 & 703/2013 Page 11 of 12In the light of above discussion, appeals filed by the appellants stand disposed of in the above terms.A copy of the judgment be sent to the Superintendent Jail for information.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE FEBRUARY 03, 2014/tr CRL.A.Nos.907/2013, 1395/2012 & 703/2013 Page 12 of 12907/2013, 1395/2012 & 703/2013 Page 12 of 12

['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(Passed on this 30th day of June, 2020) Per S.C. Sharma, J.The petitioner's contention is that on the date the detention order was passed, the petitioner was already in judicial custody in connection with Crime No.139/2020 and Crime No.33/2020 registered at Police Station, Bagli, District Dewas (MP) and the Detaining Authority, at the time of passing of the detention order, was not aware of the fact that the detenu is in jail.It has been stated that the order passed by the District Magistrate is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court from time to time.The petitioner has stated that the petitioner is engaged in various 3 WP No.8123/2020 social activities.He is holding the post of State Joint Secretary in Manav Utthan Samiti, which is an all India registered voluntary non-profit social welfare and charitable organization.The petitioner has further stated that there is a land dispute in the village where the petitioner is residing and there are claims and counterclaims in respect of title of the land.It has been stated that one Khuman Singh s/o Govind was claiming title over the land belonging to Temple of Lord Shri Ram, situated at village Sabliyapur, Tahsil Bagli, District Dewas (MP).The Police has registered three First Information Reports against the present petitioner and based upon the FIRs, which are for commission of offence punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, an order under the provisions of National Security Act, 1980 has been slapped upon the petitioner.It has also been stated that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 04.05.2020 and the factum of his judicial custody has not been taken into account by the District Magistrate.It has also been argued that based upon cases of minor / trivial nature, an order of NSA has been slapped upon the petitioner.We have minutely perused the impugned order dated 11.10.2018 passed by District Magistrate.In the said impugned order, it is not mention that the accused was in jail at the time of passing of the said order.We have minutely perused the impugned order dated 11.10.2018 passed by District Magistrate.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 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.

This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.07.1997 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur, in Sessions Trial No.418 of 1989 whereby and whereunder accused appellant Abboo was found guilty for the offences under Sections 363 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs.1000/-, under Section 366 IPC five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and under Section 376 IPC ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-.In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo six months, six months and one year's imprisonment respectively.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Brief facts, as narrated by the prosecution, are that the complainant Santu lodged a first information report on 13.06.1987 with the facts that on 10.06.1987 at about 02.00 PM his daughter and another girl had gone to market but did not return to home.When he searched then Dammu Lal, Bhairon Mali and Ram Shankar of his village told him that both the girls were talking to appellant Abboo and one Jaahid near the pond.He had also communicated that after certain discussions, appellant Abboo and Jaahid along with girls proceeded towards Saraiya.During investigation, both the girls were recovered from the house of one of their close relative, sister, and they were produced before the Magistrate for recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the appellant.After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of sessions where the accused/appellant was summoned and charges under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC were levelled against him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.In order to prove the prosecution case, PW-1 Km.Geeta, PW-2 Santu, PW-3 Dr. (Smt.) Uma Prasad, PW-4 Dr. O.P. Pandey, PW-5 Constable Sri Ramdas and PW-6 S.I. Vijay Bahadur Singh were examined.In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused/appellant denied from the charges and stated that due to certain dispute with regard to house/property and enmity with the village Pradhan, he has been falsely implicated in this case.In defence, DW-1 Tauvar, Dw-2 Jaahid Ali, DW-3 Ram Shankar and DW-4 Iqbal Ahmad, retired Reader, S.D.M Mahmoodbad, were examined.The trial court, on the basis of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the present appellant Abboo had committed the offence and found the appellant guilty and sentenced him, as above.Aggrieved by the order, the appellant has filed the present appeal on the following grounds:-I. That the findings of the court below are perverse and erroneous and not proved by medical evidence.That there was no motive to commit the offence.The learned Counsel for the accused has contended that since there was not cogent and satisfactory evidence on record the conviction of the accused qua the offences in question was not sustainable.The learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand controverted this contention.Since the fate of this case hinges mainly upon the evidence on record, it would be but proper to take reappraisal of this evidence.After examining the first information report and the statement of the witnesses, it seems that the case has been narrated in two parties, namely (1) the offence which has been narrated in the first information report is kidnapping from lawful guardianship with ulterior motive simply coming within the purview of Sections 363 and 366 IPC and (2) the offence which was narrated during the examination before the Court committed four months' ago before lodging the first information report.Let me deal the first offence.The informant had communicated to the police station that on 10.06.1987 at about 02.00 PM accused/appellant with another person named Jaahid kidnapped two minor girls from his lawful guardianship.P.C.. In the report dated 13.06.1987, the complainant Santu had submitted simply that when both girls did not return to home from market, two persons of the village communicated him that both the girls were talking with appellant Abboo and another named Jaahid.The victims were recovered and were taken to the Executive Magistrate for recording their statement on 15.06.1987 where the first girl had stated that she had gone to the house of her sister and from there her brother took her and she returned back to her house.While she was playing in the field the brother of village Pradhan Munna named Abboo came there and induced to go somewhere then both of them followed Abboo towards Saraiya village and boarded a bus.Appellant Abboo was not in the bus.They reached at Mahmoodabad but appellant was not there then they reached at Sitapur and then went to Bahadurpur, the house of her sister, where her brother came and they returned to their house.The perusal of the evidence shows that the accused/appellant was not with them, neither in the bus nor in the total journey.The second girl was also produced before the Executive Magistrate who had also stated that while she was playing with first girl the accused/appellant Abboo allured them to provide something.They followed him and boarded in a bus.They reached Mahmoodabad but the accused/appellant was not with them.Again they went to Sitapur and then to Laharpur to the house of her sister when her brother came and she came back to her house.The statement of these two girls recorded before the Magistrate just after the incident reveals that nothing was committed with these girls which may be interpreted to be within the definition of offence under Section 376 IPC.There was no motive or taking away from the lawful guardianship because according to their statement after boarding the bus accused/appellant was not with them.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.If the intention of the appellant was to kidnap them from lawful guardianship, he might have accompanied them or would have taken away to them to his destination but neither the appellant accompanied them nor was seen by anybody else.Further it is submitted that the girls were seen by two persons who communicated this fact to the complainant.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that both the girls were fast friends and they used to roam about in the village together.Kishana's elder sister was married to one Rajendra residing in Laharpur district Sitapur and above two girls had gone to Sitapur on 10.06.1987 and father of one lodged first information report in police station Rampur on 13.06.1987 falsely implicating him.It has further been submitted that Smt. Ratna along with son Gaya Prasad were searching her girl and found them at Rajendra's house and brought them at their residence.Smt. Ratna and Gaya Prasad were searching for girls and found them at Rajendra's house and brought them at their residence.Smt. Ratna and Gaya Prasad had sent an application to Superintendent of Police with an affidavit by Registered post and to court concerned intimating therein that the said girls had gone to Laharpur at their own sweet will.It has further been submitted that as per prosecution story Dammu and Bhairon had communicated the complainant with regarding to talking of two girls with the appellant.They had also given affidavit and application before the Magistrate that they had not seen such incident and never communicated to the complainant.It has further been submitted that in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C no case under Section 376 IPC is made out and the police has arrested the accused/appellant against which a telegram was sent to the authorities concerned.There is an affidavit on behalf of Asfaq Husain that there was an election rivalry between the parties.It is a prosecution theory that Kishana also accompanied the victim, first girl, and while going with the accused/appellant Ram Shankar, Bhairon and Dammu had communicated the complainant that they had seen them talking with the appellant Abboo and going with him.All three were very important witnesses but they have not been examined by the prosecution.It is stated by learned counsel for the State that they had not supported the prosecution case while learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no incident occurred in the way, as narrated by the prosecution.Dammu and Bhairon had filed an affidavit and application before the Court concerned that they had never communicated the fact that two girls were talking with the appellant Abboo or they went to Saraiya and boarded a bus.Smt. Ratana and Gaya Prasad are mother and brother of the second girl.They had filed an application along with affidavit that both the girls had gone to the house of her daughter, sister of second girl voluntarily on 10.06.1987 because they were angry with their family members for some reasons on that day.They had filed an affidavit that when they visited the house at Laharpur they found both the girls and came back with the girls.Perusal of the statement and all the facts reveals that there is nothing like kidnapping or abduction from lawful guardianship.Thus, the story, as narrated by the prosecution, has not been found proved.Now the question relates to the second charge, which relates to four months' back from lodging the first information report.It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the story is false because no first information report was lodged with regard to the aforesaid fact.Secondly, it has been submitted in the prosecution theory during the course of examination in chief that before lodging the first information report of kidnapping another incident, which took place four months' earlier relating to sexual offence, was committed by the appellant.The fact, as stated, had never been communicated to anyone or even to the police authorities for taking action.It is the version of the prosecution that Ram Shankar and another were witnesses.PW-1 the victim had stated on oath with regard to second fact that accused/appellant took her in a house which was locked from outside.It is stated that the theory of committing the offence within a house is impossible because the victim herself has stated that the house was locked from outside.DW-1 Tauvar (owner of the house) has been examined from the defence side who had stated that the boundary of the house was about 5 to 6 feet in height, which cannot be jumped by the appellant or the victim and this fact, as narrated by the prosecution, has never happened nor has ever been communicated to anyone.The prosecution has stated that Jaahid was directed to provide medicine to the victim while DW-2 Jaahid Ali in defence had stated on oath that he never injected any medicine to the victim and was never communicated by the appellant to provide any medicine to the victim.DW-3 Ram Shankar had stated on oath that he had never seen the accused/appellant with the victim.DW-4 Iqbal Ahmad, retired reader of the Court of SDM Mahmoodabad was examined who had proved the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In this statement nothing has been disclosed coming within the purview of the charges contained in the first information report.One thing is required to be mentioned that on 01.12.1989, a charge was framed against appellant Abboo under Section 363, 366 and 376 IPC.On appreciation of the evidence on record, particularly the evidence of prosecutrix, whose evidence has been found artificial, unreliable and inconsistent, which, as per the settled position of law, cannot be accepted or acted upon for awarding conviction, I would desist from affirming/upholding the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court.I am not satisfied that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.The convict appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt and acquittal on that score.The impugned conviction and sentence are hereby quashed and set aside.The appellant is acquitted on benefit of doubt.The bail bond shall stand discharged.The appellant is on bail.His bail is cancelled and sureties discharged.The appeal is allowed.

['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The petitioners above named by way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') etc. seek quashment of criminal proceedings in S.T. No.366/2013 pending before the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Mhow, Distt.Indore with regard to offences under Section 324/34 and 307/34 of IPC.In the instant case, it transpires from order dated 03.11.2015 passed by learned trial Court, a copy of which is available at page No.76 of the compilation that complainant Sukhram and petitioners have entered into a compromise with regard to offences under Section 294, 323 - 323/34, 324 - 324/34, 506 (Part-II), 307 and 307/34 of IPC.The learned trial Court allowed composition except for offences under Section 324 and 307/34 of IPC.Considering the fact that primarily the dispute between the parties of a personal nature and that they have arrived at an amicable settlement and want to live in peace and harmony, further continuous of criminal proceedings will definitely result in wastage of the valuable time of the Court and will also have the potentiality to unsettle the peace and tranquility between the parties.Resultantly, the petition for quashment deserves to be and is accordingly hereby allowed and criminal proceedings against the petitioners in S.T. No.366/2013 pending before the learned trial Court are hereby quashed.CC as per rules.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge soumya

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands allowed.The detenu is directedto be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his detention is required in connectionwith any other case or cause.1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Secretariat, Saint George Fort, Chennai.2.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli District.3.The Inspector of Police, Thatchanalljur, Tirunelveli District.4.The Superintendent of Central Jail, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.He was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV,Tirunelveli on 25.08.2011 and taken to police custody, on that day itself.I am also aware that there is real possibility of his coming outon bail by filing a bail application in connection with the above case beforethe appropriate court, since in similar cases bails are granted by the concernedcourt or higher courts.If he comes out on bail, he will indulgein further activities in future which will be prejudicial to the maintenance ofpublic order.Thus, the statement of the Detaining Authority that the detention orderwas being passed, in order to prevent the detenu from indulging in activitiesprejudicial to the maintenance of public order, has been made, without anymaterials on record.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submittedthat, even though the Detaining Authority had stated that there is a realpossibility of the detenu coming out on bail, by filing a bail application, nomaterials were available on record for the Detaining Authority to arrive at sucha conclusion.He had further submitted that the Detaining Authority has not madeout a case against the detenu, to show that there was an imminent or a realpossibility of the detenu being released on bail.Similarly, when a charge-sheet is not filed within the statutoryperiod contemplated, notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegation, on theexpiry of the period, the accused got a right to be released on bail.Crime No.467/2011)

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

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

In this case, the FIR contains the allegations that the accused persons including the husband and in-laws of the complainant used to torture her both physically and mentally and even to the extent of physically assaulting her causing injuries on her body, so much so, that she had to undergo medical treatment.On the basis of this FIR, an investigation has already been conducted by the police and a charge-sheet has been submitted where the investigating officer has stated that a prima facie case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code has been made out against all the accused persons from the materials collected by him.The case diary containing the statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and other documents have been produced before this Court.

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Liver 900 gms. - congested.Stomach contains 500 gms.of undigested rice Spleen 90 gms.- congested.Bladder empty and Uterus 18-20 weeks size with dead male foetus seen.Kidneys : each 120 gms. - congested.Skull bone normal and pelvis normal Larynx, Trachea & Bronchi.No sooty particles Trachea & Larynx congested.JUDGMENT V. Kanagaraj, J.This Criminal Appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Erode as per his Judgment dated 19.02.2002 in S.C. No. 145 of 2001 thereby convicting the appellant-A1 for the commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 302 & 201 IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing him respectively, to undergo R.I. for three years, life imprisonment, R.I. for five years and R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo RI for two months further ordering these sentences to run concurrently.On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State, it comes to be known that the appellant is the first accused and he has been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 & 201 IPC and under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.The case of the prosecution is that A.1 is the son of A.2 and A.3 and they were residing at Kuttupulli Thottam, Aalangayam.The deceased Selvi was the wife of Appellant/A1 and that the accused/appellant joining hands with his parents A.2 and A.3, harassed the deceased Selvi by demanding dowry on various occasions; that one month prior to the date of occurrence, the accused pestered the victim Selvi to bring a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from her father for constructing their house and as the victim could not bring the dowry amount demanded by the accused, on 31.10.1999 at about 11.00 am.in their newly constructed house at Kuttupulli Thottam, the accused decided to kill the victim Selvi and had beaten her severely with force, as a result of which, she died; that in order to screen the death of the deceased Selvi, the accused poured kerosene on the victim Selvi and closed the door, tied the same with iron chain and locked the door from outside and lighted a match stick and threw the same through the window which was kept open, and set the victim on fire and hence the charges against all the three accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 IPC and u/sec.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.Thereupon, the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, having framed the above charges against the accused/appellant and two other accused and since they pleaded not guilty of the offences charged, conducted the trial into the charges with due opportunity for the prosecution and defence as well during which, on the part of the prosecution, whose burden it was to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts, as warranted under law, 19 witnesses have been examined as P.Ws.1 to 19 for oral evidence and marked 21 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.21 for documentary evidence further exhibiting 20 material objects as M.Os.The defence evidence placed on record is nil.In consideration of the above evidence placed on record, the trial Court found the appellant/A.1 guilty of the offence charged under Sections 498-A, 302 & 201 IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him respectively, to undergo the punishments as extracted supra further registering an acquittal judgment so far as the second and third accused before the trial Court are concerned.It is only challenging the said conviction and sentences, the appellant/A.1 has come forward to prefer the above criminal Appeal.No frothy discharge from nose and mouth.Extensive burns all over the body.Lung respondent.320 gms.Lt. 300 gms. - congested.Hyoid bone intact.Viscera preserved.Death would have occurred about 24-28 hours prior to autopsy.Opinion as to cause of death:Reserved pending report of Chemical analysis on viscera."So far as the Post Mortem Examination held on the part of P.W.2, the Medical Officer who attended on the body of the deceased, having given the external and internal symptoms noted by this Medical witness at the time of her post mortem examination and having sent the vital parts for chemical examination, she would offer her opinion to the effect that the deceased would appear to have died due to asphyxia; that the hyoid bone is intact; that the deceased would have died of suffocation which had not happened due to the burn injuries and that the burn injuries found on the body of the deceased were post-mortem injuries.Further, no poisonous substances were found in the viscera in the chemical analysis and therefore the lower Court has every reason to arrive at its conclusion holding that it was not a suicide by self-immolation since it has been definitely held on the part of the medical findings that the death was not due to the burn injuries and the burn injuries found on the body of the deceased were post-mortem injuries and that the deceased had died of asphyxia.The case of the prosecution is that all the three accused including the appellant were harassing the deceased by demand of dowry on various occasions even a month prior to the date of occurrence ultimately compelling her to bring Rs. 50,000/= from her father and since the deceased did not bring the dowry amount demanded by the accused, the appellant, with the intention to commit murder of the deceased, had beaten her severely with force as a result of which the victim, who was pregnant by five months had fallen down at the kitchen, sustained hurt and started bleeding and died; that in order to screen the death of the victim, the appellant poured kerosene on her dead body and closing the door and locking it from outside lighted match stick and threw the same through the open window of the kitchen and set fire to the dead body of the victim and ran-off from the scene.In result,

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

The facts of the prosecution case are brief.The deceased Velammal was the wife of the accused.She and her mother, who hailed from a village called Vellappottal, had come to Rajapalayam.The accused belongs to Rajapalayam.At Rajapalayam, Velammal contracted illicit intimacy with P.W. 8 (Pandi alias Subbiah) before her marriage to the accused.After the marriage, the accused and Velammal stayed for about a year at Rajapalayam doing ghee business.Then he and Velammal went to Vellappottal where they stayed for some time.Velammal fell ill of typhoid and then returned to Rajapalayam for treatment.There she again came in contact with Pandi P.W. 8 and they were living together for about three months when she became pregnant.At that time the accused came to Rajapalayam and persuaded Velammal with some reluctance to go with him to Vellappottal.That was 10 or 15 days before the occurrence.P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 are neighbours' There is evidence that the accused and his wife used to quarrel during the short time they were living in Vellappottal.JUDGMENT P. Ramakrishnan, J.Kumaraswami Naicker was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram Division at Madurai in S.C. No. 108 of 1961 for the offence of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life.He appeals from the conviction and sentence.On 17th June, 1961, P.W. 2 the elder brother of Velammal saw the accused going towards his house at 4 p.m.On 18th June, 1961, at 4 a.m. P.W. 1 heard an alarm coming from Velammal's house.Now there is great deal of discrepancy in the evidence as to what these persons actually saw after the, alarm which was raised at 4 a.m. in the house, where the accused and the deceased were living.The main point to note here is that the version of these witnesses P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 as to what they saw after hearing the alarm has undergone a material transformation between the stage of Committal Enquiry and the Sessions Trial.P.W. I, in the course of his examination under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, stated that he saw the accused coming out of his house and running south.In the Committal Court, a portion of his statement, which appears to have been marked at the Sessions Trial as Exhibit P-2 (reference to the procedure adopted by the learned Sessions Judge, will be made a little later in the judgment) is:I saw the accused coming out of her house and ran (run) towards south.I switched a battery light and I saw the accused running towards south.I saw him wearing a shirt.I did not notice any blood-stains or weapon with him.He first ran towards south and then towards west.But in the Sessions Court, the evidence of P.W. 1 was that the person, whom he saw, resembled the accused, that he questioned him about his identity, but that he did not reply.P.W. 3 stated in the Committal Court that the accused Kumaraswami came out from his house, and that P.W. 3 and others chased him, but in the Sessions Court he stated that he saw a person running out of the accused's house and that himself and P.W. 1 chased him.It should be noted that in the Sessions Court he did not even mention that the person, who ran, bore any resemblance to the accused.P.W. 4 appears to have deposed in the Committal Court that he saw the accused coming out of the house and running away, but in the Sessions Court he did not at all refer to seeing any person going out of the accused's house, but deposed that when he came out on hearing the alarm, P.W. 1 asked him to bring a light saying that a person was running away.Before we discuss the procedure adopted by the learned Sessions Judge in relying upon the evidence of the above mentioned witnesses, we will also refer to the evidence of P.W. 5 briefly.He deposed that at about dawn there was some noise in the village, that he saw P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 chasing the accused, that P.W. 1 had a torch light with him, that they were raising an alarm that the accused was running away after stabbing, that he (witness) stood in front of the accused and saw the accused having a knife with him, that the accused threatened him with the knife, and that he saw blood-stains in the accused's dhoti and shirt.A suggestion was made in his cross-examination that he was deposing falsely at the instigation of P.W. 2 but he denied the suggestion.The more important point to which our attention was drawn by the learned Counsel for the accused as well as by the learned Public Prosecutor, is the omission on the part of the learned Sessions Judge to comply with the procedure and formalities of Section 288, Criminal Procedure Code.The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge does not specifically refer to Section 288, Criminal Procedure Code but nevertheless he seems to have rejected the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 given in the Sessions Court, and accepted some of their statements made in the Committal Court.Obviously he is interested in the deceased and this will be another circumstance which will make it unsafe to accept his evidence.Therefore, the prosecution is left with the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 who, in view of the different versions they had given at different stages, have proved themselves to be unreliable persons.The appeal is allowed.

['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc 3 Briefly stated, facts of the prosecution case are thus :(a) Injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari was the leader of a panel contesting election of Gram Panchayat Sortapwadi.He had settled the dispute between Sunny Choudhary and Aakash Gore over some post on the Facebook.Injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari along with his friend PW6 Vaibhav Choudhari and driver PW5 Ravindra Gunjal went to the office of Gram Panchayat Sortapwadi at about 10.30 a.m. of that day.Injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari went inside the office of the Gram Panchayat whereas his driver PW5 Ravindra Gunjal and his friend PW6 Vaibhav Choudhari had chosen to stay in the four wheeler vehicle itself, which was parked just in front of the office of the avk 3::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc Gram Panchayat.At about 12.15 p.m. of 25 th July 2013, PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari started leaving the office of the Gram Panchayat Sortapwadi.When he was getting down the staircase of the building of the Gram Panchayat, appellants/accused nos.1 to 3 namely Shrikant alias Rajendra Vilas Choudhary, Vithal Laxman Gade and Hussain @ Ibrahim Yakub Shaikh met him.They had a talk.Thereafter, PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari proceeded towards his four wheeler vehicle.When he reached near his vehicle and was about to open the door thereof, appellant/accused no.1 Shrikant @ Rajendra Choudhary assaulted PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari by means of sattur on head as well as other parts of the body.Appellant/accused no.2 Vithal Gade assaulted injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari by means of a sword on face as well as other parts of body whereas appellant/accused no.3 Husain @ Ibrahim Shaikh assaulted him by means of a sword on neck and other parts of the body.Being seated in that vehicle, PW5 Ravindra Gunjal - driver of the injured as well as PW6 Vaibhav Choudhari avk 4::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc witnessed the incident of murderous assault on PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari.After hearing shouts of PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari when he was being assaulted, PW4 Avinash Memane, Peon of the Gram Panchayat Sortapwadi also witnessed the incident of assault from gallery of the building of the Gram Panchayat.(c) Injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari was then taken to Noble Hospital, Hadapsar, Pune, where he was treated by PW8 Dr.Suresh Dabalgaonkar.PW6 Vaibhav Choudhari reported the incident to police on 25 th July 2013 itself which has resulted in registration of Crime No.373 of 2013 with Loni Kalbhor Police Station, District Pune.(d) Routine investigation followed.During the course of investigation vide Memorandum of Panchnama Exhibit 161, Investigating Officer PW10 Sanjay Ahiwale, Assistant Police Inspector, on the basis of voluntary disclosure statement of appellant/accused no.1 Shrikant @ Rajendra Choudhary avk 5::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc made in presence of panch witness PW2 Ganesh Choudhari had recovered two satturs, one sword, three jeans pants and three shirts.Spot of the incident was inspected by PW11 Narayan Pawar, Assistant Police Inspector, in presence of panch witness PW1 Shamrao Adav.Spot panchnama Exhibit 135 was prepared on the day of the incident itself.Blood found on the spot came to be collected and seized.The spot was in front of the office of the Gram Panchayat Sortapwadi.During the course of investigation a bike was also seized.Some articles were seized from vehicle of Indica make in presence of PW3 Sugriv Adsule.1 This appeal by original accused nos.1 to 3 is taken up for hearing by dispensing with the paper book on the request of avk 1::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc the learned counsel appearing for appellants/accused nos.1 to 3 as it is reported that by now the appellants/accused have already undergone actual sentence of about 5 years out of total substantive sentence of 7 years of rigorous imprisonment imposed on them by the learned trial court.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 :::2 The appellants/accused nos.1 to 3, by this appeal, are challenging the judgment and order dated 14 th October 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.314 of 2014, thereby convicting them of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years apart from payment of fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months.The appellants/accused nos.1 to 3 were acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 120B and 212 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The co- accused were acquitted of all offences.avk 2::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 :::Statement of witnesses came to be recorded.Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis and on completion of routine investigation, the appellants/accused along with other co-accused were charge-sheeted.It is seen that order of framing Charge against some of the accused persons namely Sunil Sambhaji avk 6::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc Chorge, Vijay Govindrao Chorge and Pravin Uttam Chorge was quashed and set aside by this court.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 :::(e) Charge for offences punishable under Sections 307, 120B and 212 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed and explained to the appellants/accused nos.1 to 3 along with other co-accused.They abjured their guilt and claimed trial.(f) In order to bring home the guilt to the appellants/accused as well as other co-accused, the prosecution has examined in all twelve witnesses.In his presence Spot panchnama Exhibit 135 was drawn on 25th July 2013 and blood found on the spot came to be collected and seized.This witness had also witnessed voluntary disclosure statement of appellant/accused no.1 Shrikant @ Rajendra avk 7::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc Choudhary and showing of the spot of parking of the vehicle.Similarly, this witness has also witnessed voluntary disclosure statement of appellant/accused no.3 Husain @ Ibrahim Shaikh regarding the knowledge about spot where the bike was parked.PW2 Ganesh Choudhari, panch witness, had heard voluntary disclosure statement of appellant/accused no.1 Shrikant @ Rajendra Choudhary by which he had shown his willingness to show the spot where weapon and clothes were kept.In pursuant to that voluntary disclosure statement, two satturs, one sword, three pants and three shirts came to be seized vide Seizure panchnama Exhibit 162 by PW10 Sanjay Ahiwale, Assistant Police Inspector.PW4 Avinash Memane, PW5 Ravindra Gunjal, PW6 Vaibhav Choudhari are examined as eye witnesses to the incident of murderous assault on injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari.Medical Officer Dr.This witness proved Medico Legal Certificate and Discharge Card at Exhibits 178 and 179 avk 8::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc respectively apart from other documents of medical treatment given to the injured.PW10 Sanjay Ahiwale, Assistant Police Inspector, has conducted part investigation including recovery of weapons and clothes on the basis of voluntary disclosure statement of appellant/accused no.1 Shrikant @ Rajendra Choudhary.PW11 Narayan Pawar, Assistant Police Inspector, is also examined as the Investigating Officer.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 :::(g) Defence of the appellants/accused was that of total denial.However, they did not enter in defence.(h) After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order dated 14th October 2016, the learned trial court was pleased to convict the appellants/accused nos.1 to 3 of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of the avk 9::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc Indian Penal Code, and accordingly they are sentenced, as indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment.4 I have heard Shri Talukdar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused.He took me through the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution and argued that the evidence of the injured witness cannot be relied because there were many cases filed against him and he had also filed many cases against several persons.This indicates that he was having many enemies and there is chance of assaulting him by other persons.The learned counsel further argued that the prosecution has failed to establish motive of the crime in question, and therefore, prosecution case is doubtful.It is further argued that accused persons are arraigned by even stating their nick names.Names of the appellants/accused are not tallying with the FIR.The injured was not knowing them.There is nothing to connect the appellants/accused with the main accused and three or four main accused persons are already discharged or acquitted.It is further argued that presence of the First Informant on the spot is avk 10::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc doubtful as his blood stained clothes were not seized.PW2 Ganesh Choudhari was present throughout the incident.Medical Officer has deposed that the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object.Therefore, the appellants/accused are also entitled for acquittal.The learned counsel further argued that no Test Identification Parade was conducted after arrest of the appellants/accused.Though PW11 Narayan Pawar, Assistant Police Inspector, has stated that there were two to three persons with the injured, no inquiry on this aspect was made.The Investigating Officer has stated that PW6 Vaibhav Choudhari was not there.The learned counsel for the appellants/accused submitted that all these aspects show that the appellants/accused are falsely implicated in the crime in question.Therefore, they are entitled for acquittal.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 :::5 As against this, the learned APP supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence by arguing that apart from evidence of the injured witness, there are three eye witnesses to the incident and evidence avk 11::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc of all these witnesses are cogent, trustworthy, reliable and consistent.The learned APP further argued that evidence of the injured is corroborated by medical evidence on record.6 I have carefully examined the rival submissions and also perused the record and proceedings.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 :::7 Evidence adduced by the prosecution regarding sustaining murderous assault by injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari is overwhelming and trustworthy.As deposed by eye witnesses examined by the prosecution namely injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari, his friend PW6 Vaibhav Choudhari, his driver PW5 Ravindra Gunjal and employee of the Gram Panchayat PW4 Avinash Memane, the incident of murderous assault on the injured took place in front of the office of the Gram Panchayat.This evidence is not at all shattered in cross-examination of all these witnesses.On the contrary, from cross-examination of injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari, the defence has elicited the fact that his vehicle was parked at a distance of about 10 to 15 avk 12::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc feet from the office of Gram Panchayat and the incident of assault took place by the side of that vehicle.On this backdrop, version of PW1 Shamrao Adav - panch witness to the Spot panchnama makes it clear that the incident of assault on the victim took place in front of the office of Gram Panchayat Sortapwadi.Blood was found spilled on the scene of occurrence and the sample of the same came to be seized.Recitals of Spot panchnama Exhibit 135 are also in tune with the prosecution case.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 :::8 Trustworthy evidence of PW5 Ravindra Gunjal - driver of the injured and PW6 Vaibhav Choudhari goes to show that immediately after the assault, injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari was taken to the Noble Hospital where he was admitted for medical treatment.PW8 Dr.Suresh Dabalgaonkar had examined injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari on 25 th July 2013 itself.He noticed the following injuries on person of PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari :2) Incised Injury - left shoulder 3 x 1.5 x 13) Incised Injury - Linear left arm 5 x .5 cm avk 13::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 :::4) Incised Injury - left occipital parietal injury 5 x 1.5 x 15) Incised Injury - left parietal region 3 x 1 x 16) Incised Injury - Mid occipital injury 5 x 2 x 1 bone deep7) Incised Injury - Right temporal zygonatic 5 x 5.58) Incised Injury - right shoulder 7 x 4 muscle deep9) Incised Injury - right elbow 12 x 3 x by muscle deep10) Incised Injury - upper lip 1 x .5 x 511) Abrasion left pinna 2 x 212) Abrasion left great toe 2 x 213) Abrasion right great toe 2 x 214) Fracture parietal bone15) Fracture right clavicalResultantly, he is the injured witness in the subject crime.avk 14::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 :::APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc 9 According to the prosecution case, apart from evidence of the injured witness, there are three witnesses who had seen happening of the incident of murderous assault on the injured.In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa vs. State of Karnataka 2 the 1 2010 (6) SCC 673 2 1994 SCC (Cri) 1694 avk 15::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc Honourable Supreme has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Kishan Chand 3 a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy.The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence.Keeping in mind these principles of appreciation of evidence of injured as well as interested witnesses, let us examine evidence adduced by the star witnesses of the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:18 :::3 (2004) 7 SCC 629 4 (2006) 12 SCC 459 avk 16::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc 10 PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari is the victim of the crime in question, commission of which was witnessed by his driver PW5 Ravindra Gunjal and his friend PW6 Vaibhav Choudhari apart from peon of Gram Panchayat Sortapwadi PW4 Avinash Memane.Evidence of all these witnesses, as such, is of utmost importance for inferring guilt, if any, of the appellants/accused.Let us, therefore, consider what PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari says about the incident in question.He testified that at about 10.30 a.m. of 25th July 2013, along with his driver PW5 Ravindra Gunjal and his associate PW6 Vaibhav Choudhari, he went to the office of Gram Panchayat Sortapwadi by his vehicle.He deposed that PW5 Ravindra Gunjal - driver and PW6 Vaibhav Choudhari stayed in the vehicle whereas he went to the office of the Gram Panchayat Sortapwadi.When he was getting down from the staircase of the Gram Panchayat, he met appellants/accused namely Shrikant @ Rajendra Choudhary, Vithal Gade and Husain @ Ibrahim Shaikh.He talked with them and then proceeded towards his vehicle.As per his version when he was opening the door of his vehicle, he suffered a blow on his head.What he saw thereafter is stated by avk 17::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc him in his evidence.Injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari deposed that he saw appellant/accused no.1 Shrikant @ Rajendra Choudhary had assaulted him on his head by means of sattur.Appellant/accused no.2 Vithal Gade assaulted him on face by means of sword whereas appellant/accused no.3 Husain @ Ibrahim Shaikh assaulted him by sword on the neck.Then, they all had given blows of weapons on his shoulder, hands and fingers.PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari stated that because of this assault, he fell down and the accused persons ran away.This injured witness had given the cause and motive for assault as his own efforts in settlement of dispute between Sunny Choudhary and Aakash Gore over some post on Facebook.As per version of this witness, his blood stained clothes were then seized by the police.Evidence of this witness shows that he was admitted to Noble Hospital where he had taken treatment.This witness has identified his assailants while in the dock.11 Cross-examination of PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari shows that he was leading a panel in the election of the Gram avk 18::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc Panchayat.His presence on the spot of the incident was brought on record by his cross-examination.The defence has elicited from this witness that on the day of incident i.e. on 25 th July 2013, there was meeting of the Gram Panchayat.It is further brought on record that during the course of that meeting, this witness was sitting in the office of the Gram Panchayat Sortapwadi.Duration of the incident of interaction with the accused persons and the actual assault is also brought on record from cross-examination of injured witness PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari.From his cross- examination, it is brought on record that after leaving the Gram Panchayat office, injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari had a talk for about 1½ minute with the accused persons.Then he proceeded further towards his vehicle which was just 10 to 15 feet away from the office of the Gram Panchayat.The defence has further brought on record from cross-examination of injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari that the incident of assault on him took place by the side of his vehicle and time of about 1½ minutes was taken for the incident of assault.From cross-examination of this witness, it is further brought on record that he had filed cases avk 19::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc against Barkya Gade and Anil Choudhari, but subsequently settled those cases.Similarly, two cases were filed against him in the court.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 :::12 In the case in hand, theory of mistaken identity or false implication of the appellants/accused persons does not deserve a moment's consideration.Evidence of injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari shows that he was knowing all appellants/accused.He identified them while in the dock as his assailants.Filing of cases by and against this injured witness cannot give inference to assault on him by others because the appellants/accused persons were known to this witness and he has categorically deposed the mode and manner in which the appellants/accused persons had assaulted him.Therefore, though the assailants/accused persons are having nick names also, that does not cast a shadow of doubt on version of this injured witness.Motive of the assault is also coming on record from cross- examination of this witness, though in cases where the injured deposes about the assault on him by the appellants/accused, there avk 20::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc is no need to prove the motive for the assault.Be that as it may, let us examine whether evidence of injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari is corroborated by evidence of most natural witnesses to the incident of assault, namely, PW5 Ravindra Gunjal and PW6 Vaibhav Choudhari.This is because, the defence has elicited from cross-examination of injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari that the incident of assault took place near the vehicle parked at a distance of 10 to 15 feet away from the office of the Gram Panchayat.Evidence of all these three witnesses is consistent to the effect that then PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari had been to the office of the Gram Panchayat where as PW5 Ravindra Gunjal - driver and PW6 Vaibhav Choudhari stayed in the vehicle of PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari and that vehicle was parked just near the office of the Gram Panchayat.PW5 Ravindra Gunjal and PW6 Vaibhav Choudhari, in unison, have deposed that at about 12.15 avk 21::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc p.m. of 25th July 2013, PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari came out of the office of the Gram Panchayat and when he was opening the door of the vehicle in which both of them were sitting, appellants/accused persons, namely, Shrikant @ Rajendra Choudhary, Vithal Gade and Husain @ Ibrahim Shaikh, came there.As per consistent version of PW5 Ravindra Gunjal and PW6 Vaibhav Choudhari, appellant/accused no.1 Shrikant @ Rajendra Choudhary assaulted PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari by means of a sattur on head and hand.Appellant/accused no.2 Vithal Gade assaulted PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari be means of a sword on head, hand, face and neck, whereas appellant/accused no.3 Husain @ Ibrahim Shaikh assaulted PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari by means of a sword on head and hand.Both these witnesses further deposed that after the assault, appellants/accused ran away and then they shifted injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari to the Noble Hospital, Pune.PW6 Vaibhav Choudhari deposed that then he lodged the FIR of the subject crime.Both these witnesses have duly identified the appellants/accused as assailants of PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 :::avk 22::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 :::APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc 13 From cross-examination of PW5 Ravindra Gunjal identity of appellant/accused no.1 Shrikant @ Rajendra Choudhary is confirmed.It is brought on record by cross- examination of PW5 Ravindra Gunjal that appellant/accused no.1 Shrikant @ Rajendra Choudhary is also known as Shrikant Choudhary.By cross-examining PW6 Vaibhav Choudhari, the defence has brought on record that this witness as well as PW5 Ravindra Gunjal were sitting on the front seat of the vehicle when the assault took place.In cross-examination of PW5 Ravindra Gunjal it is brought on record that the attack was not a sudden attack.Cross-examination of PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari as well as that of PW6 Vaibhav Choudhari and PW5 Ravindra Gunjal shows that the actual assault continued for 1½ minutes.Evidence of these three witnesses goes to show that they were knowing the appellants/accused very well.The actual assault took place when PW5 Ravindra Gunjal and PW6 Vaibhav Choudhari were sitting inside the vehicle and when injured witness PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari was opening the door of that vehicle.Thus, when all these witnesses were previously knowing the appellants/accused avk 23::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc and when the incident of assault took place just near the vehicle in which PW5 Ravindra Gunjal and PW6 Vaibhav Choudhari were sitting, there cannot be any reason to jettison evidence of these two eye witnesses to the assault on surmises and conjectures that there is possibility of mistaken identity of the assault as they are arraigned as accused by their names and nick names.The injured as well as these two witnesses had ample opportunity to see the assailants who were known to all of them.Evidence of all these three witnesses regarding identity of the appellants/accused is not at all shattered in the cross-examination.Version of PW6 Vaibhav Choudhari is gaining full corroboration from the FIR Exhibit 174 lodged by him with promptitude, soon after the assault.14 There is one more eye witness to the incident of assault and he is PW4 Avinash Memane -Peon of the Gram Panchayat.Evidence of this witness shows that from the gallery of the building of Gram Panchayat he had witnessed the assault.Cross-examination of this witness shows that he is acquainted not only with the injured but also with the appellants/accused.PW4 avk 24::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc Avinash Memane has stated in his evidence that after meeting of the Gram Panchayat held on 25 th July 2013, he heard shouts and saw appellant/accused no.1 Shrikant @ Rajendra Choudhary giving blows of sattur and appellant/accused no.2 Vithal Gade as well as appellant/accused no.3 Husain @ Ibrahim Shaikh giving blows of sword on person of PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari.This witness has also duly identified the appellants/accused as assailants.Some insignificant stuff is brought on record from cross-examination of this witness.That is regarding situation of the spot of the incident and presence of other persons in the office of the Gram Panchayat.However, cross-examination of this witness shows that he is a neutral witness.From his cross- examination it is brought on record that appellant/accused no.2 Vithal Gade and appellant/accused no.3 Husain @ Ibrahim Shaikh are neither his friends nor his enemies.It is also brought on record from his cross-examination that PW5 Ravindra Gunjal is driver of PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari.This fact makes it clear that PW5 Ravindra Gunjal is the natural witness to the incident in question.Considering the fact that from cross-examination of PW4 avk 25::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc Avinash Memane it is brought on record that he was acquainted with the appellants/accused persons, there is no question of mistaken identity of the assailants by this witness.This witness, as seen from his cross-examination, had witnessed the incident which lasted for 1½ minutes giving full opportunity to him to identify the assailants, who were known to him.15 The net result of foregoing discussion requires me to hold that evidence of injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari, which is corroborated by most natural witnesses to the incident namely PW4 Avinash Memane, PW5 Ravindra Gunjal and PW6 Vaibhav Choudhari, is fully trustworthy and acceptable.There is nothing in long and searching cross-examination of all these witnesses to disbelieve their version regarding the assault by them on PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 :::16 Cumulative effect of eye witness account given by eye witnesses and the injured witness coupled with evidence of Medical Officer PW8 Dr.Suresh Dabalgaonkar proves the fact that avk 26::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc on 25th July 2013, all appellants/accused had assaulted injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari by means of deadly weapons.17 Evidence of the eye witnesses as well as the injured is gaining corroboration from the version of PW1 Shamrao Adav - panch witness, so also PW11 Narayan Pawar, Investigating Officer.Consistent evidence of both these witnesses shows that soon after the incident, the spot of the incident was inspected on 25th July 2013 and Spot panchnama Exhibit 135 came to be prepared.Evidence of these two witnesses as well as recitals in the Spot panchnama Exhibit 135 shows that spot was in front of building of Gram Panchayat Sortapwadi and the cement road at the spot was stained with blood.Sample of the blood found lying on the spot came to be collected and seized by preparing the Spot panchnama.This witness certainly corroborates the version of injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari as well as evidence of eye witnesses.avk 27::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 :::The same was made in presence of Investigating Officer PW10 Sanjay Ahiwale, Assistant Police Inspector.As per version of these two witnesses, appellant/accused no.1 Shrikant @ Rajendra Choudhary had taken them to a shed near Kirloskar Company of Hadapsar and from the gunny bag kept there, had recovered two satturs, one sword, three pants as well as three shirts.These witnesses have identified the seized articles including the weapons.Merely because PW2 Ganesh Choudhari had seen the appellants/accused in handcuff at the police station, one cannot infer that they were under duress at that time.As such, on this count alone, it cannot be said that recovery is vitiated.Along with forwarding letter Exhibit 219 seized weapons were sent for chemical analysis.The Chemical Analyzer's Report avk 28::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc at Exhibit 191 shows that the weapons seized at the instance of appellant/accused no.1 Shrikant @ Rajendra Choudhary were stained with human blood.Though it is argued that names of assailants are not tallying with the names mentioned in the FIR, substantive evidence of the First Informant so also the recitals in the FIR unerringly points out that those were the appellants/accused who had assaulted injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari.Merely because blood stained clothes of PW6 Vaibhav Choudhari were not seized by the police on the spot, his presence on the spot of the incident cannot be doubted.As the injured as well as eye witnesses are naming the appellants/accused as the assailants, it is not necessary to connect them with the other accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 :::19 Now let us examine whether prosecution has proved commission of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the appellants/accused persons.As noted in the foregoing paragraphs, PW8 Dr.Suresh Dabalgaonkar of Noble Hospital had found thirteen external avk 29::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc injuries as well as three internal injuries on body of injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari.Evidence of this Medical Officer shows that majority of injuries were caused by sharp weapons and three injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.PW12 Dr.Chandrashekhar Raman is a Neurosurgeon.His evidence shows that injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari had suffered fracture of parietal bone apart from incised injuries.20 Evidence on record shows that PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari had suffered injuries by sharp edged weapons such as sword and sattur.Evidence of the Medical Officer shows that the injuries suffered by PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari might have caused his death.In order to bring home the guilt for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, causing of injuries is not at all necessary.Intention coupled with an overt act is sufficient to make out the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.In the case in hand, all appellants/accused were armed with deadly weapons.They had chosen head as well as upper body of the victim to cause wounds avk 30::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 ::: APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc on him by means of sattur and swords.Several injuries were authored by them on vital parts of body of PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari.This act on the part of the appellants/accused reflects their intention, and in such situation, if they had caused death of PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari, then they would have certainly be held guilty of committing murder of injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari.Thus, the prosecution has certainly made out the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants/accused.21 Considering the fact that by assaulting injured PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari by means of deadly weapons, they all had caused injuries on vital parts of body of PW7 Sudarshan Choudhari, it cannot be said that sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 7 years apart from fine of Rs.2000/- and default sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 3 months is too harsh or not proportionate to the crime committed by the appellants/accused and held to be proved.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 :::avk 31::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 :::APPEAL-1136-2018-APPA-1733-2018-J.doc 22 In this view of the matter, the appeal is devoid of merits, and therefore, the order :i) The appeal is dismissed.ii) In view of dismissal of appeal, Criminal Application No.1733 of 2018 stands disposed of.(A. M. BADAR, J.) avk 32::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:34:19 :::

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

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

The factual matrix emerging from the record is that the deceased Vineeta was married with accused Ajay Pal on 16.06.1995 and after marriage she began staying in her matrimonial home.On 25.06.1996 a wireless message was received that a lady had been killed at D-Block, Rama Virhar, 15/3 Main Karala Road by a gunshot injury on the basis of which DD no. 19-A was recorded and investigation handed over to ASI Dharam Singh, who along with Constable Raj Pal reached the said spot.At the spot, dead body was found with a gunshot injury and a double barrel gun was found lying on a white bed sheet with blood stains on it and spread across the cot.SDM Shri K.K. Dahiya was informed about incident who ordered to get the dead body preserved in the Mortuary.Crime team and fingers print expert were summoned on the spot.The father, uncle and brother of deceased came to the police station and were produced before the SDM who recorded the statement of the father of the deceased.The dead body of the deceased was also identified by the father of the deceased.Thereafter, on the statement of the complainant (father of deceased) FIR was recorded and SDM conducted subsequent inquest proceedings.A. No.69/2000 Page 2 of 12A. No.69/2000 Page 2 of 12In his statement, the complainant, namely, Naresh Pal, father of the deceased stated that his daughter Vineeta was married to Ajay Pal on 16.06.1995 and for the purpose of marriage, inlaws of Vineeta (deceased) had demanded a motorcycle and Rs. 20,000/- cash, of which cash of Rs. 20,000/- was given by Naresh Pal but not the motorcycle.After 2-3 months of marriage, the complainant went to meet his daughter, who informed him that her in-laws were harassing her with demand of dowry, specifically asking for a motorcycle.She further informed him that her mother-in-law Yashoda, sisters-in-law Deepa and Pooja, and her husband would often beat her for her inability to bring in sufficient dowry.On 26.06.1996, the complainant was informed that his daughter had died due to a gunshot injury.On the basis of statement of the complainant Naresh Pal, FIR of the instant case was registered.After completion of investigation, challan against accused Ajay Pal, Yashoda and Deepa was filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.Since, co-accused Pooja was stated to be a juvenile, it was submitted in the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C that supplementary challan shall be filed against her in the Juvenile Court.The prosecution had examined as many as eleven witnesses namely PW1 Shri K.K.Dahiya, PW2 ASI Rajinder Singh, PW3 Naresh Pal, PW4 Shri Dalip Kumar, PW5 Ramesh Pal Singh, PW6 Constable Geeta, PW7 Constable Bansi Dhar, PW8 Constable Nek Ram, PW9 ASI Dharam Singh, PW10 HC Suresh Kumar and PW11 Dr.L.T. Ramani.The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Accused persons examined four witnesses in their defence.The grounds challenging the judgment of conviction is that the appellants have been falsely implicated at the instance of the complainant and his family members who were agitated over the untimely suicide of their daughter.The complainant has failed to successfully prove that his daughter was harassed for demand of dowry or there was any cruelty on part of the appellants towards the deceased with regard to demand of dowry.That in the absence of demand of dowry, the presumption under Section113A Evidence Crl.The father as well as other relatives of the deceased has duly supported the case of prosecution that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry by the appellants.There is sufficient evidence against the appellants to hold them guilty for the offences of harassment on account of demand of dowry and of dowry death.Arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants as well as learned APP for the State were heard.The mother-in-law of deceased, accused Yashoda had Crl.A. No.69/2000 Page 5 of 12 demanded Rs.20,000/- and the same was given to her at the time of marriage.After 2-3 months of marriage, deceased Vineeta informed her father (PW3) that she was being harassed and beaten by her in-laws and husband on account of bringing insufficient dowry.A. No.69/2000 Page 5 of 12During his cross-examination, PW3 has demolished the case of the prosecution.He admitted that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was given in cash at the time of engagement ceremony and it was given by him out of his own will.He further stated that sum of Rs.20,000/- was handed over to the father of Ajay Pal.He further stated that at the time of marriage, Ajay Pal was not doing any service and since he was not doing any work/job, PW3 wanted him to do some work/business.PW3 told him that whatever financial help he could give, he would render that help to accused.He further stated that relation of Vineeta with Deepa and Gudiya was cordial.He admitted that mother-in-law of his daughter Vineeta used to have complete faith and love on her.He further admitted that he himself offered motor cycle to Ajay Pal for his business Crl.A. No.69/2000 Page 6 of 12 purpose.A. No.69/2000 Page 6 of 12PW4 Shri Dalip Kumar, brother of the deceased, stated in his testimony that he was sent by his father to the house of his sister and he stayed there with her for 3-4months.He further stated that during his stay at his sister's matrimonial home she was beaten by all the accused persons in his presence 3-4 times on different occasions for her inability to fulfil the demand of a motor cycle.He further stated that the accused person had threatened his sister that they would not allow her to live in peace as long as she did not bring a motor cycle from her parental home.This witness stated in his testimony that upon his return, he informed his father about all the occurrences at his sister's matrimonial house following which his father was trying to arrange for money to purchase a motor cycle but during the meantime he received information that his daughter had died.PW5 Ramesh Pal Singh, uncle of the deceased, stated in his testimony that his niece was tortured by her in-laws on regular occasions and the same was known to him upon informing by the deceased herself.The deceased had also informed this witness that the accused persons used to beat her and abuse her for not fulfilling their demand of bringing a motor cycle.On 26.06.1996, this witness was informed by a police constable that his niece had died Crl.P.S.TEJI, JAggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 12.01.2000 convicting the appellants, namely, Ajay Pal, Yashoda and Deepa finding them guilty under Sections 498-A/304B IPC and order on sentence dated 14.01.2000 vide which the appellants were sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304B IPC and also to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,500/- each for the offence under Section 498A IPC, in default of payment of fine they were Crl.All the accused persons/appellants were arrested and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court.A. No.69/2000 Page 3 of 12A. No.69/2000 Page 3 of 12Charge under Sections 498A/304B IPC was framed against all the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty.A. No.69/2000 Page 4 of 12 Act would fail and the prosecution had no grounds of conviction against the accused person.That the Ld. Court has failed to appreciate that in order to make out an offence under Section 304- B IPC, the cruelty or harassment as alleged should be shown to have been immediately before the death which could have resulted in the immediate death/suicide.A. No.69/2000 Page 4 of 12Per contra, arguments advanced by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State are that the appellants have been rightly held guilty under Sections 498A/304B IPC by the trial court.Further, when this witness came to Delhi for taking his daughter along with him, all the accused persons pressed for fulfilling the demand of motor cycle.On 26.06.1996, this witness was informed by the police that his daughter had died due to a gunshot.A. No.69/2000 Page 7 of 12 due a gunshot injury.A. No.69/2000 Page 7 of 12PW3, PW4 and PW5 are the father, brother and uncle of the deceased, respectively.Their testimonies dealt with above do not give out any specific incidents whereby the deceased was harassed by the appellants for or on account of demand of dowry.From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and in particular PW3,PW4 and PW5, it is observed that they have made general allegations of harassment by the appellants towards the deceased and have not brought in evidence any specific acts of cruelty or harassment by the appellants on the deceased.The allegations levelled against the appellants are not credible in nature as they miserably fall short of the basic details such as the day, date, time or any definite or particular incident of any harassment towards demand of dowry with respect to the deceased and thus fail to attract the scope of Section 498A IPC.He further stated that he himself offered to help accused Ajay Pal for his work.He stated Crl.A. No.69/2000 Page 8 of 12 that relations between his deceased daughter Vineeta and accused persons Deepa and Gudiya were cordial.He admitted that mother- in-law of his daughter Vineeta used to have complete faith and love on her.He also admitted that he himself offered motor cycle to Ajay Pal for his business purpose.A. No.69/2000 Page 8 of 12The Court pointed out the role of the courts as follows: "At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth.The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases.If allegations are scrutinized with pragmatic approach Crl.A. No.69/2000 Page 9 of 12 contemplated by the Supreme Court, it is evident that general and omnibus allegations are made against all the petitioners.A. No.69/2000 Page 9 of 12Apart from charging the appellants under Section 498A IPC, they were also charged for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC.Apart from other ingredients of causing dowry death, one of its essential ingredients is harassment or cruelty meted out to the deceased for or on account of demand of dowry.As discussed above, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations of harassment or cruelty meted out to the deceased by the appellants for or in connection with demand of dowry.By failing to prove this essential ingredient of dowry death as provided under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution has also failed to make out its case Crl.A. No.69/2000 Page 11 of 12 against the appellants for causing the dowry death of the deceased.Thus, the appellants are also entitled for acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC.A. No.69/2000 Page 11 of 12In view of the totality of evidence discussed above and the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed against the appellants under Section 498A/304-B/34 IPC are set aside and the appellants are acquitted for the said offences.The appellants are on bail.Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged.The appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of.(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE APRIL 25, 2017 dd Crl.A. No.69/2000 Page 12 of 12A. No.69/2000 Page 12 of 12

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

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

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer for quashing the criminal proceeding No.173 /PW/2014 as against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 406, 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Brief facts necessary to decide this petition are as under:A cricket match between West Indies and India was to be playedPPS 1 of 14 ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2017 00:46:06 ::: JUDGMENT wp 2657-14.doc from 14th November, 2013 till 18th November, 2013 at Wankhede Stadium Mumbai.The said test match was of significance as it was the last test match of Sachin Tendulkar.It is alleged that on 12th November , 2013, the Mumbai police received information that Janak Gandhi and his associates were indulging in black marketeering by selling complimentary passes and tickets of the said match at an exorbitant price.Hence, a trap was laid and Janak Gandhi and his two associates Girish Premanna and Ajay Shankar Jadhav were apprehended while selling complimentary passes and tickets.::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2017 00:46:06 :::It is the case of the prosecution that the Mumbai Cricket Association had given five complimentary passes to Pradeep Jhaveri, the father of the petitioner.It is alleged that said Pradeep Jhaveri had given the said complimentary passes to the petitioner, who in turn had sold the said five complimentary passes to Girish Premna for Rs.10,000/- each.It is the case of the prosecution that the said complimentary passes were not meant for sale.Hence, Laxmikant Salunkhe, Assistant Police Inspector, lodged the FIRPPS 2 of 14 ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2017 00:46:06 ::: JUDGMENT wp 2657-14.doc against the petitioner and the other co-accused, on the basis of which Cr.No157/ 2013 was registered at Marine Drive Police Station for offences under Section 406, 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Upon investigation of the said crime, charge-sheet came to be filed against the petitioner and the other co-accused for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420 r/w.::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2017 00:46:06 :::The principal submission of the Learned Counsel Shri Ponda is that the FIR as well as the other material which forms part of the charge sheet, even if were taken as true, do not constitute offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating as defined under sections 405 and 415 IPC.Under such circumstances, continuation of these proceedings against the petitioner will be sheer abuse of process of law.Mr. Ponda has relied upon the decision of the Apex court in i) Bhaskar lal Sharma & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2017 00:46:06 :::Per contra, the Lnd.APP Mr. Shaikh has submitted that thePPS 4 of 14 ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2017 00:46:06 ::: JUDGMENT wp 2657-14.doc material on record prima facie indicates that the Mumbai Cricket Association had given five complimentary passes to the father of the petitioner, who was a volunteer of the said Association.The said complimentary passes were not meant for sale.He has submitted that the material on record reveals that the petitioner had sold the said passes to Girish Premna, who in turn had sold the same at an exorbitant rate.The learned APP submits that had cheated the Mumbai Cricket Association by selling the complimentary passes for his own gain.The learned APP submits that the allegations leveled against the petitioner and the material in support thereof prima facie indicates that the petitioner was involved in commission of the alleged offence.::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2017 00:46:06 :::At the outset it may be mentioned that in Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Limited, (2006) 6 SCC 736, the Apex Court has summarized the principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash complaints and criminal proceeding as under:12.The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure toPPS 5 of 14 ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2017 00:46:06 ::: JUDGMENT wp 2657-14.doc quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions.Said Pradip Jhaveri had handed over the said complimentary passes to his son, the petitioner herein, for his own use and the use of his family and friends.It is alleged that the petitioner had sold these passes to Girish Premna for Rs.10,000/- each, who in turn sold the same at exorbitant price and had thereby indulged in black-marketing.The material on record taken at its face value, does not indicate that Mumbai Cricket Association or Pradip Jhaveri had retained ownership of the said passes or that Pradip was holding thePPS 10 of 14 ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2017 00:46:06 ::: JUDGMENT wp 2657-14.doc said passes for the benefit of or on behalf of the Mumbai Cricket Association.On the contrary, the records reveal that the Mumbai Cricket Association had given the said complimentary passes to Pradip Jhaveri since he was a volunteer of the Mumbai Cricket Association.There was no obligation on Pradip Jhaveri to return the said complimentary passes, but it was meant for his use.::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2017 00:46:06 :::The records reveal that Pradip Jhaveri, who had become the beneficial owner of the passes had given the passes to his son, the petitioner herein, for his own use and use of his family and friends.The petitioner had sold the said passes to the co accused Girish Premna.It is to be noted that the Mumbai Cricket Association had not imposed any restrictions on the use or transfer of the passes.A perusal of the complimentary passes also reveals that there were no restrictions on transfer of the passes.Furthermore, there are noPPS 11 of 14 ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2017 00:46:06 ::: JUDGMENT wp 2657-14.doc allegations that the petitioner had deceived any person or had induced any person to purchase the said complimentary passes.::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2017 00:46:06 :::Hence, the sale of the complimentary passes would not per se attract provisions of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.The allegations in the FIR and the other material on record lacks the basic essential ingredients viz. requirement of entrustment of the property, dishonest misappropriation or conversion of the same to own use and further dishonest deception of any person.Consequently, the prosecution of the petitioner for the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating would be abuse of process of law and is therefore liable to be quashed.Shri Dinesh Ganpatrao Bhosale (PI), who has filed his affidavit on behalf of respondent no.2 has denied that the allegations leveled against the petitioner and the other co-accusedPPS 12 of 14 ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2017 00:46:06 ::: JUDGMENT wp 2657-14.doc attract the aforesaid provisions under Bombay Police Act.::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2017 00:46:06 :::Hence no charge can be framed against the aforesaid petitioner for the said sections.We make it clear that this order shall not come in way of the Magistrate in summoning the petitioner, framing charge or explaining substance of accusation to the petitioner in respect of any otherPPS 13 of 14 ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2017 00:46:06 ::: JUDGMENT wp 2657-14.doc offence including the offence under Section 131(b)(2) read with 33(X) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, if the learned Magistrate is satisfied that the material on record, prima facie discloses such offence.::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2017 00:46:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2017 00:46:06 :::

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 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 an application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail on behalf of applicant Shahrukh in connection with Crime No. 297/2017 for the offences under sections 354, 354-A, 354-D, 294, 506 of I.P.C. and 7/8 of POCSO Act 2012, registered at Police Station Shahjahanabad, District Bhopal.According to the case of the prosecution, the applicant who is in judicial custody since 4/07/2017 in the aforesaid case is alleged to have held the hand of the prosecutrix and proposed to her and threatened her that if she did not accept his proposal, then he would put her photographs on the internet and make it viral and throw an acid on her face.The prosecutrix is present in the Court and has stated that she has no objection that if the bail be granted to the applicant herein.The identity of the girl has been confirmed through her Aadhar number being 342970407061 in which the name of her father also confirms that she is the complainant.Certified copy as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE vy

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

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

With consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally.By the instant petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 22.10.2018 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the District Magistrate, Hoshangabad, so also the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by respondent No.2 i.e. Commissioner, Hoshangabad.As per the facts of the case, the Superintendent of Police, Hoshangabad, sent a report to the District Magistrate on 27.09.2017 requesting the respondent No.1 to initiate proceedings under Sections 5(a) and 5(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam, 1990') against the petitioner.With the criminal attitude of the petitioner, he created terror in the society and also terrorized the witnesses of criminal cases registered against him and due to such terror, witnesses were not coming forward to record their statements against the petitioner.It is further observed by the appellate authority that the Criminal Case No.31/2010 was decided vide order dated 07.06.2010 by adopting the procedure of bound-over to the petitioner, but still the petitioner had committed the crime.As per the appellate authority, there was no improvement noticed in the conduct of the petitioner and hence, there was no other option but to exercise the power under Section 5 of the Adhiniyam, 1990, 5 W. P. No. 4121/ 2019 and the order passed by the Collector was approved by the Commissioner.Learned counsel for the petitioner has criticized the orders passed by the District Magistrate as well as the Commissioner mainly on the ground that the cases registered against the petitioner were not in close proximity of the action taken against him.Admittedly, the District Magistrate recorded the statement of the police person and no other witness was 7 W. P. No. 4121/ 2019 recorded.But, the name of even single witness who has been given threat or who has apprehension of appearing in the Court due to fear of the petitioner, has not been referred to in the order.Parties shall bear their own costs.

['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(Order of the Court was made byP.MURGESEN, J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, who was detained under Section3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders, Sand Offenders,Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by orderof the first respondent in C.P.O/T.C/I.S/ D.O.No.11/2009 dated 19.02.2009, bybranding him as a 'GOONDA'.In the absence of the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority asregards the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, the detentionorder is liable to be set aside on this ground.The second ground relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner isthere was a delay in considering the representation of the detenu.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order ofdetention in Order No. C.P.O/T.C/I.S/D.O.No.11/2009 dated 19.02.2009 passed bythe first respondent is set aside.

['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

2 CRA Nos.142/2008 & 470/2008The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeals in short are that Rambaran Singh made a Gum Insaan Report on 24-10-2006, to the effect that his son Praveen and Jitendra had gone to attend the 13 th day function in the house of Prakash Baghel and thereafter did not return back and he was under impression that they might have gone to the house of any relative but when they did not come back even in Diwali festival, then he searched for them but could not be traced, therefore, gum insaan report was lodged.On 27-10-2006, F.I.R. Ex. P.14 was lodged against the appellants Gappe @ Vimlesh, Appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh and one Satpal Lodhi to the effect that during enquiry of gum insaan report, Rambaran Singh has produced a handwritten letter in which a ransom of Rs. 6 lacs has been demanded by Dacoit Raju Singh, who is lodged in Itawah Jail, for releasing the children.The statements of witnesses were recorded.Thereafter, the police received an information from Rambaran Singh, that the abductees have returned back.The police went to their house, send them for medical examination and took them to the place of incident.The appellants were arrested.It is further submitted that since, the police had killed to innocent persons namely Lalla and Munesh by showing a fake 4 CRA Nos.142/2008 & 470/2008 encounter, therefore, the police had a reason to concoct a false story of kidnapping of Jitendra and Praveen.It is further submitted that the entire prosecution case is based on the testimony of interested witnesses as Rambaran (P.W.1), Praveen (P.W.2), Santosh (P.W.10) and Shailendra (P.W.11) are closely related to each other as Rambaran (P.W.1) and Praveen (P.W.2) are father and son whereas Santosh (P.W.10) and Shailendra (P.W.11) are nephews of Rambaran (P.W.1).Similarly Ramdutt (P.W.4) and Jitendra (P.W.3) are uncle and nephew.4 CRA Nos.142/2008 & 470/2008Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Praveen and Jitendra were taken away by the appellant Gappe @ Vimlesh by alluring them to gift a mobile phone and handed over them to Lalla and Dinesh.Thereafter a phone call on the mobile of Rambaran (P.W.1) was made, informing that the children are in the captivity of Satpal Lodhi and whether Rambaran has received any letter or not? On 24-10-2006, Rambaran received a letter which was in the handwriting of Praveen in which it was mentioned about the demand and kidnapping of Praveen and Jitendra.A note was also appended at the bottom of the letter that Rambaran should meet with Raju who is detained in Itawah Jail.On 24-10-2006 itself, Rambaran went to Itawah Jail and met with Raju who demanded Rs. 6 lakhs.Later on, two more letters written by Praveen and Jitendra were received.The police was informed and F.I.R. was lodged.(a) Whether Praveen and Jitendra were taken away by appellant Gappe @ Vimlesh and he handed them to Lalla and Dinesh?Praveen (P.W.2) has stated that he along with Jitendra, Parmal, Ravi and Santosh had gone to the house of one Prakash to attend an invitation.They went to Itawah Toll Tax booth, from where he, Jitendra and Satosh got separated from others.They attended the function and came back to Itawah Toll Tax booth.These letters are Ex.P.1 to the police.When this circumstance was put by this Court, to the Public Prosecutor, seeking explanation, then it was replied that since, Rambaran 20 CRA Nos.142/2008 & 470/2008 (P.W.1) had received two more letters on either 25 or 26-10- 2006, therefore, this witness was left with no other option but to inform the police about the letter and his meeting with Raju, as he was now more or less interested in saving the lives of the abductees.20 CRA Nos.142/2008 & 470/2008This part of evidence of Rambaran (P.W.1) gives a deep dent to the prosecution story.Written report Ex. P.6 submitted by this witness, merely speaks about Gum insaan report, but does not speak about receipt of any letter or meeting with Raju.If the evidence of this witness is considered, then according to this witness, he had received all the three letters i.e., Ex. P.1, Ex. P.4 and P.5, prior to lodging of report Ex. P.6, whereas in para 17 of his cross examination, this witness has stated that he had received the letters Ex.(01/12/2017) PER JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA:This common judgment shall also dispose of Criminal Appeal No.470/2008 filed by Appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh.After completing the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the appellants for offence under Sections 364-A/120B of I.P.C. and under Section 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act.3 CRA Nos.142/2008 & 470/2008The Trial Court by order dated 20-1-2007 framed charges under Sections 364-A of IPC read with Section 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act and under Section 120B of IPC read with Section 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act.The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.The Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Rambaran (P.W.1), Praveen (P.W.2), Jitendra Yadav (P.W.3), Ramdutt (P.W.4), Pintu Sharma (P.W.5), Ramprakash (P.W.6), Ramniwas (P.W.7), D.J. Rai (P.W.8), Parimal Singh (P.W.9), Santosh (P.W.10), Shailendra Singh (P.W.11), Ramal Singh (P.W.12) and Ravi Yadav (P.W.13).The appellants examined Devi Dayal (D.W.1), Nathu Singh (D.W.2) and Ram Sewak Yadav (D.W.3).The Trial Court after considering the documentary as well as oral evidence, convicted the appellant Gappe @ Vimlesh under Section 364-A of I.P.C. read with Section 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act and sentenced to undergo the Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence and appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh under Section Section 364- A/120-B of I.P.C. read with Section 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act and sentenced to undergo the Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default imprisonment.Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, it is submitted by the Counsel for the appellants that the appellant Gappe @ Vimlesh was falsely implicated as Dharam Singh, father of one of abductee Jitendra, was an accused for murder of one Pappu and the grand mother of appellant Gappe @ Vimlesh was the eye witness in the said case.As the father of Jitendra was insisting that the family of Gappu should compromise the matter and since, it was refused by them, therefore, he has been falsely implicated.The police took them to the spot, where an encounter took place between police party and Lalla and Munesh, and both Lalla and Munesh died.Thus, it was submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellants beyond 5 CRA Nos.142/2008 & 470/2008 reasonable doubt and the judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court, does not call for any interference.5 CRA Nos.142/2008 & 470/2008Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.The questions for determination can be summarized as under :Whether Praveen and Jitendra were taken away by Gappe @ Vimlesh and he handed over them to Lalla and Dinesh?Whether any letter written by Praveen was actually received by Rambaran Singh on 24-10-2006?Whether Rambaran Singh went to Itawah jail and met with Appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh?Whether any demand of ransom was made by Appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh?Whether any clothes of the abductees were shown or given to Rambaran Singh by Appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh in the jail?Whether the F.I.R. was lodged on 24-10-2006 and mandatory provision of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. was complied with and whether the F.I.R. is ante-dated and ante-timed?Whether Rambaran Singh had paid an amount of Rs. 6 lacs by way of ransom to any body?Whether the abductees Praveen and Jitendra were released by the kidnappers?Whether the appellants have been falsely implicated in the matter?The prosecution has not examined Chander, husband of the deceased, a relevant eyewitness, Bala, Murti and Bimla, three other injured witnesses.No explanation has been given by the prosecution.Though there have been certain suggestions to PW 16 in the cross-examination, but his answer is evasive.The evidence of eyewitnesses, irrespective of their interestedness, kinship, standing or enmity with the accused, if found credible and of such a calibre as to be regarded as wholly reliable could be sufficient and enough to bring home the guilt of the accused.In the circumstances of the present case, to obviate any chance of false implication due to enmity of the complainant party with the accused party and the interestedness of PW 1, PW 4 and PW 8 in the prosecution case, it is prudent to look for corroboration of their evidence by medical/ballistic evidence and seek adequate assurance from the collateral and surrounding circumstances before acting on their testimony.The lack of corroboration from medical and ballistic evidence and the circumstances brought out on record may 10 CRA Nos.142/2008 & 470/2008 ultimately persuade that in fact their evidence cannot be safely acted upon.10 CRA Nos.142/2008 & 470/2008Besides PW 1, PW 4 and PW 8, who are closely related to the three deceased, no other independent witness has been examined although the incident occurred in a busy market area.At the place of occurrence, one HMT Quartz wristwatch with black strap, one belcha and four pairs of chappals were also found.Nothing has come on record whether four pairs of chappals belonged to the accused party or the complainant party or some other persons.Whether the HMT Quartz wristwatch that was found at the site was worn by one of the accused or one of the members of the complainant party or somebody else is not known.The appellant Gappe came on a motor cycle and asked that if they want to have a mobile, then they should go along with him and thereafter he and Jitendra went along with Gappe on his motor cycle and asked Santosh to go back to his house and they would follow him soon.On the way, they met with a boy Munesh.All the four persons reached near Quwari Bridge where two persons were standing along with arms.Praveen and Jitendra were handed over to them and thereafter Gappe and Munesh came back.Thus, an important aspect of the matter is that Santosh was accompanying Praveen and Jitendra, when they went along with Gappe.Similarly, Jitendra (P.W.2) has stated that he, Praveen and Santosh came back from the house of Prakash Baghel and reached Indira Gandhi Square, Itawah Road, where he met with appellant Gappe.Gappe told that if they want a mobile, then he can get the same from Ater Road.Thereafter he along with Praveen sat on the motor cycle of Gappe and went to Petrol Pump situated at Ater Road.From there, the appellant Gappe talked to some one from Public Telephone Booth Thereafter, the appellant Gappe took them to a place near Para Village, where they met with Munesh who also sat on the motor cycle.They went towards a well, where they met with 16 CRA Nos.142/2008 & 470/2008 Dinesh who was having 12 bore gun.Gappe and Dinesh had a talk and Munesh was sent back by Dinesh.Thereafter Dinesh and Lalla came back and thereafter the hands of this witness and Praveen were tied.Gappe was sent back.An important aspect of the matter is that this witness has also stated that he, Praveen and Santosh came back from the house of Prakash Baghel and when they reached Indira Gandhi Square, Itawah Road, they met with Gappe.Their whereabouts were not known and this witness felt that they might have gone to the house of some relative but could not get any information.Thereafter, this witness thought, that Praveen and Jitendra must have gone somewhere in search of job.Thus, it is clear that Santosh has not stated that he had also gone to the house of Prakash Baghel along with Praveen and Jitendra, and while coming back, the abductees, Praveen and Jitendra, went along with the appellant Gappe @ Vimlesh Thus, if the evidence of Praveen (P.W.2) and Jitendra (P.W.3) is considered along with the evidence of Santosh (P.W.10), then it is clear that Santosh has not supported the evidence of Praveen (P.W.2) and Jitendra (P.W.3) to the effect that he was along with the abuctees, till they met with Gappe.If the evidence of Praveen (P.W.2) and Jitendra (P.W.3) is considered, then it would be clear that their evidence on this issue is not trustworthy, because it is not the case of the prosecution that Santosh at any point of time had informed.17 CRA Nos.142/2008 & 470/2008It was further stated by Praveen (P.W.2) and Jitendra (P.W.3) that they had gone along with Parmal (P.W. 9) and Ravi Yadav (P.W.13) to attend the function in the house of Prakash Baghel, but Parmal (P.W.9) and Ravi Yadav (P.W. 13) have not supported the prosecution case, and they have turned hostile.They were cross examined by the Public Prosecutor, however, nothing could be elicited from their evidence, which may support the prosecution story.Thus, the evidence of Praveen (P.W.2) and Jitendra (P.W.3) to the effect that when they met with Gappe at Itawah Road, Santosh (P.W.10) was also with them, is not trustworthy.Praveen (P.W. 2) has not stated in his evidence, that while they were going along with Gappe on his motor cycle, Gappe had a talked with someone from a Public Telephone Booth, whereas Jitendra (P.W.3) has stated that Gappe had talked to some one from Public Telephone Booth.Further, it is the evidence of Praveen (P.W.2) that when they reached near Quwari bridge, they found that two armed boys were standing to whom Praveen and Jitendra were handed over by Gappe, whereas Jitendra (P.W.3) has stated that when they reached near a well, they found that Dinesh was standing there with 12 bore gun.Gappe had a talk with him.Thereafter, Lalla and Dinesh came back.Thus, it is clear that there is a discrepancy in the evidence of Praveen (P.W.2) and Jitendra (P.W.3) with regard to the manner in which they were handed over to Dinesh and Lalla.Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that while Praveen (P.W.2) and Jitendra (P.W.3) were coming back from the house of Prakash Baghel, they met with Gappe who 18 CRA Nos.142/2008 & 470/2008 asked that whether Praveen (P.W.2) and Jitendra (P.W.3) wants a mobile or not and thereafter took them on his motor cycle and handed over them to Dinesh and Lalla.b. Whether any letters written by Praveen and Jitendra were actually received by Rambaran Singh on 24-10- 2006?18 CRA Nos.142/2008 & 470/2008It is the case of the prosecution, that on 23-10-2006, Rambaran Singh, father of Praveen, received a telephonic call on his mobile and the caller introduced himself as Satpal Lodhi and informed that his children are in his captivity.At about 2:45-3:00 P.M., another phone call was recieved and the caller enquired that whether this witness has received his letter or not? By that time, this witness had not received any letter.On the same day, this witness went to Itawah jail and met with Raju who demanded Rs. 6 lacs and assured that his children would come back.This witness also identified Raju in the Court.When this witness expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount, then it was replied by Raju, that it is upto this witness either to accept his offer or not? It was replied by this witness that he has no other option but to accept the offer.Thereafter, he received another registered envelope containing two letters, one was written by Praveen (P.W.2) and another was written by Jitendra (P.W.3).Further, this witness has stated that on the next date of receiving these letters i.e., Ex. P.4 and P.5, the same were handed over to the police.21 CRA Nos.142/2008 & 470/2008C. Whether Rambaran Singh went to Itawah jail and met with Appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh?Rambaran Singh (P.W.1) has stated that on 24-10-2006, at about 10 A.M., he received a letter Ex. P.1 and immediately after 30 minutes, he went to Itawah Jail by motor cycle.He reached Jail at about 11:30 A.M. where he was told that the permission is granted to visitors till 11 A.M. only.He did not make any application for meeting with Raju and by giving bribe to the jail authorities, he met with Appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh.No entry was made in any register.He met with Raju @ Ganga who said that he will be required to pay Rs. 6 lacs for getting the children released.He also threatened that in case, if the offer is acceptable to this witness, only then he should express his willingness, otherwise, he may refuse it.However, no other facts were stated by this witness.In cross examination, this witness further admitted that he had gone along with his nephew.Shailendra (P.W. 11) has stated that at the time of meeting, one T-shirt of Praveen was given to these witnesses, i.e., Shailendra and Rambaran.However, Rambaran (P.W.1) has not stated that the appellant Raju had ever given any T-22 CRA Nos.142/2008 & 470/2008shirt of Praveen in jail.Thus, the story created by prosecution in this regard is false and concocted.Shailendra (P.W.11) has stated in para 8 of his cross examination, that he and his uncle [Rambaran (P.W.1)], left for Itawah by bus at 8 in the morning of 24-10-2006, whereas Rambaran (P.W.1) has stated that he had received the letter at around 10 A.M. and 30 minutes thereafter, they left for Itawah by motor cycle.Shailendra (P.W.11) has further stated that they alighted the bus at Shastri square, Itwah and went to jail by walking.They reached jail at 10:30 A.M. and went inside the jail at about 10:45 A.M. Whereas Rambaran (P.W.1) has stated that as he reached the jail at about 11:30 A.M., and since, the slips are issued to the visitors till 11 A.M. only, therefore, they had met with Raju after giving bribe to the jail authorities, but on the contrary, according to Shailendra (P.W.11), they had already reached Jail at around 10:30 A.M. and went inside the jail at around 10:45 A.M. Thus, it is clear that Shailendra (P.W.11) and Rambaran (P.W.1) had reached Jail well within the visiting hours and had also entered inside the jail, well within visiting hours, then there was no reason for them to bribe the jail authorities, in order to get entry in the jail.They could have entered inside the jail after obtaining due permission and also after making entry in the jail register.Thus, if the evidence of Rambaran (P.W.1), Shailendra (P.W.11) and Nathu Singh (D.W.2) are considered, then it is clear that the story of meeting Raju in Itawah jail on 24-10-2006, is a concocted story and the prosecution has failed to prove that Rambaran (P.W.1) and Shailendra (P.W.11) had met with Raju on 24-10-2006, in Itawah Jail.d. Whether any demand of ransom was made by 23 CRA Nos.142/2008 & 470/2008 Appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh?23 CRA Nos.142/2008 & 470/2008As the prosecution has failed to prove that Rambaran Singh (P.W.1) had met with the appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh in Itawah jail on 24-10-2006, then the natural consequence would be that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand of ransom of Rs. 6 lacs by appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh in Itawah Jail from Rambaran (P.W.1).e. Whether any clothes of the abductess were shown or given to Rambaran Singh by Appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh in the jail and whether any T-shirt was recovered from the appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh?Shailendra (P.W. 11) has stated that at the time of meeting, one T-shirt of Praveen was given to these witnesses, i.e., Shailendra and Rambaran.In cross examination, it was clarified by this witness, that the T-shirt of Praveeen was given to them in the jail itself.The prosecution must have produced the record of Itawah jail, to show that on what date and by whom, the said T-shirt was brought in Itawah Jail and how, the appellant Raju came in possession of the said T- shirt.As the appellant Raju was detained in Itawah jail, therefore, it was not possible for him to handover the said T- shirt to Rambaran (P.W.1) and further Rambaran (P.W.1) has not stated that the appellant Raju had ever given any T-shirt of Praveen in jail.Thus, the story created by prosecution in this regard is false and concocted.Further, the prosecution has not collected any evidence to show as to how, the appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh came to know that the children of Rambaran (P.W.1) have been kidnapped.The prosecution should have collected the visitors' register of Itawah Jail, to find out that who were the persons, who had met with the appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh? There is nothing on record to show that with whom, the appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh had hatched conspiracy to kidnap Praveen (P.W.2) and Jitendra (P.W.3).24 CRA Nos.142/2008 & 470/2008f. Whether F.I.R. was lodged on 24-10-2006 and whether mandatory provision of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. was complied with, and whether the said F.I.R. was ante-dated and ante-timed?According to the prosecution story, on production of letter Ex. P.1 by Rambaran (P.W.1) on 27-10-2006, a F.I.R. Ex. P.14 was lodged.It is mentioned in the F.I.R. that a copy of the same is sent to Special Judge, Bhind.However, no 25 CRA Nos.142/2008 & 470/2008 document has been filed to show that a copy of the F.I.R. was sent to the Special Judge, Bhind.Although the appellants have not cross examined this witness on this issue, but in view of the surrounding circumstances, it has become necessary to check the authenticity of this statement.The case diary statement of Rambaran (P.W.1) was recorded on 27-10-2006, and in the said statement there is no mention of giving any amount of ransom.But why this witness did not inform the police about the demand of ransom and handing over of the amount to a person in Grain Market, Dabra, is a question which has remained unanswered.When the witnesses had already approached the police on 27-10-2006, then it was expected that they would have taken police in confidence with regard to demand of ransom and the fact that one person would come to collect the ransom amount.Further, it appears that the allegation of giving ransom amount was made for the first time in the Court.30 CRA Nos.142/2008 & 470/2008Further, there is nothing on record, that on what date, Rambaran (P.W.1) received the phone call for payment of ransom amount.There is nothing on record to show that on what date the ransom amount was paid.There is nothing on record to clarify that, when Rambaran (P.W.1) and Ramdutt (P.W.4) had already approached the police on 27-10-2006, then why the fact of demand of ransom and handing over the ransom amount to one person at Grain Market, Dabra was not told to the police.When Rambaran (P.W.1) had received a telephonic call for payment of ransom amount, then why he did not inform the police, has not been clarified by him.Even it has not been clarified by these witnesses, that from where the amount of Rs. 6 lacs or 10 lacs were arranged.There is nothing on record to show that whether Rambaran (P.W.1) and Ramdutt (P.W. 4) were having the amount in their own house or they had withdrawn the same from bank account.No details of bank account have been produced.They stated that they would be able to identify the accused.However, no identification parade was held.Therefore, it cannot be said with certainty which accused attacked whom.Moreover, there are so many omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, that the entire fabric of the prosecution case appears to be ridden with gaping holes.These discrepancies have been meticulously noted by the trial court.The High Court, however, holds that the witnesses were examined 5 years after the incident and, therefore, such discrepancies are natural.The prosecution has also failed to prove that any letter was written by Praveen and Jitendra and has failed to prove that any letter 40 CRA Nos.142/2008 & 470/2008 Ex. P.1, P.4 and P.5 were received by Rambaran (P.W.1).The prosecution has also failed to prove that Rambaran (P.W.1) went to Itawah Jail and met with the appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh.The demand of ransom of Rs. 6 lacs has also not been proved and the fact of making payment of ransom amount has also not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.On the contrary, it appears that the appellant Gappe @ Vimlesh has been falsely implicated due to enmity and the appellant Raju has been falsely implicated.The appellants are not on bail.They are directed to be set at liberty with immediate effect, if not warranted in any other case.The appeals succeed, and hereby Allowed.

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

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

Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned Counsel for the applicants.Shri Amit Sisodiya, learned Dy.Government Advocate for the non-applicant/State.This revision petition has been filed under Section 379 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jhabua in S. T. No.138/2014 on 6/01/2015 whereby the charges under Sections 147, 326/149, 323/149, 506 (Part-II)/149, 294 of IPC have been framed against the applicants.The brief facts of the case are that complainant along with his brother had gone to his filed, at that time applicant Dinesh threw pieces of stones towards complainant-Jogdiya, thereafter Dinesh along with Rakesh, Kaliya, Rema, Aakam, Dito, Nagar Singh and Muko had surrounded the complainant and started beating by means of pieces of stones as a result of which Jogdiya, Karma, Gala, Visiya, Suresh, Sowan and Kalu sustained injuries and on the report, Crime No.571/2014 under Sections 147, 323, 294 and 506-II of IPC has been registered.After due investigation challan has been filed and learned Trial Court has framed the charge as mentioned above against the applicants.Being aggrieved this revision petition has been filed.At the most charge under Section 325 read with Section 149 can be framed and prays that charge under Section 326 read with Section 149 and Section 326 of the IPC be quashed.The prayer is opposed by learned Dy.G.A. On the other hand he submitted that complainant-Jogdiya has sustained fracture on his parital bone and also on temporal bone, hence learned Trial Court has rightly framed the charge under Section 326 read with Section 149 of IPC.I have considered the submissions of learned Counsels and perused the charge-sheet.In the FIR the allegations are that the applicants gave beating by means of stones.As per medical report of Jogdiya he sustained one lacerated wound on left Temporal parital region, the injuries have been caused by hard and blunt object.He also sustained one abrasion over left forearm.On X-ray a fracture on left temporal bone and parital bone has been found.For constituting offence under Section 326 of IPC the injuries must have caused grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal.In the present case, the injury alleged to have been caused to Jogdiya by stone and in the medical report the injury which resulted into fracture has been reported to be caused by hard blunt object meaning thereby the stone was not a pointed one.There is no seizure memo of the alleged pieces of stones.In such circumstances it cannot be said that the stone alleged to have been used for causing injury to Jogdiya which falls within the purview of weapon of offence which is likely to cause death.At the most the charge under Section 325 read with Section 149 of IPC can be framed with respect to injury caused to Jogdiya.In view of the aforesaid, this revision petition deserves to be allowed.Consequently, this revision petition is allowed.Accordingly, revision petition stands disposed of.

['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In the course of the investigation, materials were collected, which according to the Prosecution, were sufficient and relevant to frame charges and try the named accused persons and filed the final report for prosecuting them.During such period, A1, K.B.Brahmadathan was working as the Chief General Manager, BSNL Chennai, Chennai District, A2, M.P.Velusamy was working as the Chief General Manager, BSNL Chennai Chennai District, A3 was the Union Minister for Communication and Information Technology, Government of India, A4 was working as the Additional Private Secretary to MOCIT, A5 was working as the Electrician in the Sun TV, Chennai, A6 was working as the Chief Technical Officer, in the Sun TV, Chennai and A7 was the Chairman and Managing Director of the Sun TV.It is alleged that A1 to A4 are Public Servants and A5 to A7 are private persons.c. The sum and substance of the final report in a nutshell is that A3, while he was the Minister for Communication and Information Technology (MOC&IT) in the Government of India during 2004 to 2007, by abusing his Official Position, in connivance with A1, A2, A4 to A7 had obtained pecuniary advantage and caused, to the Government Exchequer, a loss of Rs 1.78 crores by installing a private telephone exchange at his residences at the Boat Club and Gopalapuram at Chennai, Tamil Nadu, which he had used for business transactions involving the Sun TV Network.More than 700 high-end telecomhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 lines, having PRA/BRA/ISDN/leased line, were installed at the residences of A3 at the Boat Club area and Gopalapuram area at Chennai.They were installed under the Service Category and bills were not raised for such utilisation.Apart from such illegal installation of Landlines with ISDN facilities, on the instructions of A3, additional SIM cards for use of mobile phones with fancy numbers were blocked for SUN TV and distributed to private individuals connected with SUN TV Network.The facilities given to A3 was excessive, without any authority and not in consonance with the Rules and entitlement of Minister or Member of Parliament.By fabricating and forging the records, the accused had used such facilities as genuine to cover up the misdeeds.d. To substantiate the above allegations, the Respondent Police had relied upon 124 documents, most of which, are files maintained in the course of transaction of the BSNL in their day to day activities and the statements of 73 witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.PC.e. After furnishing the material records relied by the prosecution to the persons accused of the offences, as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.PC, the trial court had heard the petitions for discharge filed by four of the accused persons.For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after are referred to as they were arrayed in the impugned Charge Sheet, i.e. A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6 and A7 and the Respondent Police.Though there are seven accused persons/A1 to A7 and the charges were framed against all of them, namely, A1 to A7, only five accused persons/A7, A5, A6, A3 and A4 have challenged the impugned charges, by way of the above Criminal Original Petitions.The facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of these Criminal Original Petitions and also relevant and necessary for disposal of these Criminal Original Petitions are as follows:-After hearing the petitioners/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, the Trial Court, by virtue of the power conferred under Section 239 of Cr.PC, by its order dated, 14.03.2018, had discharged all the accused persons, namely, A1 to A7, on the ground that there were no legal materialhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 evidences against them.In the Revision Petitions in Crl.RC.Nos.671 to 684 of 2018, preferred by the Respondent Police as against the said order of discharge, this Court, had called for records from the Trial Court and having found materials for framing charges against the accused, by a detailed and reasoned, order dated, 25.07.2018, had allowed the said Criminal Revision Petitions, directing the Trial Court to frame charges against the accused persons/A1 to A7 and complete the trial within a period of 12 months.As against the same, these Criminal Original Petitions have been filed by A7, A5, A6, A3 and A4, respectively.Before adverting to the case in details, at the outset, it is necessary to narrate, in a nutshell, the charges framed against each of A1 to A7 as under:-a. The charges framed against A1 are that while A3 was functioning as a Public Servant, in the capacity of Union Minister for Communication and Information Technology, pursuant to the conspiracy hatched with A3, A1 had, by abusing his Official Position, as Chief General Manager, BSNL Chennai, Chennai District, provided to A3, 364 telephone connections, 67 Mobile SIMS, under reference of MOCIT and out of which, A1 had created 19 Mobile SIMS under one account bearing No.500708377 as postpaid connection in the namehttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 of A3 and reserved 10 Mobile SIMS for the use of M/s.Sun TV with a remark, “To be reserved by CC&IT for “SUNTV pl. inform”, 4 Leased Line Circuits and 4 Broad Band Connections under Service Category at the Gopalapuram Residence of A3, without raising any bill for installation, rentals and bills claimed.Also, in order to bring the connections under Service Category, A1 had given the name/address of CGM Office as hirer in the Column of billing as well as the correspondence addresses, though no service connection could be provided to an outsider under the Service Category.b. The charges framed against A2 are that while A3 was functioning as a Public Servant, in the capacity of Union Minister for Communication and Information Technology, pursuant to the conspiracy hatched with A3, A2 had, by abusing his Official Position, as Chief General Manager, BSNL Chennai, Chennai District, despite knowing about the entitlement of a Member of Parliament, approved on 30.10.2006 for shifting of facilities, provided to A3, at the Gopalapuram residence to the new residence at Boat Club Road, Chennai, of 353 telephone connections under Service Category and used the name/ designation of the CGM as subscriber on all the advice notes, generated by BSNL, whereas in the address column, the residential address of A3 was used, also provided Optical Fibre Cables (OFC) connectivity at the old and new residence of A3 and NIC ordered 4 Conferencing System and delivered and installed at the residences of A3 at Chennai and Delhi, during the month of January- February 2005 and supplied and installed telephone exchange equipments at 19 places with two specific networking named as SUN HOhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 Network (7 places) and Dinakaran Network (12 places).c. The charges framed against A3 are that in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, A3 being the Public Servant, with the connivance of A1 and A2, when there is no provision to provide land line connection with ISDN/PRA/BRA facilities and mobile connections with ISD International Roaming, Fax, Super reveal facility to the Members of Parliament under Service Category, dishonestly and fraudulently, and even though as per the guidelines and roles, Union Ministers are not entitled for ISDN connection under Service Category, converted the old ISDN connections into Service Category, by forging documents and by violating the procedures and guidelines laid down, and got allotted 764 telephone connection and 67 Mobile SIMS and also used 19 Mobile SIMS in one account, bearing No.500708377 in his name.A3 by abusing his Official Capacity, without any public interest in order to obtain pecuniary advantage for himself and for A7, by illegal means, dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated and got allotted 764 telephone connections and 67 mobile SIMS in his name.d. The charges framed against A4 are that A4, as the then Additional Personal Secretary to MOCIT, by misusing his position as a Public Servant, converted his telephone connection, bearing No.23766464 into RSTC Category illegally, which is applicable only to the Officials of BSNL and remained as service as Service Category from July 2004 to June 2007 and done all the follow up action relating to the telephone connections.e. The charges framed against A5 are that A5, as an Electrician, inhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 the Sun TV, maintained all the telephone lines and all high end connections in- house lines in both houses and provided all technical support required for the programmes and assisted and coordinated for providing the telephone facilities and leased line and broadband connections provided by BSNL and MTNL and used the facilities illegally with the help of video conferencing system installed at the Office at Delhi and at the residence at Chennai of A3 for the benefit of A7 and abetted A1 to A4 to cause a wrongful loss to the Government Exchequer.f. The charges framed against A6 are that in pursuance of the above criminal conspiracy, A6, as Chief Technical Officer, utilized the ISDN connections provided to A3 for SUN TV Progammes and provided all technical support and placed an order to supply telephone exchange equipments for Rs.50 lakhs and abetted A1 to A4 to cause a wrongful loss to the Government Exchequer.g. The charges framed against A7 are that A7 utilized the above telephone facilities extended to A7 by A3 illegally on free of cost and made no payment for installation, rentals and A7 abetted A1 to A4 to cause a wrongful loss to the Government Exchequer.h. Thus, A1 to A4, being Public Servants, by abusing their Official positions and by violating the procedures and norms laid down, hatched a criminal conspiracy with A5 to A7 and obtained illegal telephone connections with broad band facilities as stated above and thereby, A1 to A7 had caused an undue loss to the tune of Rs.1,78,71,391/- to the Government and undue gain to SUN TV owned by A7 and thereby, A1 to A4 had committed the offenceshttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 punishable under Sections 120B(1) read with 409, 467, 471, 477A of IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and A5 to A7 had committed the offences punishable under Sections Sections 120B(1) read with 409, 467 read with 471, 477A of IPC read with 109 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with 109 of IPC.In so far as the Petitioner/A7 is concerned, the averments, in brief, as set out in Cr.OP.No.22121 of 2018, are as follows:-a. Based on a source of information, the Respondent Police had conducted a preliminary enquiry in Case No.The case was taken on file in CC.No.12 of 2017, by the learned Special Judge No.XIV for CBI Cases, Chennai.b. The Trial Court, by its order dated 13.04.2018, finding that there were no legal material evidences to frame any charge, had discharged the Petitioner.However, in the revision petitions in Crl.RC.No.671, 681 to 684 of 2018 filed by the Prosecution, this Court, by order dated, 25.07.2018, without hearing the Petitioner/A7 and the other accused on the merits of the case, had allowed the said criminal revision petitions, violating the principles of naturalhttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 justice and the provisions of Cr.PC.After dismissal of the SLP.Nos.6753-6756 of 2018 preferred by the accused, as against the said order dated 25.07.2018, by order dated 17.08.2018 of the Honourable Supreme Court, the following charges came to be framed as against the Petitioner/Charges Section First Charge 120(B) r/w 409 of IPC, 467 r/w 471 of IPC, 477A of IPC r/w 109 of IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Second 409 r/w 109 of IPC Charge Third Charge 467 r/w 471 of IPC Fourth 477A r/w 109 of IPC Charge Fifth Charge 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 b. Despite the non-availability of any legal materials on record to frame charge against the Petitioner/A7, the Trial Court, in a mechanical manner, without considering the same, had framed the present charges.The allegations made in the final report, 161 statements and the documents filed do not constitute any offence as against the Petitioner/A7 and even if the said documents are taken as true, there is not even an iota of legal evidence to constitute an offence as against him and no prima facie case is made out as against him.Merely on the fact that A3 is the brother A7, the Trial Court had framed charges on the presumption that A7 was the ultimate beneficiary as the Managing Director of the Sun TV for the alleged loss incurred by A3 in thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 absence of any legal material evidence.Since the charges are improbable and would amount to abuse of process of law, this Criminal Original Petition has been filed, seeking to quash the above said charges on various grounds as set out in the grounds of the Petition.In so far as the Petitioner/A5 is concerned, the averments, in brief, as set out in Cr.OP.No.22122 of 2018, are as follows:-a. Based on a source of information, the Respondent Police had conducted a preliminary enquiry in Case No.The case was taken on file in CC.No.12 of 2017, by the learned Special Judge No.XIV for CBI Cases, Chennai.b. The Trial Court, by its order dated 13.04.2018, finding that there were no legal material evidences to frame any charge, had discharged the Petitioner.However, in the revision petitions in Crl.RC.No.671, 681 to 684 of 2018 filed by the Prosecution, this Court, by order dated, 25.07.2018, without hearing the Petitioner/A5 and the other accused on the merits of the case, had allowed the said criminal revision petitions, violating the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Cr.PC.After dismissal of the SLP.Nos.6753-6756 of 2018 preferred by the accused as against the said order dated 25.07.2018,http://www.judis.nic.in 12 by order dated 17.08.2018 of the Honourable Supreme Court, the following charges came to be framed as against the Petitioner/A5:-Charges Section First Charge 120(B) r/w 409 of IPC, 467 r/w 471 of IPC, 477A of IPC r/w 109 of IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Second 409 r/w 109 of IPC Charge Third Charge 467 r/w 471 of IPC Fourth 477A r/w 109 of IPC Charge Fifth Charge 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 b. Despite the non-availability of any legal materials on record to frame charge against the Petitioner/A5, the Trial Court, in a mechanical manner, without considering the same, had framed the present charges.The allegations made in the final report, 161 statements and the documents filed do not constitute any offence as against the Petitioner/A5 and even if the said documents are taken as true, there is not even an iota of legal evidence to constitute an offence as against him and no prima facie case is made out as against him.Since the present charges are inconsistent with the case of the Prosecution, this Criminal Original Petition has been filed, seeking to quash the above said charges on various ground as set out in the grounds of the Petition.In so far as the Petitioner/A6 is concerned, the averments, in brief, as set out in Cr.OP.No.22123 of 2018, are as follows:-a. Based on a source of information, the Respondent Police hadhttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 conducted a preliminary enquiry in Case No.The case was taken on file in CC.No.12 of 2017, by the learned Special Judge No.XIV for CBI Cases, Chennai.However, in the revision petitions in Crl.RC.No.671, 681 to 684 of 2018 filed by the Prosecution, this Court, by order dated, 25.07.2018, without hearing the Petitioner/A6 and the other accused on the merits of the case, had allowed the said criminal revision petitions, violating the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Cr.PC.After dismissal of the SLP.Nos.6753-6756 of 2018 preferred by the accused as against the said order dated 25.07.2018, by order dated 17.08.2018 of the Honourable Supreme Court, the following charges came to be framed as against the Petitioner/A5:-Charges Section First Charge 120(B) r/w 409 of IPC, 467 r/w 471 of IPC, 477A of IPC r/w 109 of IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Second 409 r/w 109 of IPC Charge Third Charge 467 r/w 471 of IPChttp://www.judis.nic.in 14 Charges Section Fourth 477A r/w 109 of IPC Charge Fifth Charge 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 b. Despite the non-availability of any legal materials on record to frame charge against the Petitioner/A6, the Trial Court, in a mechanical manner, without considering the same, had framed the present charges.The allegations made in the final report, 161 statements and the documents filed do not constitute any offence as against the Petitioner/A6 and even if the said documents are taken as true, there is not even an iota of legal evidence to constitute an offence as against him and no prima facie case is made out as against him.Since the present charges are inconsistent with the case of the Prosecution, this Criminal Original Petition has been filed, seeking to quash the above said charges on various grounds as set out in the grounds of the Petition.In so far as the Petitioner/A3 is concerned, the averments, in brief, as set out in Cr.OP.No.22124 of 2018, are as follows:-a. Based on a source of information, the Respondent Police had conducted a preliminary enquiry in Case No.The case was taken on file in CC.No.12 of 2017, by the learned Special Judge No.XIV for CBI Cases, Chennai.However, in the revision petitions in Crl.RC.No.671, 681 to 684 of 2018 filed by the Prosecution, this Court, by order dated, 25.07.2018, without hearing the Petitioner/A3 and the other accused on the merits of the case, had allowed the said criminal revision petitions, violating the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Cr.PC.After dismissal of the SLP.Nos.6753-6756 of 2018 preferred by the accused as against the said order dated 25.07.2018, by order dated 17.08.2018 of the Honourable Supreme Court, the following charges came to be framed as against the Petitioner/A5:-Charges Section First Charge 120(B) r/w 409 of IPC, 467 r/w 471 of IPC, 477A of IPC r/w 109 of IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Second 409 r/w 109 of IPC Charge Third Charge 467 r/w 471 of IPC Fourth 477A r/w 109 of IPC Charge Fifth Charge 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 c. The Trial Court had violated the mandate of the law in framing the present charges, without material particulars.Hence, this Criminal Originalhttp://www.judis.nic.in 16 Petition has been filed, seeking to quash the above said charges on various grounds as set out in the grounds of the Petition.In so far as the Petitioner/A4 is concerned, the averments, in a nutshell, as set out in Cr.OP.No.22125 of 2018, are as follows:-a. Based on a source of information, the Respondent Police had conducted a preliminary enquiry in Case No.The case was taken on file in CC.No.12 of 2017, by the learned Special Judge No.XIV for CBI Cases, Chennai.However, in the revision petitions in Crl.RC.No.671, 681 to 684 of 2018 filed by the Prosecution, this Court, by order dated, 25.07.2018, without hearing the Petitioner/A3 and the other accused on the merits of the case, had allowed the said criminal revision petitions, violating the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Cr.PC.After dismissal of the SLP.Nos.6753-6756 of 2018 preferred by the accused as against the said order dated 25.07.2018, by order dated 17.08.2018 of the Honourable Supreme Court, the following charges came to be framed as against the Petitioner/A5:-Since the charges are vague and not distinct in order to facilitate him to answer them, which would cause great prejudice to him, this Criminal Original Petition has been filed, seeking to quash the above said charges on various grounds as set out in the grounds of the Petition.On the side of the Prosecution, separate counter affidavits have been filed in all these Criminal Original Petitions, stating the backgrounds and merits of the case and also replying to the grounds raised in these Criminal Original Petitions and also denying the averments made in these Criminal Original Petitions as wrong.Therefore, the Petition filed before this Court, regarding the defects in the charges has to be brought to the knowledge of the Trial Court.d. The Trial Court had, after applying its judicious mind and analysing the statements of the witnesses and the documents, framed thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 19 impugned charges.The Petitioner/A7 was very much integral part of the criminal conspiracy, pursuant to which, he got purchased the telephone exchanges with necessary equipments to utilize the high end telecom facilities, illegally obtained by A3 and got them installed at the residences of A3, the then Minister of Communication and Information and Technology, at Delhi and Chennai and therefore, the charge framed under Section 120(B) of IPC read with other offences is proper.e. Since it was the Petitioner/A7 who had abetted A3 and the other accused to illegally transfer the high end telephone connections for the use and benefit of SUN TV, in which he was the Chairman and Managing Director, the charge framed under Section 409 of IPC read with Section 109 of IPC is also in order.Similarly, the charges framed under Sections 467 read with 471 of IPC are also sustainable, since in that case also, there was proper application of judicious mind and consideration of legal materials.The charges framed against the Petitioner/A7 under Sections 477A of IPC read with 109 of IPC for abetting A1 to A4 are also based on application of judicious mind and careful consideration of materials available on record.f. As the Petitioner/A7 had utilised the telephone services illegally for SUN TV and was the ultimate beneficiary, the charge was rightly framed for abetting A1 to A4 to cause the wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.1,78,71,391 to the Government Exchequer.This Criminal Original Petition has been filed in order to protract the proceedings.On the basis of sufficient oral evidence to the effect that the Petitioner/A5, who was working as the Electrician, remained at Chennai residence of A3 and used to maintain the telephone connections, it was found that he had full knowledge of the connections illegally provided by the BSNL, Chennai Telephones, at the residence of A3 and its connectivity with the SUN TV.By such acts, namely, providing all technical supports and facilities and leased line and broad bond connections, provided by BSNL and MTNL for illegal use of the facilities, the role of A5 was very clear for implicating him with the charges.c. Since it was the Petitioner/A5 who had abetted A3 and the other accused to illegally transfer the high end telephone connections for the use and benefit of SUN TV, in which he was an employee, the charge framed underhttp://www.judis.nic.in 21 Section 409 of IPC read with Section 109 of IPC is also in order.Similarly, the charges framed under Sections 467 read with 471 of IPC are also sustainable, since in that case also, there was proper application of judicious mind and consideration of legal materials.The charges framed against the Petitioner/A5 under Sections 477A of IPC read with 109 of IPC for abetting A1 to A4 are also based on application of judicious mind and careful consideration of materials available on record.e. The charges framed under Section 409 of IPC is also proper, since during the relevant period, A3 was the Minister and thereby, he had dominion over BSNL, which was a Department under the control of Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, in which he was the Minister and A1 and A2 were holding the post of Chief General Manager and had exclusive control over the high end telephone connections, which they illegally passed on to the Petitioner/A3, who illegally got extended such facilities to SUN TV.e. With respect to fourth charge regarding falsification of accounts so as to obtain undue advantage, the documents relied on by the Prosecution does not specify that the Petitioner/A6 had aided other accused persons in creation of alleged accounts documents for falsification of accounts.The fifth charge was also framed merely on assumptions and without any any materials.If the charges framed against the Petitioner/A6 are not set aside, he would be put to grave prejudice, as they are illegal, improper and incorrect.Further, consideration, examination and hearing referred in Section 240 of Cr.PC refer to the consideration of materials, examination and hearing the accused at the stage of Section 239 of Cr.PC.He would further submit that all the accused were heard at the stage of proceedings under Section 239 of Cr.Pc and the Trial Court had also considered the evidence and materials on record and had formed an opinion.It is pertinent to note that over the years and by march of law, the law concerning the framing of charges and the standard which Courts must apply while, framing charges is well settled that a Court, while framing charges under Sections 227, 228, 239 and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should only apply the prima facie standard.Based on those records they were able to file discharge petition and also succeed.So they have preferred the above Revision Petitions.In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions seeking to quash the charges are dismissed, however, with the following directions:-i. The charges against the accused in C.C.No.12 of 2017 by the learned XIV Additional Judge, CBI Cases, Chennai being improperly framed, the matter is remanded/remitted back to the Trial Court for consideration and for framing charges afresh.The Trial Court is directed to carefully look into all the materials and frame proper and necessary charges, in respect of the each and every accused/A1 to A7, in accordance with the procedures, as contemplated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly, Chapter XVII of Cr.PC, based on the materials available.http://www.judis.nic.in 78 iii.If necessary, the Prosecution can assist the Trial Court, by filing draft charges.All the connected Crl.No costs.09.11.2018 Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking Srcm To:Deputy Superintendent of Police, SPE CBI, STF, New DelhiThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, MadrasXIV Additional Judge, CBI Cases, Chennaihttp://www.judis.nic.in 79 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.OP.Nos.22121 to 22125 of 2018 09.11.2018http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The matter has already been settled between the parties and payment of agreed amount has already been made.M.C. No.4327/2015 Page 1 of 8By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.69/2012 registered at Police Station Nabi Karim, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against them.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, namely, Ms.Shabnam, consequent upon certain matrimonial and domestic disputes having arisen between the parties.The petitioner No.1/husband of respondent No.2 had already filed Crl M C No.5311/2014 which was Crl.M.C. No.4327/2015 Page 1 of 8 allowed vide order dated 21.11.2014 qua him only.Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties and the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution because of which, its chances of success in the matter are now greatly diminished.Therefore, in view of the law discussed above, in the facts and circumstances as noted above, I am of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.Consequently, FIR No.69/2012 registered at Police Station Nabi Karim, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/ 406/34 of Crl.M.C. No.4327/2015 Page 7 of 8 the IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.M.C. No.4327/2015 Page 7 of 8M.C. No.4327/2015 Page 8 of 8M.C. No.4327/2015 Page 8 of 8

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 58 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120B IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Amanpur, District Kasganj is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.As per high school certificate her date of birth is 21.08.2001 and on the date of incident she is aged about approximately 18 years.She in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has completely exonerated the applicant from attempting any sexual assault upon her.She is married has married to Pawan of District Hathras and she want to remain in the company of her husband Pawan.She further stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that her father has implicated the applicant without any rhyme or reason.He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 09.05.2018 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and taking into account that no over act has been attributed to the applicant, hence I find it to be a fit case for bail.In view of the above, let the applicant- Devendra Kumar be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 58 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120B IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Amanpur, District Kasganj with the following conditions:-(i) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY 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/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL.IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE , WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANTS FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

CRM No. 7017 of 2015 In the matter of an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 28.07.2015 in connection with Mogra P.S. Case No. 261/2015 dated 15.07.2015 under Sections 498A/406/354A IPC.And In Re : Tapas Kumar Pal @ Paul & Ors.The petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Mogra P.S. Case No. 261/2015 dated 15.07.2015 under Sections 498A/406/354A IPC, have approached this court for anticipatory bail.The petitioner no. 1 is the husband and the rest are his relations.He, therefore, offered to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month for the wife 2 without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner no. 1/husband.It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner no. 1 that the maintenance for this month shall be sent to the de facto complainant/wife within a week from this date and thereafter by the 7th of each succeeding month.On the face of such submission, the learned Counsel for the State submits that although he is not conceding with his claim that the allegations are false but when the petitioner no. 1 has come out with an order to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month for the wife, he is not standing on the way.Having regard to above development and considering the undertaking given by the petitioner no. 1 in the form of affidavit to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as consolidated amount of maintenance for the wife, in our opinion, in this case no useful purpose will be served by taking him into custody as also his other relations who are before us and on the other hand, the justice will be sub- served if the application for anticipatory bail is allowed on the undertaking given on their behalf.In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer upon 3 furnishing a Bond of Rs. 5,000/- each on condition that after release, the petitioners shall surrender before the regular court within two weeks thereafter.Let a photostat plain copy of this order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be given to the learned Advocate for the State upon the usual undertaking.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Md. Mumtaz Khan, J.)

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

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

The post mortem report is appended at Annexure no.7 which shows that the injured/deceased was admitted in hospital on 19.09.2019 at 5:54 am and expired on 03.10.2019 at 7:20 p.m. The cause of death of deceased is ante mortem head injuries.In fact, no such incident has ever taken place as mentioned in the first information report and the F.I.R. was lodged on 27.09.2019 at 13:27 hours while the accused-applicant was admitted in hospital on 18.09.2019 at 7:35 p.m. The record of the hospital i.e., the admission chart of patient at Serial No.486 is appended at Annexure no.4 to the affidavit.Heard ShriAshok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.This is the first bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant for releasing him on bail in Case Crime No.499 of 2019, under Sections-304, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Ram Nagar, District- Barabanki, during the pendency of trial.As per the first information report, the incident is shown to be occurred on 27.09.2019 at 13:27 hours, registered as Case Crime No.499 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station-Ram Nagar, District- Barabanki, in which it is alleged that the applicants assaulted the son of the informant with the help of lathi and danda due to previous enmity.Subsequently, the son of the informant was died on 03.10.2019 in the hospital.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

C.R.M.10850 of 2018 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 30/11/2018 in connection with Alipurduar Women P.S. Case No.67 of 2018 gd dated 25/10/2018 under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Rahul Ray @ Rahul Roy & Ors.....petitioners.Mr. Arijit Ghosh ...for the petitioners.Mr. Antarikhya Basu ...for the State.The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Alipurduar Women P.S. Case No.67 of 2018 dated 25/10/2018 under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code.The State produces the case diary and says that the complaint is that the first petitioner managed to drug the 45-year old victim before molesting her.The State refers to a medical report, which is, however, inconclusive.Considering that the allegation is that the victim had been drugged before she was sexually assaulted, much need not be read into the medical report.The case records, however, do not indicate anything against the second and third petitioners and the charge is against the first petitioner of having raped the victim.The general allegation of the petitioners is that a loan was given by the first petitioner to the husband of the victim and, on being unable to repay the same, a false complaint has been lodged some ten days after the incident.Since there is no material against the second and third petitioners, they are entitled to anticipatory bail.However, considering the nature of the charge and the fact that there may not be any immediate evidence of any loan having been granted to the husband of the complainant, the first petitioner's custodial interrogation cannot be excused at this stage.In addition, the second and third 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 partly 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.) (Suvra Ghosh, J.)

['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

drl Crl.O.P.No.30370 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16440 & 16443 of 2019 28.02.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6This petition has been filed by the accused No.1 to call for the records of the CC.No.8028 of 2017 on the file of the learned IIhttp://www.judis.nic.in 1/6 Crl.O.P.No.30370 of 2019 Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore at Chennai and quash the same.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an FIR was registered in Cr.No.414/2017 against the petitioner herein under Sections 143, 341 and 188 of IPC.He further submitted that the complainant himself has proceeded to investigate the matter and filed the final report.O.P.No.30370 of 2019The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded that the Officer, who lodged the complaint against the petitioner has himself investigated the matter and filed the final report.(a) (i) if any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 to 1860), or(ii) of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, orO.P.No.30370 of 2019From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that no Court shall take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.In this case, no such complaint has been filed in respect of the offence under Section 188 IPC, but on the contrary, the respondent has filed a final report and based on the same, the Magistrate has taken the case on file.Since taking cognizance of the case in respect of the offence under Section 188 IPC is not in accordance with the provision of Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C., the other offences under Sections 143 and 341 IPC are being ancillary offences, the entire final report is liable to be quashed.Apart from that it appears that the officer, who lodged the complaint has himself investigated the matter and filed a final report.On that ground, the investigation is vitiated and the said charge sheet is also liable to be quashed.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 Crl.O.P.No.30370 of 2019In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.The proceedings against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.8028 of 2017 alone quashed.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.28.02.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No drl To2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 Crl.O.P.No.30370 of 2019 P.RAJAMANICKAM, J.

['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Murder of Bhanvarlal could not be attributed to the appellants while they are found guilty for committing dacoity with murder of Premsingh.The prosecution case is that in the intervening night of 26-27 April 2004, deceased Premsingh was sleeping with his wife and children outside his house situated in Village Peer Jhalar.At about 1:00 A.M., 8-10 miscreants assaulted them.They broke down the lights and started beating them by lathis (bamboo sticks).Premsingh sustained injuries on the head, his wife Leelabai sustained injuries on the head and hand, Gokul on the neck and Sunitabai on the hand.After beating them, the miscreants looted their jewelry (ornaments of silver and gold) (Chandi ke Aavla, Kan a Sulle, Bichhudi, Mangalsutra & Bichhiya) and cash.After loot, they tied their hands and legs and locked them in a room and fled away.In the morning, at about 6:00 A.M., Sunitabai could get herself free; she came out the house through window and informed about the incident to Harisingh.He with Ramsingh and few other persons reached their house and found that Premsingh died due to injuries sustained by him and other persons were severely injured.There, they also came to know that after looting the house of Premsingh, the miscreants invaded house of Bhanwarlal also and beat him to death.Ramsingh reported the matter to the Police Station Badnagar.Later, the accused persons were arrested by Police Narwar in connection with some other crime.During interrogation of that crime, the appellants/accused admitted commission of this crime also and revealed information regarding the stolen property of this crime.On the basis of their information, the police recovered stolen property from their possession.(Delivered on 21/09/2017) Per: Virender Singh, J.Both the criminal appeals have arisen out of two separate judgments passed in same Sessions Trial No. 12/2005 and involve the same issue and are filed by different appellants for the same relief, therefore, they are heard together and are being decided with this common order.They were put for identification.The articles were also being identified from the complainant.After completing other investigations, like preparation of spot map, sending dead bodies for post-mortem, seizure of clothes etc, the police submitted the charge- sheet before the Court.The accused were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 395 read with Section 397 and Section 396 (two counts) of IPC.They denied commission of the offence and pleaded innocence.They did not produce any evidence in their defence.The charge-sheet was filed against 8 accused persons.After the trial, the learned trial Court found that involvement of the accused Ganesh @ Galianath S/o Naharnath and Sakunath S/o Heeranath could not be proved, therefore, acquitted them from all the charges under Sections 395 R/w 397 and Section 396 (two counts) of IPC.The learned trial Court further did not find the charge of causing death of Bhanwarlal proved during the course of dacoity and acquitted all the accused from the charge of Section 396 of IPC as it was related to the death of Bhanwarlal, but the charge of dacoity and causing death of Premsingh during the course of dacoity under Section 396 of IPC, was found proved against all remaining six appellants/accused and they were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 395/397 for 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs.5,000/- and for the offence punishable under Section 396 of IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-.Case of the accused Dharmendra was first sent to the Juvenile Board.After the inquiry, the Juvenile Board, found him major; therefore, his case was remitted back for regular trial.Hence, he was tried separately and a separate judgment was passed in his regard.The prosecution witnesses Sunitabai (PW-1), Leelabai (PW-2) and Gokul (PW-7) could not identify the accused/appellants at the test identification parade.They could not identify them even in the Court, but the learned trial Court has convicted them ignoring this material fact.Both independent witnesses of seizure have not supported the case of the prosecution.There are serious discrepancies in the specification of the stolen property and the property recovered from the possession of the accused persons.The complainant has reported that Chandi ka Aavla was of half Kilogram weight while the recovered Chandi ka Aavla is only 150g.m.of weight.Similarly, Mangalsutra was of 8-10 beads, while recovered Mangalsutra has only 3-4 beads.The Trial Court has wrongly held that at the time of incident, the accused persons were wielding lethal or dangerous weapons while all the witnesses have stated that the assailants were carrying bamboo sticks at that time.Ignoring all these facts, the learned trial Court has held the appellants guilty which is against the settled principles of law, therefore, they are entitled for acquittal.The learned public prosecutor has supported the judgment and prayed for dismissal of both the appeals.We have considered rival contentions of the parties.They sustained injuries.They looted their jewelry, ornaments of silver and gold (Chandi ke Aavla, Kan a Sulle, Bichudi, Mangalsutra & Bichiya) and cash, tied their hands and leg, threw them into the house and fled away.Somehow, Sunita got herself free and informed Harisingh, who, came with some other persons of the village, freed them and took them to the hospital.Ramsingh reported the matter to the police, the police registered FIR (Ex.P-2), prepared spot map (Ex.P-3), seized packet of cigarette, blood stained soil etc. from the spot, sent body of the Premsingh and Banwarlal for post-mortem.It was found in the post mortem that the death of Premsingh and Bhanwarlal was homicidal.All these facts have not been challenged by the accused persons; therefore, they do not require detailed discussion.Thus, the learned trial Court has rightly held proved that at the date, time and place of the incident, some miscreants attacked Premsingh and his family, caused them injuries and vital injuries to the Premsingh and Bhanwarlal, who succumbed to the injuries and their death were homicidal.They also looted the articles; jewelry, cash etc from the victims family.All the prosecution witnesses have stated that they could not identify the miscreants who assaulted them as they had broken down the lights of the house and they attacked them when they were sleeping.They did not depose before the Court also about their identification.As per the identification memo (EX.P-12) only Leelabai (PW-2) could identify only 3 accused persons namely Padamnath, Bahanwarnath and Sakunath and could not identify Suraj, Dharmendra, Guddunath, Sundernath, Garia and Pappunath, but she has admitted that prior to their identification in jail, they were shown to her at the police station.It is further stated by this witness that the accused persons took him to their houses and there they dug out the floor and took out the ornaments and handed them over to him.The statement of this witness could not be impeached even after cross- examination and it is supported by the memorandums prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence Act Ex.P-25 to 32 and memorandums of seizure Ex.His testimony does not suffer from any infirmity.Nothing contrary is available on record to disbelieve the statements of this witness which is otherwise fully supported by the documents prepared during investigation.The main contention of the appellants is that out of two independent witnesses of discovery and seizure, the prosecution did not examine Ansaar and second witness Devisingh has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution.

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

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

for a period of 3 years for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.(2) In order to appreciate th(r) arguments raised by the appellants, it is necessary to keep in mind the prosecution version of the incident.Few days prior to the present occurrence, a quarrel had taken place between Padam Singh (deceased) and the accused persons.With the intervention of the father and brother of Padam Singh, the dispute was amicably settled.15 P.M. as the story goes, when Padam Singh was passing through Gali No. 4, Than Singh Nagar, and was near the back portion of house of S.Gurbax Singh.the three accused caught hold of him, saying that earlier he was saved by his father and brother, but today, they would not leave him.At that time, Babu Ram, the father of Padam Singh, was 15 to 16 paces behind his son.He was the accused 0m Parkash catching hold of Padam Singh from behind while the other two accused took out daggers and started inflicting injuries on the front and back of his son.Padam Singh, on receipt of several injuries fell down on the ground.On seeing this, Babu Ram raised alarm, on bearing of which Pearey Lal, who was standing nearby, with the help of another by stander, Sua Lal, chased Thakur Singh and caught bold of him at some distance.Babu Ram, succeeded in apprehending Lala Ram whereas Prabhu Dayal caught hold of 0m Parkash at the place of occurrence itself.This dagger was alleged to have been thrown in a nearby drain by accused Thakur Singh.1st sketch Ex. PW4/A was prepared and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW4/A. Similarly, after preparing the sketch of the handle of the knife, which handle was found at the spot, it was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW4/C. The blood-stained clothes of the accused persons were also taken into possession The scene of occurrence was got photographed.Along with the body, the weapons of offence Were forwarded to the post-mortem doctor for his opinion All the accused were arrested.The case property was sent to the Director, C F.S.L. for his reports, where from the report Ex PW15/C was received.The formalities of the registration of the case were completed by 5.30 P.M. The other incriminating articles were separately sealed and taken possession of within an hour or so Even though according to the Investigating Officer he made enquiries from the residents of the area, but did not record the statement of any other witness except the alleged eye-witnesses.The last formality for preparing the Inquest Report was complete by 7.30 P.M. yet he remained at the spot from 435 P.M to 1 AM.in the night.JUDGMENT M.K. Chawla, J.(1) By this Judgment, we propose to dispose of two connected criminal appeals bearing No. 116/84 filed by Lala Ram and 0m Parkash, and criminal appeal No. 131/84, filed by Thakur Singh.These appeals arise out of the order of Shri T.S. Oberoi, Addl.After a few minutes, a police party headed by S.I. Dharam Pal reached there.All the three accused were produced before the Police.(3) SUB-INSPECtor Dharam Pal recorded the statement (Ex.PW-3/A) of Shri Babu Lal underneath which he made his endorsement (Ex PW-8/A) and sent the 'ruqa' to the Police Station for the registration of the case.PW-8, A.SI.Jaipal Singh, Duty Officer, on the receipt of the report recorded to Dharam Pal the formal F.I.R. Ex. PW8/B and sent the copy of the same for investigation.He also sent the special reports to higher authorities and the Ilaqa Magistrate for information.(4) The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan (Ex. PW15/A) and took into possession blood, bloodstained earth from near the dead body and converted them into separate sealed parcels.Pearey Lal produced one 'Khanjar' (dagger) which had a broken tip.After completion of the investigation, the challan was filed in Court.(5) The promotion in all examined 15 witnesses to prove their case whereas accused produced Shri R.K. Yadav, the then Metropolitan Magistrate to whom the special report was sent and a Head Constable from Police Station Patel Nagar, to produce the correct copies of the D.D. Reports concerning this case.The learned Addl.The first and foremost submission is that the First Information Report in this case has not been recorded at the earliest available opportunity as disclosed by the witnesses.According to the prosecution, the incident took place at 4.15 P.M. According to S.I. Dharam Pal, he Along with his staff reached Gali No. 4, the place of incident at435PM He recorded the statement of Babu Lal and dispatched the writing to she Police Station at 5.00 P.M. The copy of the formal F.I.R. Ex. PW8/B is timed as 5.35 P.M: Immediately thereafter, it is alleged, the special report was dispatched to the higher authorities through PW-11, Constable Abdul Jabar.within two or three minutes of their arrival.It comes to that the weapons of offence were with the Police even before the statement of Babu Lal Ex. PW3/A was recorded.The accused persons were also in the custody of the Police.Rather this fact is mentioned in the statement Ex. PW3/A of Babu Lal.Unfortunately, these very significant events do not find mention in the substance of the information Ex. PW16/A which has been recorded in Rojnamcha maintained at the Police Station Patel Nagar.through constable Ram Phal No. 569/C. On the basis of ruqa, a case Fir No. 110 under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code .was prepared."(11) The next precaution which the prosecution was expected to comply with, was the sending of the special reports to the different higher police officers as well as Ilaqa Metropolitan Magistrate.Even this safeguard has not been taken.P.M. At about the same time, he left the Police Station According to him he delivered the copy of the special report to the wife of the Metropolitan Magistrate at his residence, at about 6.40 P.M. and came back to the Police Station at about 8 or 8.30 P.M. The report was not delivered as tried to be made out by the Prosecution.In fact, .according to him, Abdul Zabar is shown to have come back to the Police Station at 7.35 P.M. in connection with the checking of the crime as per Dd No. 72-B. near Vivek Cinema.(12) It is also the case of the prosecution that special reports are sent to the Ilaqa Magistrate in a sealed envelope.Ex. PW11/DA is the said envelope which admittedly was written in the hand of PW8 Jai Pal Singh.This witness further admits that as and when the special report is delivered to the Metropolitan Magistrate, he (the Magistrate) is obliged to give the time and date of receipt under his signature.Envelope Ex. Pwi I/DA bears the signature of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, but with a different date and time.The defense took precautions to examine Shri R.K.. Yadav, the then Metropolitan Magistrate holding charge of Police Station Patel Nagar.As per the endorsement encircled red at point "A", this Fir was received by me on 20.2-82 at 10 A.M. in my court.In case any copy of the Fir as special report is received by me or delivered at my residence, an endorsement to that effect is invariably given by me."This witness has not been cross-examined, which conclusively proves that the copy of the special report was not delivered to him as tried to be made out by the prosecution Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as well as of 1973, require the First Information Report to be sent "forthwith" to the Magistrate competent to take cognizance of the offence.No explanation is offered for this extraordinary delay in sending the report to the Magistrate.In a judgment reported as Ishwar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh the Supreme Court has adversely commented upon the delay in sending the special reports in these words : "THE extraordinary delay in sending the F.I.R. as a circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting that the First Information Report was recorded much later than the stated date and are affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence".This long delay in sending the report throws a reasonable doubt in our mind about the genuineness of the time and the date of recording of the first information report The testimony of Public Witness Constable Abdul Zabar does not inspire confidence and is to be rejected.(13) There is yet another circumstance which goes to the root of the matter and for which there is no worthwhile explanation from the side of the prosecution, ft is the prosecution case that immediately after the occurrence, not only the accused were apprehended but also the weapons of offence were taken into possession.Even this formality was not complied with, at the earliest.The 10. tried to explain the delay by deposing that he had requisitioned the truck for removing the dead body but it reached quite late.This explanation to our mind is devoid of any substance as there is no corroboration from any quarter, particularly, when he failed to name the Police Officer through whom the truck was requisitioned or the reasons for its delayed delivery.If all of them had been arrested immediately after the incident and their search as well as clothes had been taken possession of, there was no necessity of keeping them for such a long time at the spot.According to the prosecution version, accused Om Parkash secured the deceased in his grip (koli bhar lee) from behind.Accused Thakur Singh was in front of Padam Singh while accused Lala Ram was at his back.Both the accused gave several dagger blows on the chest and back of Padam Singh.The deceased fell down only after 0m Parkash loosened his grip.The blade of one of the daggers was found stuck in the middle of the lower part of the back.(16) Dr. Bharat Singh while conducting post-mortem on the body of Padam Singh besides other injuries noticed injury no. 8 as "an incised wound on the lumber area placed on the spine horizontally through which a broken knife was visible at the surface of the wound which was 1 X 1" x ?.The wound was spindle shape.Knife could be taken out with difficulty, its size and shape shown in the diagram."(17) According to the opinion of the doctor, injuries nos. 2,3,5, and 8 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature separately.The position of injury No. 8 is such that it was not possible for Lala Ram to have given this blow.According to Babu Ram, when Om Parkash caught hold of his son Padam Singh, the position was as under : "THE hands of my son were above the grip of Om Parkash who was clinching my son into his grip from his back having his arms around the body of my son."Padam Singh fell on the ground as soon as Om Parkash released his grip, so says, PW-7 Sua Lal.He confirms this fact in his cross-examination by admitting that accused Om Parkash continued to hold Padam Singh in his grip so long as Padam Singh was inflicting knife injuries Even though the case of PW-6 Prabhu Dayal in court is that Om Parkash caught hold of Padam Singh from his waist but it is not so in his statement u/s 16l Cr.P.C. It is the common case of the parties that Om Parkash did not receive any injury during this incident.The position of injury No. 8 is such is that it could not have been caused if Om Parkash had caught hold of the deceased from his back.No injury was inflicted on the deceased after he fell on the group.This is also a circumstance which throws doubt on the correctness of the prosecution version.(18) To start with Babu Lal was hesitant to admit acquaintance or his association with any of the other three eye-witnesses but while under cross-examination, he had no option but to admit the following facts :(19) Pearey Lal resides in gali No. 11 and he is the brother-in-law of Sua Lal who lives in Gali No. 12, Prabhu Dayal is a resident of the same area and is known to the remaining eye-witnesses form before.All these persons have been appearing as witnesses and supporting each other in numerous criminal cases.On the morning of the date of the occurrence, they had attended the court of Shri R. K.Yadav, at Tis Hazari in connection with a case of rioting Babu Ram had also appeared as a Pw Along with Pearey Lal, and Sua Lal in a case lodged by Pearey Lal, under Section 324 Indian Penal Code .He Along with Prabhu Dayal was also a witness for Pearey Lal in a case under sections 448/380 I P.C. Yet another case, under Section 325 1.P.C., got registered by the mother of Pearey Lal, Prabhu Dayal was cited as a prosecution witness.From the above admissions and the surrounding circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that each of the eye-witnesses was not only known to the others from before but they were the birds of the same feather, inasmuch as they were either appearing as witness or were facing charges together in numerous criminal cases.The possibility of their having joined hands in deposing against the accused persons cannot thus be ruled out.(20) This finding finds corroboration from another angle.According to Pearey Lal, at the time of the occurrence, about 40 to 50 persons were present near the water tank from where he Along with Sua Lal witnessed the occurrence.He stated that when be produced the dagger before the police, a large number of persons were present at the roof tops of the houses and also in the street.Similarly, Prabhu Dayal admitted that the lane no. 3, where, the incident took place, was full of persons of the nearby houses at the time of the incident.immediately on reaching the place of occurrence interrogated a number of persons but did not record the statement of any of them.He only preferred to record the statement of the alleged eye-witnesses.It cannot be, that except for these witnesses, no other person of the lane.had witnessed the actual stabbing.It is a strange coincidence that the incident was seen by Pearey Lal and Sua Lal from the right corner of the gali No. 3 whereas Prabhu Dayal happened to be present on the other corner of the Gali at that very time.It is not satisfactorily explained why no effect was not made to join the persons from the lane who happened to be present there and had seen the occurrence.Even no attempt was made to join any other witness at the time of taking of possession of the articles from the place of occurrence.All the memos are attested by Babu Ram and Prabhu Dayal.For these reasons, a grave doubt is created in our mind that an honest investigation was not carried out, in so far as naming the eye-witnesses whose presence at the place of occurrence is very much doubtful and in not joining the witnesses of the locality who admittedly were present and must have seen the actual incident.To our utter surprise, learned counsel for the Stale after making enquiries was constrained to admit that the case property has since been destroyed by the Police.This has a far-reaching effect not only on the fate of the appeal but also on the deplorable working of the prosecution agency.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 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 informant Shamla Ailwar (P.W.1) is the mother of deceased Nagesh.According to the prosecution case, on 6/9/2014 her son Nagesh went out of the house at 6:00 p.m. after taking meals and returned to the house at about 9:00 p.m. Due to the rain, his clothes were wet and therefore, he changed his clothes.He received telephonic call from someone and therefore he again left the house at about 9:30 p.m. Thereafter, he never returned to the house.On 7/9/2014 one Tiwari Seth resident of said area came to her house and said that her son is lying in dilapidated house and he is murdered.The informant thereafter along with her husband and younger::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 ::: apeal 239.16.odt 3 sons Shiva and Ganesh went towards the spot where her son was lying.They saw that there were injuries on the neck and head of the deceased.Thereafter the informant lodged report in the police station.During the course of investigation, police prepared the spot panchanama and seized blood stained glass pieces, a beer bottle and two bottles.The police also drawn inquest panchanam of the dead body and sent it for post-mortem at rural hospital, Ballarshah.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 :::During the course of investigation, police recorded statements of the witnesses.In the investigation, it is transpired that the deceased was last seen with the accused persons and therefore, the accused were arrested in the crime.The accused while in police custody made a disclosure statement and at their instance police seized axe and blood stained clothes from their house.The police also took blood sample of the accused and prepared seizure panchanama.The police also seized blood stained clothes of deceased under panchanama.The seized weapon was sent for opinion of the Doctor and obtained query report.(Incise wound present on neck) 7 CM away from Cheek.Deep structure skin subcutaneous tissue, platysma muscle, sterno cleido mastoid muscle on both side cut completely.Margins were smooth.The inquest panchanama (Exh.24) is on record proved by P.W.2DATE : 22.11.2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : ARUN D. UPADHYE, J.)1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24/6/2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.155/2015 the appellants/accused have preferred this appeal.The appellant nos.1 to 3 were convicted by the impugned::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 ::: apeal 239.16.odt 2 judgment and order dated 24/6/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.They were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of Indian penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine they shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.The substantive sentences shall run concurrently.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 :::The police sent the seized Muddemal to the office of Chemical Analyzer for analysis and obtained the Chemical Analyzer's reports.After completion of necessary investigation police filed the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate who in turn committed the case to the Court of Session,::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 ::: apeal 239.16.odt 4 Chandrapur for trial as offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Session.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 :::The accused persons appeared in the proceedings before the Sessions Court.The learned Additional Sessions Court has framed charge vide Exh.10 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and explained the contents of the charge in vernacular.The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.After recording the evidence in the matter and after hearing both the sides the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur passed the impugned judgment and order dated 24/6/2016 and convicted the accused for the offences aforesaid and sentenced them as above.Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order the appellants/accused have preferred the present appeal amongst other grounds mentioned in the appeal memo.We have heard both sides at length.Shri Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the case is rest upon circumstantial evidence, i.e., last seen theory and seizure of clothes of the accused persons on which blood group "B" was found.He submitted that P.W.5 - Ganesh who is younger brother of the deceased has deposed that the accused were last seen with the deceased, however, in the cross- examination, the material omission of last seen is brought on record.He::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 ::: apeal 239.16.odt 5 has also not disclosed the said fact to his mother, who lodged the report in the police station.Statement of this witness was recorded after three days of the incident.P.W.1- Shamla has also not mentioned in the F.I.R. about last seen.There is no other evidence on record to show that the deceased was seen with accused persons.The learned Sessions Judge has wrongly held that the circumstance is proved.He further submitted that so far as memorandum and seizure panchanama (Exh.29 to 35) are concerned, the panch witness P.W.3 - Dipak has not supported the prosecution and turned hostile.P.W.6 - Maroti, the another panch though supported but did not depose that the accused gave statement of disclosure.The evidence of Investigating Officer P.W.10 - Rewchand Singanjude is also not convincing on this point.The theory of seizure on disclosure of the accused persons is not proved.There is no evidence on record that during that period the seized property was intact.The prosecution has not examined Malkhana person as well as carrier who carried the property to the Chemical Analyzer.He, therefore, submitted that the circumstance shown against the accused cannot be considered.He further submitted that there is no question put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 ::: apeal 239.16.odt 6 of Criminal Procedure about the blood stained clothes having blood group "B" and therefore, no opportunity was given to the accused to explain.The learned Sessions Judge, however, wrongly made observation that the accused have failed to explain this circumstance in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Therefore, this circumstance is also not proved by the prosecution.Both these circumstances are not proved.No chain of circumstances is established.The learned Sessions Judge has wrongly appreciated the evidence on record and convicted the accused.The accused therefore be acquitted for the offences charged.The appeal therefore be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 :::Shri Mirza, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State has submitted that the prosecution has proved the last seen theory.The omission is only in respect of Mosambi tree and therefore, no importance be given.The Investigating Officer has proved recovery at the instance of accused.The Chemical Analyzer's report on record clearly discloses that the blood group "B" was found on the clothes of the accused as well as on axe and clothes of the deceased.The blood group of the accused persons is "O".The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused for the offence charged.The appeal therefore be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 :::apeal 239.16.odt 7Considering the submissions of both sides and with the help of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused the evidence on record.The appellants have not disputed the fact that the deceased Nagesh died homicidal death.The prosecution has examined P.W.8 - Dr. Bhaskar Sonarkar at Exh.77, who proved the post-mortem report (Exh.78).The Doctor has deposed that he found the following injuries on the person of the deceased."1) Cut throat injury present on anterior part of neck.It was of 18 x 4 x 5 CM.regular at ecchymossi present, Internal structure oesophagus cut.Trachea cut 5 cm below thyroide cartilage completely.Large vessel internal rotid artery at internal jular vein on both side cut.Cervical vertebrae intact.3) 5 liner fractures present.a) 4 x 1 x 1 cm over right frontal bone.b) 5 x 1 x 1 cm on right temporal bone.c) 3 x 1 x 2 cm on left temporal bone.d) 5 x 1 x 1 cm on right parietal bone.e) 6 x 2 x 2 cm over right maxillary region.4) 5 abrasions over abdomen.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 :::apeal 239.16.odt 8 Above mentioned injuries were ante-mortum, because of signs of inflamation and colour."Doctor also deposed that as he received weapon seized in the offence, accordingly he examined and opined that the injuries mentioned above are possible by the said weapon.Doctor was cross-examined at length.In the cross-examination, he stated that the injuries on the throat are possible due to any sharp object.It was suggested to him that the injuries on the body of the deceased were post-mortem but he denied.In the cross-examination, Exh.81 Chemical Analyzer's report was referred to him.As per Chemical Analyzer's report 99 milligrams and 94 milligrams of Ethyl Alcohol per 100 grams respectively were in the viscera of the deceased.It was suggested to him that person may die of heavy drinking.Considering the injuries on the person of the deceased, the possibility of death due to drinking is not possible and the cause of death is injuries sustained by the deceased.- Anand Dangore and P.W.10 - Rewchand Singanjude.As per the said inquest panchanama (Exh.24) of the dead body there were injuries on the throat and neck and blood stains on the face.The prosecution thus proved that the death of deceased is homicidal one.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 :::apeal 239.16.odt 9The prosecution has come up with a case that deceased Nagesh was last seen with accused persons.The prosecution has strongly relied upon the evidence of P.W.5- Ganesh, who is younger brother of the deceased.In the evidence, P.W.5 - Ganesh has deposed that on that day Nagesh came to the house at about 9 "O" clock in the night and changed the clothes.According to him, at that time Dipak Asalu called him and therefore Nagesh went from the house and Nagesh said that he will come after taking dinner of Ganesh festival.He further deposed that thereafter he waited for him till 10 "O" clock and went outside of the house and that time he saw three accused were talking with Nagesh near the tree of Mosambi.He also deposed that Nagesh told him that he will come soon.Then he narrated this fact to his father.He also deposed that in the morning Tiwari uncle came and told that his brother Nagesh had been murdered near the room adjacent to the house of the accused.He was cross-examined at length.In the cross-examination he stated that he told to the police that Nagesh was talking with three accused near tree of Mosambi and Nagesh told him that he should go to home, he will come soon.However, he cannot assign any reason why police did not record the same.He also stated that he did not tell this fact to his mother.He also admitted that he has also not stated the said fact to his mother at the time of lodging report that he saw three accused with Nagesh.In the cross-::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 :::apeal 239.16.odt 10 examination he stated that police might have recorded his statement after 2-3 days of the incident.It was suggested to him that his brother did not meet to the accused on that day but he denied.Considering the evidence of this witness the important omission is brought on record which is proved by P.W.10 - Investigating Officer Rewchand Singanjude.There is no other evidence on record to show that the deceased Nagesh was seen with accused on that day.In the report (Exh.17) and F.I.R. (Exh.18) there is no mention of the said fact that the deceased was seen with the accused in that night.He has clearly stated that P.W.1- Shamla lodged oral report and has registered the same as per her version and obtained her thumb impression on it.In the cross-examination, nothing is brought on record to disbelieve the same.Considering the oral evidence of P.W.5 - Ganesh coupled with the evidence of P.W.1 - Shamla and P.W.9 - Vitthal the prosecution has not proved the fact that the deceased was last seen with accused.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly observed in its judgment that just before the incident P.W.3 - Deepak, P.W.4 - Shubham and P.W.5- Ganesh have seen the Nagesh with three accused.The said finding is not::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 ::: apeal 239.16.odt 11 based upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also not considered the omission brought on record and proved.If the said omission is excluded from the evidence of P.W.5 - Ganesh nothing remained on record to show that Nagesh was seen with accused as alleged by the prosecution.The theory of last seen therefore goes away.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 :::The another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the axe and clothes of accused nos.1 and 2 had blood stains having blood group "B" of Nagesh.The prosecution came with a case that the accused persons while in police custody made a disclosure statement and at their instance police seized the axe and clothes of the accused persons.To prove this circumstance, the prosecution has relied upon evidence of P.W.3 - Deepak, P.W.6 - Maroti and P.W.10 - Rewchand Singanjude.P.W.3 - Deepak has not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile.He was cross-examined at length.In the cross-examination taken by the learned A.P.P. he denied that the accused persons made confessional statement to produce the axe and clothes.He only admitted his signature on the panchanama.P.W.6 - Maroti has supported the prosecution.He only stated that at the instance of accused persons the axe and clothes were seized.He has not deposed that the::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 ::: apeal 239.16.odt 12 accused persons gave a confessional statement in his presence to produce the axe and clothes where it is kept.He admitted panchanama Exhs.29 to 35 drawn in his presence.It was suggested to him that he is deposing false that accused persons have produced axe and clothes.P.W.10 - Rewchand Singanjude (Investigating Officer) has deposed that he has investigated the crime.He was cross-examined at length.It was suggested to him that he had not recorded the memorandum of accused in presence of panchas but he denied.It was suggested to him that accused had not made any statement to produce the clothes and he has drawn false panchanama Exh.29 to 35 but he denied.He denied that he has not sealed axe and clothes.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 :::The Investigating Officer though stated that they made a disclosure statement but has not stated where the axe and clothes were hidden in a particular place.Considering the evidence on record at the most, the seizure of axe and clothes is proved but at their instance and disclosure is not proved.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 :::The axe and clothes of the accused were sent to the Chemical Analyzer for examination.However, there is no evidence on record that these articles were sealed by the Investigating Authority.These articles were having blood stains as per this Chemical Analyzer's report and blood group was "B".As per the Chemical Analyzer's report Exh.105 on blood phial of Nagesh the blood group "B" was detected.As per Exh.106 on blood phial of accused no.1 Vinod the blood group "O" was detected and as per Exhs.108 and 109 blood phial of accused nos.2 and 3 Ajay and Atish blood group "O" was detected.As per Chemical Analyzer's report (Exh.107) clothes of the deceased labelled B-1 at serial nos.3 to 5 were having innumerable blood stains and blood group was "B" and blood is of human being.As per the said report, on the clothes of accused no.1 Vinod at serial nos.6 and 7 the blood found is of human and blood found at::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 ::: apeal 239.16.odt 14 serial no.6 is of group "B".As per the Chemical Analyzer's report at serial nos.9 and 10 clothes of accused nos.2 - Ajay the blood found on it is of human and blood group on serial no.9 is "B".As per Chemical Analyzer's report (Exh.107) the clothes of accused no.3 - Atish at serial nos.11 and 12 the blood found on it was of human but no blood group was detected.As per Chemical Analyzer's report (C-3) on axe at serial no.8 blood found was of human and blood group was "B".As per the said report, A1 and A2 glass pieces and bottle seized on spot were having blood stains and blood was of human and the blood group on it was "B".As per the report, blood group was not detected on the property at serial nos.1, 7, 10 to 12 as results are inconclusive.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 :::Considering the Chemical Analyzer's reports on record it appears that the blood stains found on the clothes of the accused were of human and of blood group "B".It is to be noted in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that no question was put to the accused persons about these incriminating circumstances and no opportunity was given to them to explain the said fact.In spite of that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that they failed to explain the circumstance that their clothes were having blood stains and blood group "B" was found on it.The persons in whose custody the property was and who carried out the same to the office of Chemical Analyzer are not examined.There is no mention in the seizure memo that property was sealed.The learned Counsel for the appellants has vehemently submitted that in absence of any evidence that clothes of the appellants were kept properly, much importance cannot be attached on appearance of blood stains of group "B" on their clothes.In the said reported judgment, this Court held that the prosecution is completely silent where and in what condition muddemal articles were lying from the date of their seizure till its dispatch to Chemical Analyser.Hence, the appearance of blood stains of group "A" on clothes of the accused is immaterial.The ratio of the above ruling is squarely applicable in the case at hand.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 :::Considering the evidence referred to above, we are of the considered view that the second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution does not connect to the accused for the offence charged.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 :::apeal 239.16.odt 16According to this witness, the spot panchanama is drawn in his presence.He stated that near the dead body pieces of some glasses of liquor bottle were lying.Police seized articles under panchanama.On perusal of the spot panchanama (Ex.23), it appears that the police have seized pieces of glass as well as liquor bottles.In the cross- examination he stated that he was not knowing which articles were seized under the panchanama.He also stated that there is no mention in the panchanama that sealed packets were seized.It is to be noted that the articles seized vide panchanama were not at all shown to be incriminating against the accused persons.It appears that as per Chemical Analyzer's report (Exh.81) in the viscera 99 milligrams and 94 milligrams of Ethyl Alcohol per 100 grams respectively were found.The possibility is there that the deceased must have consumed alcohol and was found lying on the spot where bottles were found.This circumstance also is not incriminating against the accused persons.After hearing both the sides and appreciating the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to make out the case against the accused.The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved, moreover, there is no chain of circumstances showing or pointing out the guilt of the accused.On the::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 ::: apeal 239.16.odt 17 contrary, the chain of circumstances is not complete.The evidence adduced by the prosecution creates reasonable doubt and does not point out the guilt of the accused.The findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge requires interference and liable to be quashed.All accused are entitled for the acquittal.Hence, we pass the following order :-::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 :::O R D E R(i) Criminal Appeal No.239/2016 is allowed.(ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 24/6/2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.155/2015 is quashed and set aside.The appellants/accused, namely, (1) Shri Vinod s/o Raju Potraje, (2) Shri Ajay s/o Raju Potraje and (3) Atish @ Sonu s/o Raju Nagrale are hereby acquitted under Section 235 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 :::(iv) Fine amount, if paid, by the appellants/accused be refunded to them after the appeal period is over.(v) The order regarding seized Muddemal property is maintained.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 00:50:23 :::

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

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

There was some dispute in respect of the boundaries of the respective lands between the family of the plaintiff and the defendant.On 6.10.1997 at about 2.00 p.m., the plaintiff and his brother Vaidyanathan were engaged in agricultural work in their land.The plaintiff in O.S.No.68 of 2006 on the file of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore is the appellant herein.The respondent is the sole defendant in the suit.This was a suit filed for damages.The trial court by decree and judgment dated 24.02.2010, partly decreed the suit thereby directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages.As against the same, the respondent herein filed an appeal in A.S.No.65 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.Challenging the denial of the entire amount of compensation as claimed, the appellant filed A.S.No.100 of 2010 before the same court.As against the said decree and judgment in A.S.No.65 of 2010, the appellant is before this Court with this Second Appeal.Both the appellant and the respondent belong to the same village.At that time, the defendant, his brother Purushothaman and his father Venkatachalam, who are the adjacent land owners, came to the spot, developed quarrel and finally, the defendant attacked the plaintiff with a spade handle on his head and Venkatachalam attacked him with a stick on his hip.The plaintiff sustained head injury and he was immediately rushed to the Government Hospital at Cuddalore from where he was referred to the General Hospital at Chennai.On a complaint duly made, a case was registered in Crime No.1031/1997 on the file of Nillikuppam Police Station which resulted in filing of a final report against the defendant and his brother.Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of sessions.The Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in S.C.No.137 of 1999 convicted the appellant under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years.His brother Mr.Purushothaman was convicted under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC and he was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years.As against the same, they have filed an appeal in C.A.No.66 of 2000 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.The lower appellate court acquitted the defendant's brother Purushothaman, however, dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the defendant.As against the same, the defendant filed a revision before this Court in Crl.By judgment dated 16.09.2003, this Court confirmed the conviction, however, modified the sentence, thereby directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as fine and this Court further directed that the said amount be paid as compensation to the plaintiff herein under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.In this suit, the plaintiff claims a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation, as according to him, because of the injuries sustained by him, he was not able to pursue his normal avocation and he has also suffered lot of mental agony and monetary loss.The defendant filed a written statement disputing his liability to pay any amount as compensation.According to him, simply because the criminal court had convicted him, that would not automatically go to prove that the plaintiff is entitled for compensation.Apart from that, the quantum of compensation claimed was also disputed.Based on the above pleadings, the trial court framed appropriate issues.On the side of the plaintiff, he was examined as P.W.1 and as many as 11 documents were exhibited and one Dr.J.S.Chandran was examined as P.W.2 to speak about the injuries sustained by the plaintiff and the consequential loss sustained by him.On the side of the defendant, he was examined as D.W.1 and no document was exhibited.Having considered all the above, the trial court partly decreed the suit, thereby directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.That is how, the Appeal as well as the Cross Appeal have been filed by the parties concerned.The lower appellate court allowed the appeal in A.S.No.65 of 2010 on the ground of limitation.In this Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law have arisen for consideration:a. Whether the lower appellate court was right in setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial court on the ground of limitation, when there was no question of limitation at all raised either in the written statement filed before the trial court or in the appeal memorandum filed before the lower appellate court?b. Whether the period of limitation will commence from the date of judgment of this Court in the Criminal Case or from the date of the occurrence in which the plaintiff sustained injuries? and c. Whether the period spent before the criminal court should be excluded, while computing the period of limitation for the purpose of this suit?I have heard the learned Counsel on either side and I have also perused the records carefully.Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. also says that the plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.Banarsi Das (in C.As.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:17:41 :::3] The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Archana Wankhade who is the mother of the victim and the accused are residents of village Dhanodi.The complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste.The incident occurred on 18.11.2005 at 07:30 p.m. or thereabout when the complainant, the victim, the::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:17:41 ::: apeal659.06.J.odt 3 other daughter and son of the complainant and the mother-in-law and nephew were sitting in the fire place to ward of the chill.4] After sometime, everybody other than the prosecutrix-victim and the accused went inside house.When the complainant came out of the house she noticed that the victim was not near the fire place.The victim is mentally challenged to some extent.The complainant started searching for the victim and along with her brother-in-law she went behind her house and heard her daughter-victim weeping.The complainant and her brother-in-law went towards the direction of the cries and saw that the victim was lying on the ground and the accused was lying on her person.The accused, on noticing the complainant and her brother-in-law, fled.The complainant inquired with the victim who stated that the accused gagged her mouth, removed her clothes and committed forcible sexual intercourse.5] The complainant lodged the First Information Report::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:17:41 ::: apeal659.06.J.odt 4 at Police Station Shendurjanaghat on 19.11.2005 on the basis of which offence punishable under section 376 of IPC was registered against the accused.The victim was medically examined.Panchnama of the crime spot was recorded.Hair pin, hair, broken bangles and chappal were seized from the spot.The accused was arrested and medically examined.dated 10.10.2006 in Sessions Case 05/2006 delivered by the 3 rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, by and under which, the appellant (herein after referred to as "the accused") is convicted of offence punishable under section 376 (1) of IPC and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to payment of fine of Rs.500/-.The accused is however, acquitted::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:17:41 ::: apeal659.06.J.odt 2 of offence punishable under section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act).Shri H.R. Dhumale, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor was heard at some length.I have scrutinized the record with the able and fair assistance of Shri H.R. Dhumale, the learned A.P.P. and propose to decide the appeal on merits.The accused came, gave Rs.20/- to the complainant and said that the amount is sent by the husband of the complainant, and made himself comfortable near the fire place.::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:17:41 :::The clothes of the prosecutrix and the accused were seized, statements of witnesses were recorded and upon completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Warud who committed the case to the Special Court.The learned Special Judge framed charge Exh.2, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The defence of the accused as is apparent from the trend of the cross-examination and from the statement recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is of total denial and false implication.::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:17:41 :::6] The prosecution has examined seven witnesses including the complainant Archana Wankhede (P.W.2), Murlidhar Wankhede (P.W.3) and the victim (P.W.4).7] The testimony of P.W.2 Archana Wankhede is broadly::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:17:41 ::: apeal659.06.J.odt 5 consistent with the First Information Report.She has deposed that the accused came to her residence at 07:30 p.m. or thereabout when the complainant and her family including the victim were sitting by the fire side to keep away the chill.The accused and the victim were sitting at the fire side when the complainant and other members of the family went inside the house.P.W.2 states that when she came out her daughter was not to be seen and she along with her brother-in-law Murlidhar started searching for the victim.P.W.2 has deposed that she heard sound of weeping from the backside of the residence and when she and Murlidhar went in the direction of the sound the victim was lying on the ground and the accused was lying on her person.She has deposed that when the accused saw P.W.2 and Murlidhar he fled.The victim stated that the accused gagged her, removed her salwar and knicker and committed sexual intercourse with her.She has proved the oral report and the printed FIR at Exh. 15 and 16 respectively.::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:17:41 :::The testimony of P.W.2 is not shaken in the cross-examination.A suggestion is given to P.W.2 that the accused Narayan Waghade is notorious (badmash) and quarrel some, to which suggestion P.W.2 has answered in the affirmative.P.W.2 had denied that the accused is not on good terms with all the::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:17:41 ::: apeal659.06.J.odt 6 villagers.She has deposed that she is not aware at to whether at the time of election there was an altercation between Murlidhar and the accused.She has denied that the suggestion that due to enmity, she has falsely implicated the accused.8] P.W.3 Murlidhar, who is the brother-in-law of the complainant P.W.2, has deposed that he accompanied P.W.2 in the search of the victim.He has categorically deposed that he saw the victim lying on the ground and the accused lying on her person.He has denied the suggestion that there was an altercation between him and the accused at the time of election, and he is falsely implicating the accused.Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.3 Murlidhar to discredit the witness.9] P.W.4 is the victim.She was 15 years old when the evidence was recorded.The victim has deposed that the accused took her to the open land where villagers used to go to answer the nature's call, the accused removed her salwar and knicker and committed sexual act.She has deposed that the complainant came to the spot and then the accused fled.A solitary sentence is indeed::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:17:41 ::: apeal659.06.J.odt 7 brought on record which is to the effect that the accused gave money and then went away and thereafter victim and other members of the family were sitting near the fire to keep warm.However, she has categorically denied the suggestion that the accused did not commit sexual intercourse with her.Concededly, the victim did suffer from mild mental abnormality.A stray and isolated answer in response to a suggestion will not render the testimony of the victim unreliable and untrustworthy.P.W.6 states that during the clinical examination she found the victim to be suffering from congenital heart disease with mental abnormality.P.W.6 has deposed that on clinical examination blood stains were noticed on labia majora and minora and hymen was torn.A suggestion is given to P.W.6 that there could be several reasons for the existence of blood stains on labia majora and minora and for the tearing of hymen, to which suggestion P.W.8 has responded affirmatively.::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:17:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:17:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:17:41 ::: apeal659.06.J.odt 8 11] The spot panchnama and seizure panchnama have been duly proved by P.W.1 Gulab and are marked Exhibits 12 and 13 respectively.He has deposed that hair pin, one rupee 2 coin, ladies chappal, broken bangles and one duptta were sezied from the spot.::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:17:41 :::12] The evidence of the victim is confidence inspiring and the conviction could have rested on her sole uncorroborated testimony.In the factual matrix, other than the testimony of the victim, P.W.2 and P.W.3 have witnessed the accused lying on the person of the victim and have consistently deposed that the accused fled after P.W.2 and P.W.3 arrived at the spot of the crime.The testimony of the victim is more than amply corroborated by the medical evidence on record.The defence of false implication is noted only for rejection.Nothing is brought on record to show that the complainant or the victim or P.W.3 Murlidhar were on inimical terms with the accused.Even otherwise, it would be in the rarest of the rare cases that a mother or close relative would use a child as a tool to wreck vengeance.::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:17:41 ::: apeal659.06.J.odt 9 I am satisfied, having closely scrutinized the original record, that the judgment of conviction is unexceptionable.13] I do not find any substance in the appeal and dismiss the same.::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:17:41 :::14] The accused be taken into custody forthwith to serve the sentence.JUDGENSN ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:17:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:17:41 :::

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

On the allegation that on the night of 25-5-1985 at about 10.30 p.m. at Madurai East Mada Street, near automatic telephone exchange, they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, with intention to create disturbance and attacked the deceased and during the course of the same transaction A. 1 stabbed the deceased on the right flank and as a result of the same he died on 27-5-1985 at about 4 p.m. at the Government Rajaji Hospital and it is further alleged that the other accused also assisted the first-accused in committing the said offence and further A. 5 picked up a soda-bottle from the nearby shop and threw it into the shop of the deceased.The case of the prosecution, as seen from the evidence, oral and documentary, can be briefly stated as follows : The deceased was running a night-stall in the platform at East Mada Street near automatic telephone exchange and used to sell eatables.P.W. 3 is his brother.P.W. 2 his brother-in-law and another Abdulla and P.W. 1 also were employed in the said shop.All the five accused used to visit the said shop during night hours and take eatables.They used to pay money if they had and if they have no money, they used to put the dues on account.When P.W. 3 demanded the money, they asked him to enter the same also in the account of A. 1 Then P.W. 3 informed the same to his brother the deceased, who told him to collect not only the money payable on that day, but also the earlier dues.When P.W. 3 accordingly demanded the money from the accused, A. 1 found fault with him for demanding the cash and abused him and came in front of the shop of the deceased.Then A. 1 to A. 4 beat the deceased.A. 5 also came there.He also beat him.At that time, A. 1 picked up M.O. 4 knife from his waist and stabbed him on the right flank.Thereupon, the injured was taken in a rickshaw by P.Ws. 1 and 2 to the Government Hospital.At that time, A. 5 took a soda bottle from the shop of P.W. 10 and threw the same at the stall of the deceased.At about 11 p.m., P.W. 4, the medical officer attached to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, examined Kidhar Mohammed, who was alleged to have been stabbed by a person with a knife at about 10.00 p.m. at Kila Masi Street near telephone exchange and P.W. 4 found on him the following injury : 'An incised wound about 4 c.m. in length in the right loin with muscle exposed.' According to him the patient was conscious, and he obeyed the commands.He ordered for the X-ray of the abdomen and chest and the patient was admitted in the accident ward.Ex. P. 3 is the extract of the accident register.He was of further opinion that the injury could have been caused by stabbing with a knife and that the injured would have been conscious for about two hours after receipt of the injury and could have been in a fit position to talk P.W. 5 is a Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Rajaji Hospital Madurai.He examined Kidhar Mohammed at about 11.10 p.m. on 25-5-1985, at the accident ward and the conducted operation on him.According to him, prior to the operation, the injured was fully conscious.Ex. P. 4 is the case-sheet.P.W. 14 is the Sub-Inspector of B. 1 police-station, Madurai.At about 10.30 p.m., while he, along with a constable, was on night beats, he came to know that a person, who was running a parotta stall on the platform near automatic telephone exchange, was stabbed and they went to the scene place.Thereupon, they went to the accident ward, where the injured was admitted and recorded his statement Ex. P. 22 at about 12.15 a.m. He also seized M.Os.He took up investigation and reached the scene place at about 1.30 a.m. He examined P.W. 11 and others and prepared the observation mahazar Ex. P. 3 and rough sketch Ex. P. 24 in their presence.At about 2 a.m. he seized M.Os.5 to 8 under mahazar Ex. P. 14, attested by P.W. 11 and another.At about 2.15 a.m. he again came to the Government Hospital.Since the injured was in the surgical room, he examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and others.P.W. 9 is the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madurai.It is his evidence that at about 4.40 a.m. on 26-5-1985 he received a requisition Ex. P. 9 from the hospital to record the dying declaration of Kidhar Mohammed and he reached the hospital at 4.50 a.m. and saw the injured Kidhar Mohammed, who was in the unconscious state.He did not record any statement from him.Again at about 3.45 p.m. he received a requisition Ex. P. 10 from the Sub-Inspector to record the dying declaration and accordingly he went to the Government Rajaji Hospital at 3.55 p.m. and at that time the injured was conscious and was in a fit state of mind to give a statement and accordingly after disclosing his identity, P.W. 9 questioned the injured as to whether he was willing to give a statement and when the injured answered in the affirmative, he recorded his dying declaration Ex. P. 11 Ex. P. 12 is the certificate issued by the medical officer as to the unconscious state of the injured when P.W. 9 first went to the hospital to record his statement.He arrested the second accused on 27-5-1985 at about 6 a.m. at Yaraikkal stone bridge.Thereupon, he sent the second-accused for judicial remand.He examined P.W. 10 and others at the scene place.On the same day, A. 1 surrendered himself before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Thirumangalam.At about 4 p.m. on 27-5-1985, the injured Kidhar Mohamed died in the Government Hospital and intimation to that affect Ex. P. 6 was received by P.W. 14 and on the basis of the same, he altered the offence into one under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and prepared express report Ex. P. 26 and copies thereof and sent them to the Inspector of Police as well as to Court.He also informed the Inspector over phone about the registering of the case.P.W. 15 was the Inspector of Police of Madurai Central Circle.He went to the police-station and got a copy of the express report and took up investigation.He inspected the scene place.Since it was night time, he could not conduct the inquest.Then he entrusted the dead body of the deceased to a constable with a requisition Ex. P. 7 to the medical officer to conduct autopsy.P.W. 8 is the Assistant Professor in Forensic Medicine in the Madurai Medical College, Madurai.(2) Sutured 'L' shaped thoraco abdominal incised surgical wound right side of the abdomen and thorax underlying structures are all found to be sutured.(3) Two sutured incised surgical wounds for drainage purpose each measuring 3 cm x 5 cm x entering the cavity one on the right side lower part of the thorax and one on the lower abdomen right."He was of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury No. 1 and other corresponding internal injuries, namely, injury to the diaphram, liver and peritoneam sustained by him.Ex. P. 8 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him.He was of the further opinion that injury No. 1 and the corresponding internal injury could have been caused by M.O. 4 and that the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.PW 15 continued further investigation.He arrested A. 4 and A. 5 at about 8 p.m. on the same day and sent them to the police station.He also arranged for the arrest of the other accused.Next day, he sent them for judicial remand.On 30-5-1985, he examined the Sub-Inspector.On 31-5-1985, he examined PW 4, the medical officer, PWs 7 and 8 and others.On that day, he came to know that the third accused had surrendered himself before the Court.JUDGMENT K.M. Natarajan, J.The first-accused in S.C. No. 14 of 1986, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, has preferred this appeal, challenging the legality and correctness of his conviction under section 302 of the India Penal Code and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life.The appellant herein, who is A. 1 before the Trial Court and four others were tried for the following five charges :In pursuance of the requisition.Ex. P. 7 from P.W. 15, he conducted autopsy over the dead body or Kidhar Mohamed on 28-5-1985 at about 10 a.m. and he found on the body of the deceased the following external injuriers :"An oblique sutured stab injury on the 7th intercostal space on the posterior axillary line right side 4 cm x 0.5 cm entering the thoracic cavity.Wound margins are regular and both ends pointed."On dissection, he noticed the following injuries :"The wound passing through the sutured intercostal muscles 4 cm x .5 cm x through and through penetrating the right side diaphram 5 cm x 25 cm x through and through found sutured and penetrating the liver right lobe from pestro superior surface to the middle of the interior surface 5 cm x 2 cm x 5.5 cm exit wound 3 cm x 1 cm and a tear in the peritoneum above the right kidney with full of retroperitoneal blood clots of 250 grams.A linear tear measuring 2 cm in length.The liver injury would to be sutured with a atromatic catgut and covered with felgoam.The direction of the wound passes obliquely posterior anteriorly above down wards and towards midline.On 5-6-1985, he gave requisition for police custody of A. 1 and filed the affidavit of undertaking.PW 15 seized M.O. 4 under mahazar Ex. P. 16 attested by PW 12 and another.On 7-6-1985, he examined PW 8 with reference to M.O. 1 knife and on 11-6-1985, he examined PWs.Then he gave a requisition Ex. P. 17 on 17-6-1985 to send the seized articles for chemical analysis.PW 13 is a Head Clerk attached to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate No. 1, Madurai and he deposed that in pursuance of the requisition Ex. P. 17, M.Os.1 to 4 and 6 were sent for chemical analysis.Ex. P-19 and P. 20 are the reports of the chemical analyst serologist respectively.PW 15 was transferred.His successor filed a charge-sheet on 3-8-1986 against all the accused.When the accused were examined with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in evidence, they totally denied the case of the prosecution.No witness was examined on their behalf.The learned trial Judge, after taking into consideration the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, and for the reasons assigned in the judgment, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the charge against A. 1 under S. 148 of the Indian Penal Code and charge No. 2 against A. 2 to A. 5 under S. 147 and charge No. 5 against A. 5 under S. 336 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted them of the said charges.As regards A. 1 the trial Court found him guilty under S. 302 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.As regards charge No. 4 against A. 2 to A. 5, they were found not guilty under S. 302 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code.A. 2 and A. 3 alone found guilty under S. 341 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks.Aggrieved the same, the first accused alone has preferred this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. A. A. Selvam took us through the recorded evidence and made his submissions.Though the learned counsel for the appellant, at the beginning argued on merits and submitted that reliance cannot be placed on the interested testimony of PWs.1 to 3, who are related to the deceased and who are employed in the shop of the deceased and further in view of the medical testimony of PW 4, who has stated that the deceased has told him that he was stabbed by a person and not stated that he was stabbed by a known person, this appellant-accused should also have the benefit of doubt as was extended to the other accused.But, finding that he cannot succeed, he further argued that even accepting the entire case of the prosecution to be true, this is a case where the occurrence admittedly took place during sudden quarrel and unpremeditated and as such the first accused, during the course of the quarrel, where the deceased also beat the accused, picked up a knife, which he was having in his waist, and dealt one blow and as such the offence should fall only under S. 304(1) and not under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Now the point arises for consideration is as to whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and if so what is the nature of the offence committed by the appellant-accused.So far as the actual occurrence is concerned, we got the direct evidence of PWs 1 to 3, which is corroborated by PW 10 and also the medical testimony adduced through PW 4 and the doctor PW 8, who conducted the autopsy as well as the dying declaration given by the deceased to the police as well as the Magistrate.It is the consistent evidence of PWs 1 to 3 that it was this accused, along with the other accused, used to visit the stall of the deceased which was located in the platform of East Mada Street near the automatic telephone exchange, and they used to give cash if they had and if not it would be entered in accounts.When PW 3, who is the employee in the shop and who is the brother of the deceased, demanded the cash, the first accused asked him to enter the same in his accounts and when PW 3 informed the same to the deceased, the deceased insisted that the amount should be collected along with the earlier dues of Rs. 7.50 from the accused.PW 3 informed the same to the deceased and on that there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased and during the quarrel, the accused abused the deceased and the deceased also in turn abused the accused and there was mutual clash and each beat the other with hands and during the course of the said quarrel, it is stated that this accused picked up the knife M.O. 4 from his waist and stabbed the deceased at the right flank and thereafter the accused did not pursue further.Thereafter, the accused went near the shop of PW 10, which is located at the opposite side and thereafter it is stated that A. 5 took a soda bottle and threw it at the shop of the deceased.It is their further evidence that subsequently PWs 1 and 2 took the deceased in a rickshaw, which was brought by PW 1, to the hospital, where PW 4 examined him and he told to PW 4 examined him and he told to PW 4 that he was stabbed by a person with knife and he sustained the injury at about 10.30 p.m. on the same day.This was by about 11.00 p.m. Subsequently, he was examined by PW 14, the Sub-Inspector of Police, and he gave the complaint Ex. P. 22, which is the first information report in this case, wherein also he had categorically stated that it was only this first accused who stabbed him.In all these dying declarations, the deceased has categorically stated that it was only this accused-appellant, who stabbed him with a knife, which he was having in his waist.The mere fact that PWs 1 to 3 are related to the deceased and they are employed in the shop of the deceased is not sufficient to reject their evidence as their presence at the scene place is most natural and probable and they are the competent witnesses to speak about the occurrence, especially when the occurrence took place in the night and that too by about 10.30 p.m. Further their evidence also is corroborated by the other witnesses.Nothing tangible has been brought forth in the cross-examination of these witnesses to discredit the overt act attributed to the accused.Their evidence is also probabilised by the evidence of PW 10, who is the owner of the opposite shop and who has stated about the presence of this accused at the scene of occurrence.Though he has not stated about the actual stabbing, he has stated that the deceased shouted that he was stabbed and at that time, he noticed these accused in the shop of the deceased.In all these three dying declarations, the deceased has stated that it is only this accused, who caused the fatal injury on him.PW 4 is the doctor attached to the Government Rajaji Hospital, who admitted the deceased in the hospital and who saw him at the first instance and it is his evidence that he examined the deceased by about 11 p.m. on the same night and the deceased told him that he was stabbed by a person with knife at 10.30 p.m. and he noted the injury, namely, incised wound about 4 cm.in length in the right loin with muscle exposed.He was of the opinion that the said injury could have been caused by stabbing with a knife and Ex. P. 3, the extract of the accident register, also corroborated his evidence.PW 6 is the doctor, who was present at the time of the recording of the dying declaration by the Magistrate and he issued the certificate to the effect that the deceased was fully conscious.PW 8 the doctor, who conducted the autopsy, noticed one external injury and three internal injuries, as described in the post-mortem certificate Ex. P.8 and he categorically stated the external injury No. 1 and the corresponding internal injury could have been caused by a weapon like M.O. 1 and the deceased would have died due to shock and haemorrhage due to injury No. 1 and the corresponding injuries and the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death.Appeal dismissed.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Apart from that, statements of the co-accused persons recorded under Section 70 of G.S.T. Act have also been referred by the learned ASG wherein the authors have disclosed that actually the petitioner is whole sole Owner/Proprietor/In-charge of the entire business of M/s Vishnu Essence or Ellora Tobacco Co. Ltd or M/s. AAA Enterprises or M/s Namrata Impacs and so on.He is the kingpin of entire empire of business or trade of all these firms.The case is registered and is under investigation.This is contested stating that at that time the petitioner or any other male member was not at home.The officials of the department were trying to enter into the house without disclosing their identity.Goods and Services Tax Intelligence Central Excise Office, District Indore (here-in-after referred to as the 'Department').The case of the prosecution in brief is that the officials of the department received intelligence input that one Pakistani national Sanjay Matta is indulged in clandestine clearance of mouth freshener, commonly known as "Pan Masala", without payment of GST.Acting on this information, several searches were conducted at various places between 30.05.2020 to 02.06.2020 and unaccounted goods worth Rs.2.59 crores were found in different godowns of Mr. Matta, which were seized.Subsequent information received during search led to the search of premises of transporter M/s Ashu Roadlines, Indore.During this search 10 vehicles, unaccounted Pan Masala, its packing material and some raw material was seized.The Pan Masala was found to be of 'Vimal' brand manufactured by M/s Vishnu Essence, Sanwer Road, Indore.The truck drivers also confirmed clandestine transportation of Pan Masala.Information extracted from the mobile of an employee of Aashu Roadlines Mr. Sameer Khan, indicated that the firm M/s Vishnu Essence had procured large quantities of raw material and packing material from Ahmadabad clandestinely and had supplied the finished goods in the same manner to M/s AAA Enterprises, Indore.The petitioners Amit Bothara and Ashok Daga are partners of the firm M/s Vishnu Essence.They were called and interrogated.Their product contains 85% betel nut (Supari) and 15% Sugandh, Kattha, Elaichi (essence, catechu, cardamom) etc. Supari is purchased from the undertakings/ companies of the government or from the societies run by the government; therefore, clandestine purchase is not possible.Rest of the raw material is purchased from the open market but only from the traders duly registered under the GST through invoices.Investigation revealed that Mr. Vijay Kumar Nair of M/s. AAA Enterprises is the front man of Kishore Wadhwani.Kishore Wadhwani is the kingpin of the entire illegal procurement, production and supply chain of pan masala clandestinely.Investigation has further revealed that the petitioners had procured raw materials of pan masala and packing material from Ahmadabad and various other cities in Gujarat in clandestine manner and supplied manufactured pan masala to M/s. AAA Enterprises without invoices and payment of G.S.T.Sale and distribution of pan masala has been completely banned across the country due to pandemic induced lockdown from 25th March, 2020 considering its risk in spread of Covid-19 infection.This is the first application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in crime no.23/2020 registered under section 132(1)(a)(i) of the Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "GST Act"), Ss. 409, 467, 471, 120-B of the IPC by the Department of Revenue Intelligence and Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence Central Excise Office, District Indore (here-in-after referred to as the 'Department').The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner began with the arguments that the only fault of the petitioner is that he is the landlord of the premises where his tenant, who runs a factory, allegedly evaded the tax by clandestine sale of Pan Masala.The petitioner is neither a Partner of his tenant M/s Vishnu Essence nor in any other way concerned with it.But, he has been posed as if he is the only responsible person for whatever has allegedly been done against the law by his tenant, 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.26653 of 2020 Kishore Wadhwani Vs.State of M.P.while no document, what-so-ever it may be, has been produced by the department to show his involvement in the alleged tax evasion.In reply, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the petitioner is Director of a Media Company, which publishes a daily newspaper in the name and style of "Dabang Dunia".Several vehicles found indulged in clandestine removal/transportation of Pan Masala were having sticker of Dabang Dunia press and drivers of these vehicles were found carrying Identity Cards of Dabang Dunia.This shows that the petitioner was well involved in the alleged tax evasion.He had effective control over their factory operations and is the ultimate financial beneficiary in this illicit Pan Masala trade.He is the mastermind or the key accused of the alleged tax evasion, which otherwise runs in crores of rupees.Therefore, he is not entitled for bail.To counter the argument in respect of statements recorded under Section 70 of the Act, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that immediately after getting opportunity, the petitioner as well as other co-accused persons have retracted their statements, which were otherwise 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.26653 of 2020 Kishore Wadhwani Vs.Otherwise also, looking at the provisions of Section 136 of the Act itself, much weight can not be attached to such statements during the life time or availability of the author.Lastly, it is contented that these statements didn't lead to any recovery.No supporting evidence either documentary or oral could be collected during investigation.Therefore, on the basis of such statements, no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner at least at this stage.Much time has been spent by both the parties to convince the Court or to counter that the arrest of the petitioner is contrary to the powers and procedure prescribed by the law.It is not disputed that the petitioner is one of the Director of media company Dabang Duniya but it is contended that neither they are concerned nor are responsible for unauthorized use of any sticker or ID card by any vehicle or driver found indulged in clandestine transportation of any taxable goods.If still the charge-sheet is not filed, the petitioner is entitled for default bail under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C.It is averred that release of the petitioner would hamper 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.26653 of 2020 Kishore Wadhwani Vs.State of M.P.the investigation.To bolster this contention, the learned ASG pointed out that a group of persons assaulted the officials when they tried to search of the house of the petitioner following the due process of the law.A separate FIR is lodged against them.When they were asked to show the same, they misbehaved with the women of the house.The FIR is lodged only to pressurized the petitioner and now it cannot be used as a tool to oppose his prayer for bail.Other arguments of both the parties are on similar lines, which were raised and considered earlier while deciding the bail petitions of co-accused Amit Bothra and Ashok Daga.These arguments as well as the facts of the case can be borrowed from order dated 27.07.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos.21628/2020 and 21618/2020, respectively.Relevant part of this order is being reproduced below:-Both these petitions have arisen out of the same crime number of the same office/police station, therefore, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order.These are the first applications under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in crime no.23/2020 registered under section 132(1)(a)(i) of the Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "GST Act"), Ss.409, 467, 471, 120-B of the IPC by the Department of Revenue Intelligence and Directorate General of 5 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.26653 of 2020 Kishore Wadhwani Vs.They confessed in their statements recorded under Section 70 of the GST Act that their firm had supplied Vimal brand Pan Masala worth Rs.320 crores clandestinely and has evaded payment of the GST to the tune of Rs.225 crores.Subsequent search of various places and statements of various persons further confirmed the aforesaid tax evasion.Following the due process, the petitioners were taken into custody and booked in the aforementioned crime.Refuting all the allegations made by the prosecution, it is submitted by the learned senior 6 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.26653 of 2020 Kishore Wadhwani Vs.State of M.P.counsel for the petitioners that the firm M/s Vishnu Essence is duly registered with the GST vide registration no.23AAQFV6401JIZZ.The firm is honestly doing its business.It is paying GST to the tune of Rs.7-8 crores per month on an average on the sales.Their statements were recorded under threat and pressure.They retracted them immediately after coming out of the fear.It is further averred that the petitioners were doing their business honestly and were paying GST to the tune of Rs. 7 crore per month regularly, but due to unprecedented circumstances of spread of COVID- 19 pandemic and complete lockdown pursuant thereto; there was some delay in paper work and submission of the invoices etc. Taking advantage of this beyond control peculiar circumstance, the officials of the department abused their authority, presumed the tax evasion and assessed the amount only on the basis of their conjecture and surmises as there was no production during the period of lockdown.Nil electricity consumption establishes the fact of closure of the factory during this period.Therefore, the allegation of evasion of tax is false and frivolous from it's very foundation.It is also submitted that the petitioners were earlier paying GST honestly and are also ready to pay the same in future.Though under pressure, but they have already paid Rs. 7 crores and are still ready to pay the deficit, if any, found due on the final assessment.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.26653 of 2020 Kishore Wadhwani Vs.State of M.P.It is argued that the dispute is only a revenue matter.The alleged evasion is assessed about Rs. 7 crores.Despite their right to challenge the assessment by depositing 10% of the amount assessed, they have deposited entire amount of Rs. 7 crores.It is asserted that the petitioners have no connection with Pakistani national Sanjay Matta or alleged main accused Kishore Wadhwani.It is further argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case.The officials have acted maliciously.The allegation made against them is vague.There is no incriminating evidence or supporting documents qua the petitioners.Details of alleged tax evasion have not been supplied to them.Their custody is illegal as there is no evidence to show that the officials were having "reasons to believe" that their custody was necessary.The department has not sought their police remand.This shows that there detention was unnecessary and illegal.The sole basis of their arrest is their statements recorded by the officials, but the same were recorded under threat and pressure and have been retracted immediately.Procedure prescribed under Ss. 67, 69, 74, 134,136, 138 of the GST Act and S.41A of Cr.P.C. for arrest, recording of statement, search and seizure has not been followed.The dispute is entirely covered under Section 132 of the G.S.T. Act. Initially the offence was also registered under the same Section.Offences under Sections 409, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC are not made out.Record shows that these offences have been added by the officials at a later stage merely with intent to harass the petitioners.The nature of evidence is documentary and all documents are in custody of the Department.Hence, there is no fruitful purpose to keep them in custody.They are paying around 70-80 crores G.S.T. per anum on an average.Their detention would cause 8 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.26653 of 2020 Kishore Wadhwani Vs.State of M.P.loss of this amount to the State exchequer.About 150 workers are working in the firm of the petitioners.In case of their detention, the work of the firm will be at a halt and hence, affect the survival of the families of those 150 workers.The offence is punishable with maximum 5 years imprisonment and is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class.The petitioners are ready to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court, therefore, it is prayed that they be granted bail.The petitioners have relied upon Joti Prasad Vs.State of Haryana 1993 supp.SCC 497, P.Chidambaram Vs.Directorate of Enforecement 2019 Lawsuit (SC) 1947, D.K. Sethi Vs.Central Bureau of Investigation, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs.Ashis Chatterjee and Anr (2010) Vol.14 SCC 496, Sandeep Kumar Bafna Vs.State of Maharashtra and Anr (2014) 16 SCC 623, C. Pradeep Vs.The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Selman and Anr SLP 6834/2019, Madhav Gopaldas Shah Vs.State of Gujarat, Prasad Purshottam Mantri Vs.UOI and Ors, Sanjay Kumar Bhuwalka Vs.UOI 2018 SCC Online Cal 4674, Mohit Vijay Vs.UOI (Rajasthan High Court), Lalit Kumar Gandhi Vs.State of MP and Make My Trip Vs.Stand taken by the department is that the petitioners have a very proximate nexus to the entire syndicate involved in clandestine manufacturing of pan masala and have caused huge loss to the sovereign exchequer.Acting on the intelligence information, when several persons were interrogated and search of several places was conducted, tax evasion of crores of rupees was detected.Still the investigation is going on.As many as 11 searches and 14 statements have been recorded after the arrest of the petitioners.In all possibilities the magnitude of the offence would increase in many folds.Release of the petitioners would hamper the investigation, 9 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.26653 of 2020 Kishore Wadhwani Vs.State of M.P.which is at very crucial stage, therefore, it is prayed that they be not granted bail.It is submitted that during the course of investigating very clinching and cogent evidence has been unearthed which indicates that in connivance with each other, the petitioners as well as other wrongdoers have adopted a peculiar modus operandi for clandestine manufacturing and sale of pan masala.The petitioners are not merely benefactors of illegal activities, but had a very proximate nexus with the entire band of persons involved in the said syndicate.In spite of the strict restriction, the petitioners' firms took undue benefit of this emergent situation and supplied their finished goods clandestinely in the State of Madhya Pradesh in connivance with M/s. AAA Enterprises.As per Section 132(5), since the G.S.T. evasion detected is more than five crores rupees, the offence is cognizable and non-bailable.There is every likelihood of the petitioners affecting the investigation and tampering with the witness.The officials of the DGGI were assaulted when they tried to search the house of Kishore Wadhwani for which an FIR is lodged with Police Station--Juni, Indore.In the case of P. V. Ramana Reddy Vs.UOI 10 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cr.A.No.730/2013 decided on 9th May, 2013 in the case of Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs.Central Bureau of Investigation has observed in para 34 that the Economic Offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.The economic offences having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posting serious threat to the financial health of the country.Therefore, the petitioners be not granted bail.Reliance has also been placed on The State of Gujrat Vs.Provisions of section 69, 70, 131, 133, 135, 136 of the GST Act have been referred by the learned counsel for the respondent/UOI.I have heard the learned senior counsels at length and have perused the record supplied by the department.On careful consideration of nature and gravity of the allegation made against the petitioners and the specific evidence collected in respect of these allegations, elaborate discussion of which would not be apt as it may adversely affect the interest of either party, the specific facts put-forth by the learned senior counsels for the petitioners and their reply and other facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this court, the case for granting 11 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.26653 of 2020 Kishore Wadhwani Vs.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits, I.A.No. 5540/19 is allowed and it is directed that the jail sentence of the appellant will remain under suspension subject to the verification that the amount of fine has been deposited, on the appellant's furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties of Rs. 25,000/- in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM concerned for h e r appearance before Registry of this Court on 16.12.2019 and 3 CRA-6088-2019 thereafter on such other dates as may directed by the Registry of this Court in this regard.List this appeal for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE (LJ*) LOKENDRA JAIN 2019.09.05 11:19:57 +05'30'

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

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

This is first application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 569/2015 registered at P.S. Bidhan, District- Singrauli for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 307, 506-B of the IPC.The allegation against the applicant is that he had beaten the complainant Anjani Sahu, Pawan & Ramlochan Sahu.A counter case is also registered against Anjani Sahu, Pawan & Ramlochan Sahu, Atul and Arvind in regard to inflicting injuries to RAkesh Kumar Kushwaha, Ambika, Vijay Kumar Kushwaha vide crime no. 570/2015 at Police Station Waidhan, District- Singrauli for commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 307, 506-B of the IPC.(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant be taken on record.Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially an NCR under Section 323 I.P.C. was lodged by the complainant against co-accused Rinku.Thereafter five days of the alleged incident this false F.I.R. has been lodged by the complainant.At the time of medical examination no mark of injury has been found on the person of victim.The medical report also does not corroborate the prosecution version.PW-1 Babu Ram in his statement has stated that her daughter has not disclosed the name of applicant and co-accused for committing rape upon her.PW-2 the victim has also stated in her statement that she could not see and identify the person who had committed rape upon her.She has further stated that applicant has not committed rape upon her.The victim has not supported the prosecution version and she has been declared hostile.There is no other cogent evidence against the applicant.The applicant has not committed the alleged offence.He has falsely been implicated in the present case.Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The prosecution case, in brief, is that a minor girl `A' aged about 8 years had been living with her brother-in-law Nand Kishore and her sister following the death of her parents.On 21st July, 2000, Nand Kishore, her brother-in-law gave her Rs. 2/- to purchase medicine for eye.`A' who had gone to purchase medicine did not return till late night.Nand Kishore lodged a missing person report at Police Post Prem Nagar and searched for her.On the next day, at about 1.30 a.m., Suresh the present appellant and one Prempal who lived in neighborhood, brought `A' home.`A' was terrified and did not say anything.In the morning, `A' told that Suresh had committed rape on her.Further when she tried to raise alarm, he closed her mouth and threatened to kill her.Nand Kishore informed the police on 100 number.Prosecutrix `A' was sent for medical check at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital.A site plan was also got prepared and a FIR under Sections 376 and 506 IPC was registered.Appellant was arrested and his disclosure statement was also recorded.Exhibits were sent to FSL and after completion of investigation, challan was filed.The prosecution version as it emerges from the statement of prosecutrix is that she had lost Rs. 2/- given to her for purchasing medicine and she was sitting next to the temple, crying when Suresh came to her and took her inside the temple.He beat her, caught hold of her by neck and threatened to kill if she made any attempt to leave the place.Appellant/accused removed her underwear and tied her hands and made her lie down.He forcibly had sexual intercourse with her which hurt her.She kept on crying.Prosecutrix claims that he raped her and went to his shop, returned after some time and raped her again.Thereafter, the appellant put her on the stair case of a shop and he himself went inside his shop and slept.An old man from a nearby flour mill had seen her lying there and asked her to go home.Appellant and his friend who runs a tailoring shop, thereafter brought her home and left.Suresh had threatened her that he would beat her if she disclosed the incident at home.She has also described the reasons as to why she could not run from the temple because her underwear had been taken off and her hands were tied while her legs were free.There was no labour working in the temple.As noted in the earlier paras, there were abrasion over left elbow right arm, scratch mark over lower part of abdomen, there were bruises on the left and right thigh, tenderness over left leg.Prosecutrix also identified the appellant as the person who had raped her.She alleges that she was taken inside the temple and her hands were tied and clothes removed and raped by the appellant three times.Prem Pal, who had been examined as PW-4 corroborated the factum of prosecutrix being found sitting outside the shop belonging to the appellant in a terrified state.Her frock was also torn.Prem Pal deposed that since he knew that appellant slept in the shop, he woke him up and both of them brought and left her home.Following injuries were found by Dr. Rashmi who had examined `A' and Dr. Manju Goel who had done the gynaecological examination:-1. Abrasion over left elbow right arm;Scratch mark over lower part of abdomen;3. Bruises on left and right thigh;Tenderness over left leg;Hymen was absent-labia maNo collection of semen on labia minora;No per vaginal examination done as prosecutrix was an unmarried girl.Finding was that sexual assault could not be ruled out and it can be confirmed after swab repeat.It may also be noted, at this stage, that vaginal swab did not reveal evidence of spermatozoa.No signs of semen were found on the underwear of the prosecutrix.There were semen stains on the underwear of the appellant/accused.There were dirty stains on the frock but no sign of semen.Human blood was detected on the gauze cloth.During the cross-examination, Dr. Manju Goel was asked whether ``hymen being absent'` was a result of an internal injury, Dr. Goel stated that hymen had been freshly ruptured, thus ruling out any old injury as cause of absence of hymen.Mr. Satish Tamta, Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:-(i) that the statement of prosecutrix was full of contradictions and fallacies.Hence cannot be made the sole basis of conviction.Medical evidence was not suggestive of rape and it does not corroborate the allegation of rape.No semen was detected on the labia majora or labia minora.The swab test was also not positive for semen.(ii) There were no injuries on the genitals found.Reference was invited to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence to urge that in case of nubile virgins, the hymen, as a result of complete sexual intercourse, gets lacerated.One or more radiate tears are found in posterior half, the edges of which are red, swollen and painful and bleed on touching.It was urged that absence of injuries on private parts of either of the parties was also indicative and suggestive of there being no offence of rape.Reliance was placed in this connection on Rahim Beg and Anr.v. The State of U.P 1972 Criminal Law Journal 1260 to submit that absence of injuries on private parts were suggestive of innocence.Similarly, the presence of semen stains on the underwear of the appellant could be on account of variety of reasons.(iii) Real sister of the prosecutrix, who was a material witness had not been produced.The old man who had woken up prosecutrix was not produced.The improbability of the prosecutrix being detained in the temple under construction, which did not have doors and kept there for extended period of time even after her rape appears unlikely.Counsel urged that case was not free from doubt and appellant appears to have been falsely implicated.(iv) Reference was also made to the statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C to urge that brother of the appellant was running a chit fund wherein the prosecutrix's brother-in-law owed money to him.This was suggested as the motive of falsely implicating the appellant.(v) Prosecutrix's version that she was subjected to rape and then accused went to his shop and returned after one and half hours to rape her again and then again went to the shop and then raped on return was highly improbable.The factum of prosecutrix not informing her brother-in-law on the date of incident was again improbable.Similarly prosecutrix's version that after she was raped in the temple and then being made to lie outside the stairs and she remained sleeping also appeared incredible.The Judge has also not recorded any reasons for dispensing giving oath to the child witness.Lastly, Mr. Tamta submits that Dr. Manju Goel had recorded absence of hymen in the MLC.The cross-examination of Dr. Manju Goel has been conducted in a manner which seeks to damage the accused.He submits that her response of hymen being freshly ruptured purports to damage the appellant and therefore, this part of the evidence ought to be ignored.We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant.The mere fact that no injury was found on the private parts of the prosecutrix or her hymen was found to be intact does not belie the statement of the prosecutrix as she nowhere stated that she bled per vagina as a result of the penetration of the penis in her vagina.She was subjected to sexual intercourse in a standing posture and that itself indicates the absence of any injury on her private parts.To constitute the offence of rape, penetration, however slight, is sufficient.The prosecutrix deposed about the performance of sexual intercourse by the appellant and her statement has remained unchallenged in the cross-examination.In the light of the above authorities, let us consider the prosecutrix's evidence in the present case.The evidence of the prosecutrix, PW-3 as recorded is clear and cogent.She had answered the questions put to her for determination of offence, reasonably well.She appears to understand the basics and what was truth and falsehood.Appellant was known to her.She has described how the appellant took her into the temple, tied her hands and pressed her throat and threatened her, removed her clothes and his own and committed the foul act (rape).She has described how the appellant thereafter left her outside the shop.Her testimony remained unshaken during cross-examination.She stated that she was raped thrice and after the first time, the appellant had gone to his shop then returned and repeated the act.It is to be noted that medical examination was not carried out immediately but on the next day.It was, therefore, not necessary to have found either semen or blood in the vaginal swab.Moreover, semen was found on the underwear of the appellant and the gauze cloth also tested positive for human blood.No credence can be given to such a plea.The reason for the prosecutrix not making an attempt to escape from the temple during the interregnum has been duly explained.Firstly, the hands of the prosecutrix were tied and her underwear had been removed.In the same state of mental shock and trauma, she did not narrate the entire incident to her sister and her brother-in-law at night, but could do so after composure on the next day.Coming now to the question of sentence, it is true that appellant has violated the person and committed a gory act of rape on a young minor girl of tender age of 8 years leaving deep scars on her.Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is a young unmarried man of 22 years.He is a first offender.He is a cardiac patient.He has old aged parents.Besides, he has clean antecedents and was running a grocery shop.Conviction is upheld and the appeal stands disposed of with the sentences as modified above.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard with the aid of case diary.This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 89/2015 registered at Police Station Chitrangi District Singrauli for the offence under Sections 302, 307, 294, 323, 325, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the deceased Bhola Yadav had died due to the incised wound suffered by him on his neck.He submits that the applicants were armed with lathi and no fatal injury has been caused by the applicants to the deceased.On the other hand, Shri Pramod Chourasia, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State has opposed the application.Having considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the evidence collected in the case diary, I am of the view that the applicants have made out a case for grant of bail.Accordingly, the application is allowed.On applicants' furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for securing their presence before that Court on all the dates of hearing to be fixed in this regard during trial, they be released on bail.The applicants shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.as per rules.(SHANTANU KEMKAR)

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

P.S.TEJI, J.The instant appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 06.12.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.) and order on sentence dated 11.12.2001, whereby the appellant - Smt. Devi has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period Crl.A. No. 3/2002 Page 1 of 9 of six months.A. No. 3/2002 Page 1 of 9After recording the statement of Smt. Babita before the SDM, the SDM directed the registration of the case as a result of which, SI made his endorsement for the registration of the case under Section 498-A IPC.When Babita died of burn injuries, Section-306 IPC was also added.During the course of investigation, the SI prepared the site plan, got the spot photographed, took the possession of burnt hair, burnt match sticks, plastic can and after preparation of the brief facts the post-mortem was done.After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court.Charge under Section 306 IPC was framed against the accused, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.To bring home the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses.They are Ravi Dadhich SDM (PW-1); Davender Verma (PW-2); Devi Singh Sharma (PW-3); SI Rakesh Kumar (PW-4); HC Radha Kishan (PW-5), SI Arjun Chauhan(PW-6); Dr. Arvind (PW-7); Dr. Savita (PW-8), and SI Rajbir Singh(PW-9).A. No. 3/2002 Page 2 of 9The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C to which the appellant pleaded not guilty.After considering the facts, evidence led and the material on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty for an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC vide judgment and order on sentence, as mentioned above.Aggrieved by such judgment, the appellant has filed the instant appeal challenging the impugned judgment on conviction as well as order on sentence.The impugned judgment of conviction has been challenged on the grounds that the deceased was not fit for makng statement as she was brought to the hospital with 100% burn injuries.The statement given by the patient to the SDM is contrary to the doctor at the time of admission wherein she did not name the appellant rather, according to her it was family tension which she narrated before the doctor as a reason for putting herself to ablaze and the reason is not the quarrel with the appellant.It is further contended that there was no reason to infer that the deceased was under the apprehension of death, if she was fit for statement, therefore the dying declaration ought to have held failed on scrutiny and for this reason all the depositions of the prosecution witnesses ought to have been rejected.Learned counsel for appellant vehemently contended that the father of the deceased Crl. A. No. 3/2002 Page 3 of 9 deposed in his statement that his daughter was happy in her matrimonial house but the learned trial court has neglected the statement of father without any reason.Though for only one time quarrel has been alleged but that cannot be made the basis for conviction especially when her husband was with her.It is further contended that the learned trial court misconstrued the judgment cited for the definition of the abetment to suicide and other judgments relied by the appellant have not been considered by the learned trial court.The main ingredients of the offence of abetment to commit suicide are missing and therefore the same cannot be made the sole basis for holding the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.It is further urged that the learned trial court has invented unwarranted motive of crime in the impugned judgment whoever, those motives are not supported by any evidence, therefore, those motives cannot form the part of the prosecution case.A. No. 3/2002 Page 3 of 9Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that the deceased Smt. Babita had died otherwise than under normal circumstances in her matrimonial home and that too within three years of her marriage.The deceased was being harassed and tortured by the appellant and it was due to harassment and cruelty which instigated the deceased for taking an extreme step of ending her life.In the circumstances of the present case, the impugned judgment and order on sentence as passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality and therefore, the same is not required to be interefere with.A. No. 3/2002 Page 4 of 9Arguments advanced by both the sides were heard and the evidence as well as material placed on record has been gone into.This court also perused the impugned judgmentThere is only one independent public witness in the present case i.e. Devi Singh Sharma (PW-3), who is father of the deceased.He has deposed that his daughter was staying in her matrimonial house since the time of her marriage.He stated that she never complained to him regarding anything on the part of her in laws and was residing happily with them.On 20.03.1999, he received a telephone call from the deceased stating that she would come to meet him after 4-5 days.She did not complain regarding anything to him.On 26.03.1999, the son of his elder daughter, Sanjay came to his house and took him to Safdurjung hospital wherein he was informed about the death of his daughter.This witness has specifically stated that he has no complaints with the accused and there was no complaint of any harassment on the part of the mother-in-law of the deceased.He also stated that after hearing the death of his daughter, he became upset.At that time, in a fit of anger, he gave statement to the police leveling allegations against the acused.His anger was because the accused did not inform him for about 48 hours about the death of his youngest daughter.He further stated that due to anger, he leveled allegation against her.From the testimony of PW3-Devi Singh Sharma, there is nothing on record to connect the appellant with the commission of suicide by the deceased.He has not given any instance of any Crl.A. No. 3/2002 Page 5 of 9 harassment or taunt or cruelty meted out by the appellant to the deceased which led to the commission of suicide by her.In his testimony, he has clarified that in his statement made to the police he had leveled allegations against the appellant in a fit of anger as he was disturbed due to death of his youngest daughter.He has also stated that he was angry as the appellant did not inform him about the death of his daughter for about 48 hours and that was the reason for leveling allegations against the appellant.A. No. 3/2002 Page 5 of 9From a careful reading of the testimony of the PW3-father of the deceased, the prosecution has failed to make out its case against the appellant to the effect that she taunted or harassed the deceased which led to abetment of commission of suicide by the deceased.The only other evidence against the appellant by the prosecution is the alleged dying declaration of the deceased.The same has been proved on record as Ex.PW1/A by the then SDM- Ravi Dadhich.In the said dying declaration Ex.PW1/A, it was mentioned by the deceased that she herself set afire by pouring kerosene over her in a bathroom.It was further mentioned that she had a quarrel with the appellant as the appellant had been saying that the deceased wanted to separate her son from her.It was also mentioned that 4-5 slaps were given to her by the appellant.The deceased was in good terms with her husband.There is nothing else in the alleged dying declaration of the deceased.The trial court based its conviction while heavily relying Crl.A. No. 3/2002 Page 6 of 9 upon the said dying declaration Ex.PW1/A of the deceased, but in the considered opinion of this Court, there is nothing substantial in the said statement of the deceased from which the conviction of the appellant be based.There is no mention of any previous quarrel between the deceased and the appellant in the said statement.The deceased had only mentioned that she had a quarrel with the appellant on that day and she was slapped 4-5 times by the appellant due to which she poured kerosene on herself and set her afire.Apart from the said statement of the deceased, there is no other evidence on the record to connect the appellant with the abetment of suicide by the deceased.A. No. 3/2002 Page 6 of 9The prosecution has not produced any other evidence on record to show that the deceased was ever subjected to harassment and taunts by the appellant.PW3-father of the deceased is the only public independent witness examined by the prosecution but he has also not stated anything against the appellant from which it could be inferred that the the deceased was taunted or harassed by the appellant which could abet the suicide by the deceased.In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the charge framed and the conviction for an offence under Section 306 IPC on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate, in which she had stated that previously there had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said that she could go whereever she wanted to Crl.A. No. 3/2002 Page 7 of 9 go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene on herself and had set fire.Acquitting the accused the Hon'ble Apex Court said:In order to prove abetment, it must be shown that the accused kept on urging or annoying the deceased by words, taunts until the deceased reacted.A casual remark or something said in routine or usual conversation should not be construed or misunderstood as "abetment".A. No. 3/2002 Page 7 of 9A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive 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 appellant charged for abetting the offences of suicide should be found guilty.In view of the totaling of the evidence, facts and circumstances discussed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the proescuiton has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.Consequenlty, the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence are hereby set aside.The appellant is acquitted of the charge framed.A. No. 3/2002 Page 8 of 9The appellant is already on bail.Her bail bond and surety bonds are discharged.Appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of.(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE MAY 15, 2017 dd Crl.A. No. 3/2002 Page 9 of 9A. No. 3/2002 Page 9 of 9

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

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

Additionally, A-2 was held guilty and convicted for an offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC and A-1 was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act.A. Nos. 924/2002 & 2/2003 Page 1 of 18These appeals are also directed against an order on sentence dated 22nd October 2002 whereby, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, both A-1 and A-2 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each.For the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months each.Further, for the offence under Section 394 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months each.A-2 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC.A-1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.The sentences were directed to run concurrently.A. Nos. 924/2002 & 2/2003 Page 2 of 18Information was received from the Wireless Operator at the Police Post Burari at around 8.15 am on 10th February 1999 that one person Javed Ahmed (PW-15) had been robbed of his Yamaha motorcycle bearing registration DL-1S-3711 and Rs. 50,000/- at Pepsi Road, Harit Vihar, Delhi.This was noted down as DD No. 3 and assigned to Head Constable (HC) Ranbir Singh for appropriate action.HC Ranbir Singh then left for the spot along with Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) Suresh Ram, Constable Amar Singh (PW-5) and Sub Inspector (SI) D.S. Dagar (PW-16).As PW-16 along with his staff reached near the ganda nala near the office of Himalaya Properties at Harit Vihar, Sandeep Bayala (PW-17), the then Additional Station House Officer (SHO) of PS Timarpur, also reached the spot along with his staff.They found PW-15 there in an injured condition and bleeding from his head.PW-15 was taken to Sant Hospital by Ct.The MLC of PW-15 issued by the Sant Hospital (Ex.PW-1/A) shows that there was a cut injury on the left temporal region and abrasion injury on the left check and below the left eye.The wound was stitched up.The nature of the injury was simple, as noted on the MLC by Dr. Varinder Kumar Sehdev (PW-1).Narration of events by PW-15After PW-15 returned from the medical examination, his statement was recorded by PW-17, the Investigating Officer (IO).In his statement (Ex.PW-15/A), PW-15 stated that he was a property dealer and also running Crl.A. Nos. 924/2002 & 2/2003 Page 3 of 18 a shop of building materials at Harit Vihar under the name and style of Himalaya Properties.His aunts (bua's) son, Inteqab Ali @ Pappu (deceased), was also staying in the office premises and did work relating to building materials.Mujhibur Rehman (PW-7), who also belonged to the same village as Inteqab Ali, was running a tractor.He too slept in the office at night.A. Nos. 924/2002 & 2/2003 Page 3 of 18PW-15 stated that on 9th February 1999, at around 2 pm, received a payment of Rs. 50,000/- in his office.Soon thereafter, A-1 and A-2, who were previously acquainted with Inteqab Ali came to the office.At around 7 to 7:30 pm in the evening, PW-7 joined them.At around 8:00 pm, A-2 asked PW-15 and PW-7 to take him to a doctor as he was suffering due to a pain in his stomach.They told him that there would be no doctor available at that time.Thereafter, both A-1 and A-2 asked Inteqab Ali to take A-2 to the doctor.They then left with Inteqab Ali towards Sant Nagar to get some medicine.At 10 pm, A-1 and A-2 returned to the office without Inteqab Ali.When PW-15 asked them about him, both A-1 and A-2 informed him that Inteqab Ali left for Sona (Haryana) to purchase building materials and that he might return only next morning. A-1 and A-2 then insisted that PW-15 should again take A-2 to a doctor since he was unwell.However, PW-15 declined to do so since it was already late at night.He then lay down on the double bed in the office while PW-7 lay down on the office table.At around 5:00 am on 10th February 1999, PW-15 heard the sounds of a tractor and he woke up.He saw that PW-7 had left for work on his tractor.Around this Crl.Shortly after PW-7 had left, A-1 and A-2 woke PW-15 up.A-2 pointed a country made katta at PW-15 and asked him to take out the money.When he refused, they attacked him.A-1 threw a flower pot at his head.In order to save himself, PW-15 took out the Rs. 50,000/- from his bag that was in four bundles of Rs. 10,000/- each and two bundles of Rs. 5,000/- each and handed it over to A-1 and asked them to leave.While A-2 kept his firearm trained on PW-15, A-1 started cleaning the blood stains on the floor of the office with water.While A-1 took away the motorcycle of PW-15, A-2 proceeded on A-1s motorcycle.While leaving, both of them threatened PW-15 not to make a complaint to the police.Soon after the two accused left, PW-15 called the police.He then learnt that in the nearby field Inteqab Ali @ Pappu was lying dead.He stated that A-1 and A-2 had, with a view to robbing him of money, killed Inteqab Ali by taking him along with them.On the basis of the above statement a rukka was drawn up by PW-15 and sent to the PS for registration of the FIR.The crime team was called to the spot and photographs were taken of the place of occurrence.The dog squad was also called.The dead body of Inteqab Ali was identified by PW-15 and Crl.A. Nos. 924/2002 & 2/2003 Page 5 of 18 his brother, Gulfam Ahmed (PW-6).A rough site plan (Ex.The internal examination revealed the presence of clotted blood on the left side of the skull at left frontal parietal region.Right temporal region also contained blood.There was subdural haematoma on the occipital region.There was bruising below the ligature of connective and muscular tissue of the neck.Clotted blood was present on the upper part of the chest.The lungs were congested and oedematous.These appeals by Mohd. Sohaib (A-1) and Annas (A-2) are directed against the impugned judgment dated 11 th October 2002 passed by the Crl.A. Nos. 924/2002 & 2/2003 Page 1 of 18 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi (ASJ) in Sessions Case No. 56 of 1999 arising out of FIR No. 70 of 1999 registered at Police Station (PS) Timarpur, convicting both the Appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 394 IPC.Amar Singh (PW-5) for medical examination.A. Nos. 924/2002 & 2/2003 Page 5 of 18The post-mortem examination of the deceased was performed on 11th February 1999 by Dr. Komal Singh (PW-4).She noticed the following external injuries:"One external ligature mark encircling almost whole of the neck circumference (except at posterior side of the neck) about 30 cm x 5 mm size.Present at lower part of the larynx directed laterally and backward in more or less transverse fashion across the neck on right lateral side it is 3.5 cm below right pinna.It was brown and dry.2. Abrasion on the left side of chest 8 cm x 2 cm at 2nd ICS.Bruise present on left side of upper chest spreading in area 18 cm x 8 cm.Bruise on the back of right ear 3 cm x 5 mm5. Abrasion on post side of the ear 5 mm in size.Abrasion left frontal area of skull 1 cm x 5 mm and another abrasion on the same place 4 cm x 5 mm.Separated from each other by 2 cm.7 nail mark on the left side of the chest."Right side of the heart contained blood.A. Nos. 924/2002 & 2/2003 Page 6 of 18The cause of death was coma asphyxia in combination caused by the head injury subsequent to the blunt impact on the head.Further, asphyxia was caused by ligature strangulation over the neck.The death was certified to be homicidal.The time of death was stated to be approximately 38 hours prior.Arrest and recoveriesAccording to PW-17, on the evening of 11th February 1999, he received a telephonic message from ASI Ram Murti from Joya in Uttar Pradesh that the accused would be present at the house of their relative at D-851, Jahangirpuri.After his arrest, A-1 made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW-6/B) and led them to a room on the first floor of the same house and pointed out the Rexene bag and stated that it contained his share of the booty, i.e. cash of Rs. 30,000 and one katta and three live cartridges.These were converted into parcels and sealed.A-1 also got recovered a bloodstained sweater under the palang.This was also taken into possession and sealed.Thereafter, A-2 came down and pointed out the motorcycle parked in the street.It was also seized.A-1 then led the police to the B-Block of Jahangirpuri where the other Crl.A. Nos. 924/2002 & 2/2003 Page 7 of 18 motorcycle which was used by them in the commission of offence was also pointed out and subsequently seized.On 18th February 1999, A-2 led the police along with A-1 to the vacant place near Himalaya Properties and pointed out the place from where he got recovered a piece of nylon rope (Ex.P-6) and one copy diary (Ex.P-15/X) which was in the name of the deceased.All of these were taken into possession.A. Nos. 924/2002 & 2/2003 Page 7 of 1818. A-2 led the police to a room at the back of the house of Jahangirpuri from where he got recovered a bag of black colour from under the bed and from that bag, he got recovered one bloodstained shirt, one muffler, t-shirt of blue colour, one pant and sweater.All these articles were seized.After collecting all the remaining case properties and the sanction order for the prosecution under the Arms Act, the charge sheet was filed against both the Appellants.By the order dated 9 th August 1999 the charges were framed against the two accused persons for the offences mentioned hereinbefore.Eighteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution.The stand of both the Appellants in their statements under Section 313 CrPC was to deny each of the incriminating circumstances.Each of them claimed to have been falsely implicated.No defence evidence has been led.A. Nos. 924/2002 & 2/2003 Page 8 of 18The trial Court held that the attempts by the defence to discredit PW-15 by suggesting that he may have, sensing a growing business rivalry from the deceased, himself murdered the deceased was without merit; nothing was produced by either of the Appellants to substantiate such a plea.On the contrary, his evidence comes across as that of a witness who has been won over by the accused.

['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 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.

3.Brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the appeal, are asfollows:Marriage between the de facto complainant (PW-1) andthe respondent (A-1) was solemnized on 24th November, 1993.On 22nd May, 1996, the complainant sent a report (Ex.P-1) tothe Additional D.G.P., CID, Hyderabad, inter alia, alleging thatat the time of her marriage with A-1, on the insistence of A-1and his mother (A-2), her father gave her one house,Rs.60,000/- in cash, six tolas of gold and household articlesworth Rs.50,000/-.Still after the marriage, her husband,working as Reserve Sub-Inspector (RSP) at Security PrintingPress, was pressurising her to bring Rs.50,000/- more; heused to beat her up, scold, shout and threaten to kill her andon certain occasions he had also pressed her neck saying thathe would kill her.It was also alleged that her mother-in-law 2 (A-2), her husband's brother Prabhakar and his wife (A-4), andthe second sister-in-law of her husband (A-3) and herhusband's last brother also used to help her husband inbeating and harassing her.It was further alleged that oneMrs.Jalaja, working as Telephone Operator in the ReserveBank of India, also used to threaten her by saying that herhusband (A-1) had married her and he did not like to staywith her.Branding her husband to be a gambler, drunkardand moving around with anti social elements, it was alsoalleged that about six months back her husband and hisfamily members had made the first attempt to eliminate her byforcibly pouring poison into her throat and when her conditionbecame serious, they informed her parents that she had takenpoison.However, then she had not made any complaint to thepolice against her husband.D.K. JAIN, J.:Leave granted.2.Being aggrieved by the judgment and final order dated 12thApril, 2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature, AndhraPradesh at Hyderabad, setting aside the conviction of the 1 respondent-accused A-1 in Sessions Case No.129 of 1998from the charge of offence punishable under Section 498-A ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short `I.P.C.') and acquittinghim, the State of Andhra Pradesh has preferred this appeal.But again on 19th April, 1996 at11.00 a.m., her husband (A-1), his mother (A-2), his secondbrother's wife (A-3) and her husband's third brother's wife(A-4) forced her to consume poison and as a result thereofshe was admitted in the nursing home at about 2.30 p.m. inan unconscious state.When she was in a semi conscious 3 state, the police took her statement but she did not knowwhat statement the police had recorded.Her husbandinformed her parents about the incident only in the eveningthough she was admitted in the hospital at 2.30 p.m.; herparents came later and although they had lodged a complaintwith the police but no action was taken against any person.After being discharged from the hospital on 22nd April, 1996,she went to stay with her parents and since then she isstaying with them but neither her husband nor his familymembers have come to see her.4.The complaint was forwarded to the Senior Executive Officer,CID, Hyderabad and consequently on 7th August, 1996 a casewas registered against accused A-1 to A-4 as also against thesaid Mrs. Jalaja under Sections 498-A, 420, 494, 307 I.P.C.After investigation, chargesheet was laid against accused A-1to A-4 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307read with Section 34 I.P.C.5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined ninewitnesses.No evidence was produced in defence.The learnedTrial Court, on appreciation of evidence, and relying on theevidence of the father of the complainant (PW-3), nephew ofPW-3 (PW-4), a store clerk/colleague of PW-3 (PW-5), SecurityInspector/colleague of PW-3 (PW-6), and a neighbour of PW-1and PW-3 (PW-7), came to the conclusion that all theaforestated items had been given as consideration for themarriage on demand of the accused though in the disguise ofbeing gifts to the bridegroom.The Trial Court also inferredthat accused A-1, who had purchased a lorry in the name ofthe complainant--wife (PW-1) on 6th November, 1995 washarassing her to get Rs.50,000/- from her parents for thepurchase of lorry.Inter alia, observing that though nospecific instances of harassment had come on record butthe long course of conduct of accused A-1 showed that theallegations of harassment were not totally baseless, the trialjudge finally found accused A-1 guilty of the offencepunishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and accordinglysentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year 5 and to pay a fine of Rs.8000/- with default stipulation.However, he did not find accused A-1 guilty underSection 307 I.P.C. and accordingly acquitted him of the saidcharge.Accused A-2 to A-4 were not found guilty of both thecharges framed against them and were acquitted accordingly.6.Aggrieved, the respondent (A-1) challenged his conviction bypreferring appeal before the High Court.The High Court, asstated above, on a re-appraisal of the entire evidence, has setaside the conviction.Against this judgment, the State ofAndhra Pradesh is in appeal before us.7.We have heard learned counsel for the parties.It is pertinent to note that in so far as theallegation of poisoning by the accused to kill the complainantis concerned, the Trial Court has found the evidence of PW-3--the father of the complainant (PW-1) to PW-7 to beunreliable and has rejected the version of the prosecution tothat extent.Adversely commenting on the conduct of PW-3,the Trial Court has also observed that none of the accused 1 3 attempted to escape after the incident which corroborates theanxiety of accused A-1 to A-4 about the life of thecomplainant.Rejecting the prosecution version based on thecomplaint, accused A-2 to A-4 were acquitted by the TrialCourt.Admittedly after her dischargefrom the hospital on 22nd April, 1996, the complainant went toher parents' house and resided there.

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

30 PM PW 12, SI Chattar Singh together with PW 19 and two constables reached E - 128/2, SVM Security Office, Main Market Mohammadpur Village, New Delhi.Rameshpal Singh PW-10 ( the complainant) met them at the spot and opened the lock of the office of one SVM Security.One male, identified by the complainant, as Om Prakash was found dead in a pool of blood; blood was Crl.L.P.404/2011 Page 1 also oozing from his mouth and he had injuries on the face.The deceased's shirt of was torn.In the inner room, an individual, identified by the complainant as Subhash Yadav (accused) lay in a drunken condition, besmirched with blood stains on his clothes.There were blood stains on the table; and articles were strewn around.The complainant, an Assistant Sub- inspector in Delhi Police, in his statement Ex. P.W 10/P stated that his wife Sarbati Chaudhary (PW 3) was running SVM Security Agency in Mohammadpur Village, for the previous 4 years.The agency employed a supervisor and 25 Security Guards.Dharmender Singh was working as Supervisor.PW-10 had received a complaint against Subhash Yadav that he had taken liquor while on duty.On 26.07.04 the complainant called up Dharmender on his mobile phone, No. 9868227468 and directed that Subhash Yadav ought to be removed; he also asked Dharmender to meet him.The mobile SIM and the handset had been given by PW-10 to Dharmender for official purposes.Around 8.30 AM Dharmender went to the complainant's house, with the deceased; he was asked to relieve Subhash Yadav from duties immediately and asked to employ someone else.It was stated that PW-10 also directed a cut of 3 day's wages from Subhas Yadav, as penalty.PW-10 further stated that around 6.10 PM when he reached the SVM Security Agency office, the premises were locked and Dharmender was absent.PW-10 had a key to the office, ; the other key used to be with Dharmender.PW-10 opened the premises, and found Om Prakash lying dead.Subhash Yadav was murmuring in the inner room; both rooms contained blood stains and articles were strewn around.On receipt of information SI Chattar Singh (PW 19) alongwith police party reached the spot.The prosecution alleged that during investigation HC Lal Chand (PW 8) lifted two chance prints from the office table in the office, one chance print from a Crl.L.P.404/2011 Page 2 fridge and three chance prints from the glass lying on the table by report Ex. PW 8/A The crime team photographed the scene, seizures of articles were made, and the body was sent for post-mortem examination.It was alleged that Dharmender was arrested on 28.07.04 at around 5.10 pm upon identification by a secret informer; this was witnessed by complainant (Ex. PW.12/D) he had possession of a brown colour rexin purse in which he had a "Trump" SIM Card a Harrison key, Rs.250/- cash, identity card issued by SVM and visiting cards of SVM.He was taken to RK Puram where Subhash Yadav was also found.Through : None CORAM:On the pointing out of accused Dharmender Singh Mehra accused Subhash was arrested by arrest memo Ex. P.W 12/C. His personal search was conducted.The blood sample of Subhash was seized by memo Ex. PW 12/H and blood sample of Dharmender was seized by memo Ex. PW.During investigation, the prescription slip issued by PW. 1 Dr. Ganpati Bhomik regarding treatment of injury suffered by Dharmender Singh Mehra Ex. P.W. 1/A dated 27.07.04 was seized vide memo Ex. P.1/B. Dr. Ganpati Bhomik duly identified Dharmender as the one who approached him on 27.07.04 at around 9 AM for treatment of his hand injury.Subhash Yadav also made a disclosure.As per postmortem report Ex. PW. 9/A the cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling.The handwriting samples of Dharmender were taken on 28.07.04 by memo Ex. PW 12/K and after examination it with the questioned handwriting, a report Ex. PW. 27/A was obtained; it was produced during the trial.The finger prints and palm impression report is Ex. PW.25/A &PW. 25/B.The prosecution also claimed that details of call records of mobile phone No. 9868227468 Ex. P.W. 7/A1 - A-3 were placed on record.The allotment of mobile Crl.The rent receipt Ex. P.3 of the premises was seized on 04.10.2004 by Ex. PW.19/A. The ownership details in respect of Mobile phone No. 9868227468 were collected on 07.04.2004 and seized by memo Ex. P.W. 19/C The telephone No. 26168928 installed at E- 128/2, the SVM office was installed in the name of Sarbati and proof in this regard was seized on 11.10.04 by memo Ex. P.W. 19/D. After investigation, the accused were charged for the offences mentioned above; they claimed to be not guilty and sought trial.The prosecution relied on the testimony of several witnesses, besides material exhibits produced during the trial.After considering these, and the submissions made during the proceedings, the Trial Court, through the impugned judgment acquitted the accused of all charges.The learned APP urged that the impugned judgment discloses substantial and compelling reasons as to why leave ought to be granted.It was urged that the Trial Court's conclusion that the prosecution did not prove motive, and that the facts emerging did not implicate the accused, is contrary to the record.It was emphasized that the combined testimony of PW-5 and the complainant, PW-10 clearly pointed to the role played by both accused; moreover, the other evidence in the form of mobile phone call details, and the circumstances which stood proved, clearly corroborated the disclosure statements made by the accused.Having regard to these, the Trial Court could not reasonably have concluded that the prosecution was unable to establish the respondents' guilt.This court has considered the submissions, as well as the Trial Court records, which were examined carefully.The records were requisitioned for the purpose of this petition.Before proceeding further with the merits, it would be Crl."In the present case, the prosecution has not proved any motive on part of accused persons to commit the murder.It is pertinent to mention here that IO did not examine the other guards employed in the security agency.The testimony of these witnesses could have thrown light on the relations among the accused persons, deceased and the complainant.It is quite strange that despite provisions of identification of Prisoners Act, the investigating agency does not care to take specimen finger prints as provided under the Act. Only on account of casual approach of IO, such evidence is going to be excluded.The Senior police officers must give suitable direction to IO's that specimen finger prints should be taken in accordance with the provisions of identification of Prisoners Act. Thus, the entire evidence regarding the finger print and handwriting has to be excluded for consideration.xxx xxxx xxx 12.1 I consider, that testimony of PW 5 Bachan Singh and PW 10 Ramesh Pal Singh, both are not reliable enough to record conviction on this point also.There are umpteen reasons for it.On paper it was a partnership firm.The partners seem to be the wife and daughter of the accused.Earlier there was one Priya Baiju who retired.Admittedly, there were keys of the office more than one.One key is stated to be with accused and wife of the complainant and other key is stated to be with the complainant.However, there is divergent evidence on the point that who used to open the office.PW 5 stated that office was used to be opened sometime by the lady guards also.It also came in the evidence that accused Crl.L.P.404/2011 Page 5 Dharmender Singh Mehra used to stay in the office only.PW 5 Bachan Singh in his statement before the police had stated that he went to the office of SVM when the police had arrived but in his statement before the Court, he took a somersault and stated that when Ramesh Pal Singh initially opened the office and found the dead body, he came to him rushing and informed about the same and then the matter was informed to the police.It also came in his testimony that in the meanwhile he also went along with the witness to the spot.Therefore, it is on record that the venue was accessible to complainant before the police reached there.Even if we believe the testimony of PW 5 for the sake of argument that accused left the office at 3 pm then it cannot be said with certainty that the complainant or any other person did not visit that place in between.It has also come in the testimony that there were to gates.However, one of the gate, the prosecution witnesses say that used to remain closed.But when there is a specific defence that complainant may also be involved in the offence, the possibility of this gate being used cannot be ruled out.I consider, that taking into account the entire law on last seen evidence which has been discussed to detail in the judgment of Arvind @ Chhotu Vs.State A. 362/2001, the circumstances regarding last seen in the present case is not sufficient to convict the accused.14.0 The prosecution is heavily relying upon the recovery of SIM card and battery from the possession of accused.They say that the Telephone No. 9868227468 of Motorola Company was given to accused Dharmender Singh by complainant Ramesh Pal Singh for discharge of official duty.If it was so, who stopped the IO to ascertain the location of the accused persons at the relevant time? He did not make any enquiry in this regard.I do not find any evidence on record to conclusively hold that this telephone No. was with accused Dharmender Singh Mehra.Regarding the arrest and recovery from accused Dharmender Singh Mehra on 28.07.04, again there are material contradictions.As per prosecution witnesses, accused Dharmender Singh was arrested from Kailash Colony at around 5 - 5.30 pm and from there he was taken to PS RK Puram, where co-accused Subhash Yadav was arrested and the disclosure statement of both the accused persons were recorded.It is pertinent to mention here that the disclosure of both the accused persons are Crl.L.P.404/2011 Page 6 almost verbatim, IO states that he had dictated the same.And then these accused persons are taken to Safdarjang Hospital at 6.30 pm and thereafter, they go to PW 1 Ganpati Bhomik and effect recovery from New Friends Colony.However, if we persue the case diary, the recoveries are effected at the instance of accused Dharmender Singh Mehra immediately after arrest and thereafter, he is taken to PS.Therefore, apparently the time at which accused Dharmender Singh has been shown to be arrested is incorrect.The presence of accused Subhash Yadav on the spot could also be conclusively proved by the Crime Team report.The prosecution did not prove it for the reasons best known to them.The case diary states that accused Subhash Yadav had also suffered some injury but he was not medically examined for the reasons best known to the IO."Several circumstances were sought to alleged against the accused as indicative of their guilt.And yet, the most important of them was the account of how the body was discovered, and the previous, as well as surrounding circumstances.Dharmender was a supervisor, in the security agency.He was allegedly asked to terminate Subhash Yadav's employment, as the latter was found one day in a drunken condition, when on duty.The evidence of these entirely hinges on the testimony of the complainant.At best, this has some link with a possible motive.The court appreciated the entirety of circumstances.As far as the discovery of the body on the day of the incident is concerned, the Trial Court - in its impugned judgment, portions of which have been extracted above, noticed that the two contemporary witnesses, PW-5 and the complainant, PW-10 vastly differed in their testimonies.It was held that Dharmender used to stay in the office premises, which raised some pertinent questions as to why they had to be locked, and keys kept with separate people.Similarly, the court seriously doubted PW-10's version about discovery of the body.In the deposition, he did not mention having seen it, in the first instance;L.P.404/2011 Page 7 however, PW-5 clearly deposed that the complainant had informed him about having seen the deceased's body, and then gone to the police.Similarly, as regards the recoveries, the Trial Court disbelieved the entire prosecution version.

['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.

Drav Kumar was issueless and it was the desire of Mahavir that Drav Kumar should stay with him without separation so that on the death of Drav Kumar and his wife, the property inherited through their father, could in turn be inherited by the children of Mahavir Singh.Since Drav Kumar was contemplating to Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 2 of 76 adopt a son and a daughter, Mahavir desired that Drav Kumar should adopt his son.Defying the desire of Mahavir, Drav Kumar adopted a male and a female child.This infuriated Mahavir who sought revenge.He decided to kill Drav Kumar.Fearing for his life Drav Kumar left his home-town and settled in Delhi.To give effect to his illegal desire, Mahavir Singh contacted the other three appellants.The four decided to kill Drav Kumar by injecting him potassium cyanide.Subash Chand @ Doctor @ Pradhan procured potassium cyanide and gave the vial containing potassium cyanide to Mustaq and Jagpal, who on an opportune moment were to inject the same in the body of Drav Kumar.In pursuance of the said conspiracy, appellant Mustaq befriended the deceased so as to create an opportunity to execute the object of their conspiracy.On 05.04.2004, appellants Mustaq and Jagpal visited the residence of the deceased and in a friendly manner led him to Surajmal Park.Attar Singh PW-2, a bodyguard of Drav Kumar also accompanied them.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 3 of 76As per the prosecution Attar Singh PW-2 and Latesh PW-6, the wife of the deceased, removed the deceased to the hospital where he was declared brought dead.As per the charge-sheet filed against the appellants, the investigating officer recovered Rs.10,000/- (being the contract money paid to Jagpal for killing the deceased) pursuant to the disclosure statement of Jagpal and upon Jagpal leading the investigating officer to the place wherefrom the money was recovered.Qua Mustaq, as per the prosecution, pursuant to his disclosure statement and at his instance he got recovered a pocket diary containing the name and telephone number of Mahavir.Qua appellant Mahavir the prosecution claims that pursuant to his disclosure statement he got recovered a vial which was detected with the presence of potassium cyanide.He also got recovered a Matiz car bearing registration No.DL- 5CB-0024 in which he had transported Mustaq and Jagpal to Delhi and back to their village after the crime was committed.Qua appellant Subash Chand @ Doctor @ Pradhan the prosecution claimed that pursuant to his disclosure statement and upon his pointing out, he got recovered a paper packet containing a powdery substance which was potassium cyanide.Needless to state, Attar Singh PW-2, was the lynch pin of the case of the prosecution qua its case against Mustaq and Japal.Sustenance was sought to corroborate Attar Singh with Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 4 of 76 the testimony of Latesh, the wife of the deceased, to prove that on 05.04.2004 the deceased was in the company of Mustaq and Jagpal.The involvement of Mahavir Singh in the conspiracy was sought to be proved by leading evidence that Mahavir Singh was in touch with Mustaq and Jagpal before and after the murder, and his having a motive to kill his brother.Evidence was sought to be led against Subash Chand @ Doctor to prove his being a conspirator with reference to his being seen in the company of Mahavir when the other two conspirators were present as also the recovery of a paper pudia containing potassium cyanide at his instance.Lastly, the proof of the fact that the deceased was killed due to cyanide poisoning.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 4 of 76Criminal law was set into motion when at around 9:30 PM on 05.04.2004, DD No.23A, Ex.PW-33/A, was recorded by the duty officer at Police Station Anand Vihar to the effect that the duty constable at GTB Hospital has informed that Drav Kumar has been admitted in an unconscious condition at the hospital by his wife Latesh and one Attar Singh.On receiving a copy of the afore-noted DD Entry, SI Udaivir Singh PW-33, accompanied by Const.Suresh Kumar PW-31, proceeded to GTB Hospital.Simultaneously, Inspector Dharmender Kumar PW-50, who also received the information as recorded in DD No.23-A, reached GTB Hospital.On reaching Crl.That a dispute arose between the deceased and his elder brother Mahavir Singh qua a property situated in the village, on account of which dispute, the deceased left his native village and started residing in Delhi in a house bearing Municipal No.10/125, 18 Block, Vishwas Nagar, along with his wife, mother and two adopted children.He also used to reside with the deceased at the aforesaid house and that the deceased always used to keep him by his side.He used to help the deceased in his business.Around 1-1 month ago, Mustaq who claimed to be a resident of Sunder Nagri started visiting Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 6 of 76 the residence of the deceased.The deceased told him that he had met Mustaq in a jail.Few days ago, he had gone to his village and returned today i.e. 5.4.2004 at around 1:00 PM.Latesh, wife of the deceased, told him that in the company of Mustaq and another boy the deceased had gone to Surajmal Park, pursuant whereto he proceeded to Surajmal Park.On reaching Surajmal Park, he saw that the deceased was engaged in conversation with Mustaq and another person who was aged between 20-25 years.The said person was of medium built and had wheatish complexion and told his name as Raju.Raju had a small bag in his hand.The deceased, Mustaq, Raju and he came to the house of the deceased and had lunch.All four went to see a movie at Swaran Cinema and after watching the movie they proceeded to Surajmal Park.On the way, the deceased told them to go to Surajmal Park and that he was going to his house.Thus, three of them went to the park and engaged themselves in a conversation.After sometime the deceased came there and they continued talking to each other.Around 6:00 PM Mustaq gave him money and asked him to bring beer.He refused.Mustaq and the deceased left to buy beer.Since Mustaq and the deceased did not return after a considerable time, he and Raju went to the residence of the deceased.After sometime, Mustaq came to the house of the deceased and the three i.e. Mustaq, Raju Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 7 of 76 and he went to Surajmal Park.On reaching Surajmal Park he saw that four beer bottles were lying in front of the deceased.They consumed one bottle of beer each at an open ground near the park.After consuming the beer, at around 8:30 PM, they proceeded to return to the house of the deceased, when suddenly Mustaq caught hold of the deceased from the back and Raju pierced some object in the back of the deceased.The deceased shouted that he had been stabbed.Mustaq and Raju fled.He tried to apprehend them but failed.He inspected the back of the deceased but did not find blood.Thereafter, he and the deceased started walking towards the house of the deceased, but after covering some distance the deceased expressed his inability to walk further stating that the pain was becoming unbearable.He made the deceased sit near a drain and rushed to the house of the deceased to call the wife of the deceased.He and the wife of the deceased removed the deceased to GTB Hospital where he was declared brought dead.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 7 of 76After recoding the statement Ex.PW-2/A of Attar Singh and collecting the MLC Ex.PW-34/A of the deceased, and after seizing the body of the deceased and sending it to the mortuary of GTB Hospital, the aforesaid police officers proceeded to the place of occurrence disclosed by Attar Singh and at the place of occurrence Inspector Dharmender Kumar Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 8 of 76 PW-50 made an endorsement Ex.PW-50/A beneath the statement Ex.PW-2/A of Attar Singh at around 01:00 AM and forwarded the same through Const.Suresh Kumar PW-31 for registration of an FIR.At the police station, HC Sufal Ram PW- 30, registered FIR No.137/04, Ex.HC Sufal Ram contemporaneously entered DD No.3A Ex.PW-30/B, recording the time of registration of the FIR.HC Sufal Ram also recorded DD No.4A Ex.PW-30/C, which inter-alia records that HC Sufal Ram handed over the FIR Ex.PW-30/A to Const.Satpal at 2:30 AM on 06.04.2004 for being delivered to the Area Magistrate and senior police officials.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 8 of 76Being relevant, it may be noted that FIR Ex.In the meanwhile, at the spot Inspector Dharmender Kumar PW-50, seized four empty bottles of beer at CBD ground as noted in the memo Ex.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 9 of 76 (photographer) PW-17, reached the spot on being summoned.7 photographs Ex.PW-17/1 to Ex.PW-17/7; negatives whereof are PW-17/8 to Ex.PW-17/14 were taken.The same show four beer bottles lying on the ground.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 9 of 76On 06.04.04 Inspector Dharmender Kumar PW-50, recorded the statement Ex.In the said statement she stated that appellants Jagpal and Mustaq had visited her residence and that after lunch all three, accompanied by Attar had left and that in the night Attar came to the house and told her that her husband had been stabbed by Jagpal and Mustaq.She and Attar took her husband to the hospital where he was declared brought dead.It was further recorded in the post-mortem report that the opinion regarding the cause of death of the deceased would be given after receiving the report of the chemical analysis of the viscera of the deceased.After the post-mortem, the doctor handed over the viscera, clothes and blood sample of the deceased on a gauze, as also tissues obtained from the punctured wound found on the person of the deceased to Const.Suresh Kumar PW-31, who in turn handed over the same to Inspector Dharmender Kumar PW-50, as recorded in the memo Ex.PW-31/A.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 11 of 76 28/C wherein he confessed to have murdered the deceased.He took the police to the spot where he claimed to have murdered the deceased and pointed out the same as recorded in the pointing out memo Ex.PW-28/D. (It may be noted here that the said spot is the same which was told by Attar Singh to the police as the spot where the deceased was stabbed with a needle i.e. the spot was already known to the police.) Thereafter, Mustaq made another disclosure statement Ex.PW- 28/C wherein he stated that he can get recovered a pocket diary in which he has written the telephones numbers of Mahavir Singh and his associates.Thereafter, he led Inspector Dharmender Kumar PW-50 and SI Ram Kishore Pandey PW-28 to a STD booth in village Mohalla Noorganj, Muradnagar, UP where one Jakir Ali produced a small diary at the instance of Mustaq.The said diary was seized vide memo Ex.PW-28/E.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 11 of 76On 07.05.2004 Const.Sonu Kaushik PW-21, prepared the site plan Ex.On 31.05.2004 Inspector Aas Mohd. PW-56, took over the investigation of the case.Being relevant to note, is the fact, that Inspector Dharmender Kumar was removed as an investigating officer because he did not arrest Mahavir Singh who had responded to his notice to appear before him.After questioning Mahavir Singh, Inspector Dharmender Kumar let Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 12 of 76 him return home.Inspector Dharmender Kumar was accused of bias.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 12 of 76The prosecution claims that pursuant to a secret information, the police party consisting of Inspector Aas Mohd. PW-56, HC Chanderpal PW-11 and Const.On being interrogated by Inspector Aas Mohd in the presence of HC Chanderpal PW-11 and Const.Vikram Singh PW-13, Jagpal made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-11/B wherein he confessed to have murdered the deceased and stated that he can get recovered the sum which he had taken from appellant Mahavir Singh.But, Jagpal refused to participate in the said proceedings alleging that the police had already shown him to the witnesses, as recorded in the record of proceedings Ex.PW-7/A.As per the prosecution on the next day i.e. 21.07.2004 Jagpal pointed out the residence of the deceased and the places where he, Mustaq, Attar Singh and the deceased consumed beer on the day of the murder of the deceased as also the place where the deceased was stabbed.(All places Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 13 of 76 already in the knowledge of the police).The said sum of Rs.10,000/- was seized vide memo Ex.PW-51/A. Inspector Aas Mohd. prepared the site plan Ex.PW-56/A of the place of recovery of said sum of Rs.10,000/-.Thereafter, Mustaq led the aforesaid police officers to Hotel Rajmahal and pointed out a room where the appellants had hatched the conspiracy to murder the deceased.Two witnesses; namely, Latesh PW-6, the wife of the deceased and Prakash Chand PW-45 had witnessed the said pointing out as recorded in the memo Ex.PW-6/A. Sometime thereafter, Jagpal led the aforesaid police officers to village Tanaja and pointed out the residence of Subash in the presence of two witnesses; namely, Kiran Pal PW-46 and Chetan Singh PW-47, as recorded in the pointing out memo Ex.PW-56/B.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 13 of 76On 08.08.2004 the police party comprising Inspector Aas Mohd. PW-56, Const.PW-32/B wherein he confessed to have hatched a conspiracy to murder the deceased along with the other appellants and stated that he can get recovered the syringe and vial used in committing the murder of the deceased.He also told that the Matiz car used by him to transport Mustaq and Jagpal could be got recovered by him.On the next day i.e. 09.08.2004 a Matiz car bearing registration no.DL-5CB- 0024 was recovered at the instance of Mahavir Singh in the presence of Khazan Singh PW-9, the father of the wife of the deceased.The said car was seized vide memo Ex.PW-9/A.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 14 of 76On 10.08.2004 the police party comprising of Inspector Aas Mohd. PW-56, Const.Rajpal PW-32 and HC Krishan Pal PW- 52, arrested Subash Chand.On being interrogated by Inspector Aas Mohd. PW-56, in the presence of Const.Rajpal PW-32 and HC Krishan Pal PW-52, Subash made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-52/B wherein he confessed to have participated in the murder of the deceased and stated that he can get recovered the syringe, the vial and potassium cyanide used in committing the murder of the deceased.As claimed by the prosecution, appellant Mahavir Singh led Inspector Aas Mohd. to a vacant plot near Sushila Park, Bulandshar, and as recorded in the pointing out memo Ex.The said vial was seized vide memo Ex.PW- 15/A. Inspector Aas Mohd. prepared the rough site plan Ex.PW-56/C of the place of recovery of said vial.Thereafter, Subash Chand led Inspector Aas Mohd. to his house situated in village Tanaja and got recovered a paper puria containing a white coloured substance from a cupboard inside his house.Three witnesses; namely, Inderpal Singh PW-23, Naresh Kumar PW-24, the brother of the wife of the deceased and Khazan Singh PW-9, the father of the wife of the deceased witnessed the recovery.The said paper puria was seized vide memo Ex.PW-23/A. Inspector Aas Mohd. prepared the rough site plan Ex.PW-56/D of the place of recovery of the said paper puria.PW-25/B.The investigating officer, Inspector Aas Mohd. PW-56 recorded statements of various persons, some of them threw light on the property dispute between Mahavir and the deceased.Some threw light on Mahavir meeting people.Some threw light on conduct of Mahavir in not attending the funeral of his brother.Some threw light on Mahavir allegedly absconding.Attar Singh PW-2 in his testimony reiterated the contents of his earlier statement Ex.PW-2/A. However, he made two departures by adding two sequence of events i.e. improved upon his statement Ex.PW-2/A. The said improvements are:-(i) that when he and the deceased were proceeding to the house of the deceased after the deceased was attacked by Mustaq and Jagpal, he made the deceased sit near a drain as Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 18 of 76 the deceased was unable to walk further because of unbearable pain.That one security guard was present there and he asked him to bring a rickshaw but the guard refused to do so.He requested the said guard to take care of the deceased and he went to the house of the deceased to inform the wife and the mother of the deceased about the incident.The wife of the deceased gave him Rs.10,000/- to take the deceased to the hospital.That thereafter he and the wife of the deceased came to the spot where the deceased was sitting.He denied having illicit relations with the wife of the deceased.He admitted that the deceased possessed a mobile phone but pleaded ignorance whether the same was with the deceased on the day of the incident.On being cross-examined about the handing over of money by the wife of the deceased to him on the day of the incident, he stated that: (Quote) 'After receipt of information Latesh gave me a sum of Rs.10,000/-and I ran to hire a rickshaw and Latesh ran towards drain.' He denied having Crl.Latesh PW-6, the wife of the deceased, deposed that the relations between the deceased and Mahavir Singh were strained on account of the fact that the deceased had adopted a male child.Mahavir Singh used to extend threats to the deceased due to which they left their native village and shifted to village Devipura and thereafter to Delhi.She deposed that Mahavir Singh and his family fled from the village after the death of the deceased.On 05.04.2004 Mustaq and Jagpal @Raju visited their residence and the deceased proceeded to a park with them and the deceased instructed her to send Attar Singh to the park.At around 10:00 AM when Attar Singh came to the house she asked him to go to the park.After sometime Attar Singh returned from the park and told her that the deceased had asked her to prepare tea.She prepared tea and sent the same through Attar Singh.After some time Attar Singh again came to the house and asked her to prepare lunch upon which she asked him that they should have food at the residence itself.Mustaq, Jagpal, Attar Singh and the deceased came to the house and had lunch.They went back to the park.About 4:00 PM the deceased again came to the house and Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 22 of 76 after taking rest for 1-1 hours he went back to the park.Sometime thereafter Jagpal and Attar Singh came to the house and told her that the deceased and Mustaq had gone to a market to purchase some articles.Around 8:00 PM Attar Singh again came to the house and informed her and her mother-in- law that Mustaq and Raju have stabbed something at the back of the deceased.She and her mother-in-law proceeded to the spot where the deceased was present and put the deceased in a rickshaw with the help of Attar Singh and one security guard present there.Thereafter they shifted the deceased to an auto and took him to a private hospital where the doctors refused to attend to him.They took the deceased to a government hospital where he was declared brought dead.That after he was arrested Jagpal pointed out the place where conspiracy to murder the deceased was hatched by the accused.The pointing out memo Ex.PW-6/A was prepared in her presence and bears her signatures.On being cross-examined she denied having illicit relations with Attar Singh.Mahavir Singh planned to murder the deceased, on account of which she, the deceased and the family of the deceased shifted from their native village to village Devipura and thereafter to Delhi.That one day Mustaq Crl.On being cross-examined about the role played by her in removal of the deceased to the hospital, she stated that (Quote) 'Deceased Drav Kumar was found dead by us when we accompanied Attar Singh to the occurrence however he was removed to the hospital but the doctor declared him dead and the froth was coming out from his mouth.' On being cross- examined about her relations with Mahavir Singh, she stated that (Quote) 'Mahavir got me assaulted from Vinod, who is son of my son Mahavir.Jai Narain, son of my brother in law (Jeth) was armed with a rifle.Mahavir had abused me in filthiest language.This incident took place three years ago.It is correct that I am deposing against Mahavir, since he had behaved with me in aforesaid fashion.Mahavir used to abuse me treating me like his wife and not is mother.'Harbir Singh PW-3, deposed that the deceased and Mahavir Singh were known to him as they used to reside in his village.The relations between the deceased and Mahavir Singh were strained on account of the fact that the deceased had adopted a male child.The deceased and Mahavir Singh were Crl.Mahavir Singh and his family fled from the village after the death of the deceased.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 25 of 76On being cross-examined about his relations with Mahavir Singh, he stated that (Quote) 'A dispute had taken place with accused Mahavir Singh when I sold my land to accused Mahavir Singh and one Wasim and they had not paid the sale proceeds as per our demand.' On being cross- examined about the details of the incident of firing, he stated that: (Quote) 'At the time of firing incident between the two brothers I was also named as an accused by the accused Mahavir Singh.Deceased Drav Kumar had not named me in the said incident.'Narsi Singh PW-4, the brother of Harbir Singh PW-3, deposed that the relations between the deceased and Mahavir Singh were strained on account of the fact that the deceased had adopted a male child.Mahavir Singh used to threaten the deceased that he would kill him.Mahavir Singh and his family fled from the village after the death of the deceased.Jai Narain PW-37, a resident of village Nazimpura, deposed that he is acquainted with appellant Mahavir Singh Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 27 of 76 and the deceased and that there was a dispute between them regarding the inheritance of property.That the mother of Mahavir Singh and the deceased had executed a Will Mark PW- 37/A to settle the dispute between them and that the said Will bears his signatures.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 27 of 76Rakesh Kumar PW-36, Dinesh PW-41, Jugnu PW-42 and Upendra PW-54, deposed that the deceased was their landlord and that they are not aware about any dispute between the deceased and appellant Mahavir Singh regarding the ownership of the shops occupied by them.He denied having made any statement to the police with regard to the present case.On being cross-examined by the learned APP, he stated that he is not aware about any dispute between the deceased and Mahavir Singh.That Mustaq Ali did not reside as a tenant in his house and that he has no knowledge regarding the association between Mahavir Singh and Mustaq.He denied knowledge of the fact that Raju used to visit Mustaq or that Mahavir Singh and Mustaq absconded after the death of the deceased.SI Udaivir Singh PW-33, deposed that on 05.04.2004 at around 9:30 PM he received information regarding the Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 28 of 76 incident, pursuant whereto he proceeded to GTB Hospital.That the statement Ex.PW-2/A of Attar Singh was recorded by Inspector Dharmender Kumar at the hospital.That thereafter he proceeded to the place of occurrence to conduct spot investigation.On being cross-examined qua the time at which he reached GTB Hospital he informed that he reached the hospital around 10/10:15 PM.Suresh Kumar PW-31, deposed that on 05.04.2004 at about 11:30 PM he received information regarding the incident pursuant whereto he accompanied SI Udaivir Singh PW-33 to GTB Hospital and that Inspector Dharmender Kumar PW-50 was also present at the hospital.PW-2/A of Attar Singh at the hospital.Thereafter they proceeded to the place of occurrence where SI Udaivir Singh seized the beer bottles found therein and photographs of the place of occurrence and the surrounding area were taken.SI Udaivir Singh prepared the rukka and at around 1.30 P.M. he took the same to the police station, where Const.Suresh Kumar PW-30 registered the FIR Ex.PW-30/A. That he handed over the clothes, blood sample and tissues of the deceased to Inspector Dharmender Kumar vide memo Ex.PW-31/A after they were handed over to him by the doctor who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased.PW-2/A of Attar Singh at the hospital.Thereafter he proceeded to the place of occurrence where he prepared the rukka and conducted spot investigation.SI Ram Avtar Yadav had also joined him at the spot investigation.On 15.04.2004 he arrested Mustaq who led him to a STD shop located in village Noorganj, Murad Nagar, UP where one Jakir Ali produced a small diary at the instance of Mustaq.A perusal of the diary revealed that the telephone numbers of appellant Mahavir Singh, one Kishore and Krishan were written therein.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 30 of 76 I had sent notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. to Mahavir Singh.Mahavir Singh had received the same.Mahavir Singh had come to PS Anand Vihar in pursuance to this notice'.PW- 28/A bears his signatures.That Mustaq made a disclosure statement and pointed out the place where the deceased was murdered.That Attar Singh PW-2 was also present at the times when Mustaq was arrested and pointed out the place where the deceased was murdered.That Mustaq led the police party to the house of one Jakir Ali situated at village Noorganj, Muradnagar where Jakir Ali produced one small diary at the instance of Mustaq in his presence.That the investigation conducted by him revealed that a Matiz car Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 31 of 76 bearing registration no.DL-5CB-2024 is involved in the present case.That one Javed who is a resident of village Bulandshar informed him that he had sold the said vehicle to Asad who in turn sold the same to Mahavir Singh.On 19.07.2004 he arrested Jagpal and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW- 11/B. On 21.07.2004 Jagpal pointed out the place where the deceased was murdered and that on 25.07.2004 Jagpal led him and other police officials to a liquor canteen situated in Dehradun and got recovered a sum of Rs.10,000/- from a drawer in the said canteen in the presence of two public witnesses; namely, Rajesh and Dharamvir.Thereafter, Jagpal led him and other police officers to hotel Rajmahal and pointed out a room where the conspiracy to murder the deceased was hatched by the appellants.Thereafter he led him and other police officials to village Tanaja and pointed out the residence of Subash in the presence of two public witnesses; namely, Kiran Pal and Chetan Singh.On 08.08.2004 he arrested Mahavir Singh and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW-32/B and that thereafter he recovered the Matiz car bearing registration No.Thereafter, Mahavir Singh and Subash led Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 32 of 76 him and other police officers to a vacant plot near Sushila Park, Bulandshar, where one empty vial was recovered from the grass at the instance of Subash in the presence of two public witnesses; namely, Chaudhary Ram Singh and Naresh and that no article was recovered at the instance of Mahavir Singh.That thereafter he recorded the second disclosure statement Ex.PW-9/C of Subash pursuant whereto Subash got recovered a paper pudia containing a white coloured substance from a cupboard lying in his house in the presence of two public witnesses; namely, Inderpal and Naresh Kumar.On being cross-examined about the presence of gatekeepers at Surajmal Park on the day of the incident, the witness stated that: (Quote) 'I had tried to contact the gatekeeper of Surajmal Vihar park, who had prevented complainant Attar Singh to consume beer inside the park, but complainant Attar Singh could not point out the said gatekeeper.I had contacted two gatekeepers of Surajmal Vihar Park, who were on duty on relevant time, but complainant Attar Singh had not identified those gatekeepers to be the persons who had prevented them to consume the beer inside the park.' On being cross- examined about the factum of recording of the statements two witnesses namely, Ram Bhool and Shri Ram, by him during the course of the investigation, the witness stated that 'Statements of witnesses, Shri Ram and Ram Bhool were Crl.Vikram Singh PW-13 deposed on same lines that after Jagpal was arrested he made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-11/B in their presence.Ajit Singh PW-43, who claimed himself to be the son of one Yadram Singh and resident of the house bearing Municipal No.1449/M16, Gali No.9, Durga Puri, Shahdara, Delhi deposed that on 21.07.2004 Inspector Aas Mohd. interrogated Jagpal and recorded the contents of said interrogation on a paper in his presence.Sushil PW-1, deposed that he had let out the first floor of his house to the deceased and that the deceased along with his mother, wife and two children used to reside there.Dharambir Singh PW-16, the stated witness to the recovery of Rs.10,000/- at the instance of Jagpal was also dropped as an unnecessary witness.Rajesh Kumar PW-51, deposed that he is employed at a liquor canteen situated at Kanwali Road, Dehradun.That Jagpal joined the said canteen in the month of May 2004 and left the job within 10-15 days thereafter.On 26/27 July 2004 the police officers along with Jagpal came to the said canteen and made enquiries from him.That no money was got recovered by Jagpal in his presence.That he had signed the memo Ex.PW-51/A at the instance of the police.HC Krishan Pal PW-52, deposed that he was present when Mahavir Singh and Subash were arrested on 08.08.2004 and 10.08.2004 respectively.That Jagpal made a disclosure statement and got recovered a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the drawer at a liquor canteen in his presence.Thereafter Jagpal led him and other police officials to village Tanaja and pointed out the residence of Subash.A Matiz car bearing registration No.DL-5CB-2024 was recovered at the instance of Mahavir Singh in his presence.Mahavir Singh and Subash made disclosure statements Ex.PW-32/B and Ex.PW-52/A respectively in his presence.That on 11.08.2004 the police along with Mahavir Singh and another person had come to his house.He cannot identify the other person who was accompanying them.Neither any article was recovered by the police nor any person pointed out any place to the police in his presence and that the memos Ex.Subash Chand got recovered a vial in his presence and that memo Ex.PW-15/B prepared in said regard bears his signatures.Thereafter Subash Chand led the police officers to his house and got recovered a paper puria from a cupboard in his house.The recovery was in his presence and that the memo Ex.PW-23/A bears his signatures.On being cross-examined about the articles purportedly recovered at the instance of Subash, he stated that: (Quote) 'The sringe got recovered by accused Subash was ordinary sringe.I cannot tell its size.The said sringe was lifted from the spot by accused Subash.I do not know who cleaned the sringe.The police had prepared the pulanda of the sringe and had sealed the same.The sringe was empty.....Police had shown me the sringe at the spot before lifting the same.There Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 38 of 76 was needle in the sringe at the time of its recovery.' On being cross-examined as to where he was standing when the paper puria was recovered, he stated:- 'I had not entered inside the house of accused Subash.I continued to stand outside his house.' On being further questioned as to whether any other person was present at the time of the recovery, he stated that one Inder Pal was also present.Inderpal Singh PW-23, deposed that he is acquainted with Subash Chand since they are residents of the same village.In the month of August 2004 when he came to know that Subash Chand has been arrested by Delhi Police he came to the office of DCP, Vishwas Nagar, to meet Subash where Inspector Aas Mohd. made certain enquiries from him and obtained his signatures on certain papers.Javed PW-12, deposed that a vehicle was sold by him to Attar Singh on 14.04.2004 for a sum of Rs.94,000/-.He denied that a Matiz car bearing registration No.DL-5CB-2024 was sold by him to Mahavir Singh on 04.04.2004 in his presence.HC Dal Chand PW-18, deposed that kalandara Ex.PW- 20/A (Ex.PW-18/A) dated 21.01.2004 was prepared by HC Ramesh Chand.HC Ramesh Chand PW-20, deposed that Kalandara Ex.PW-20/A (Ex.PW-18/A) was prepared by him.HC Satnam Singh PW- 33, deposed that kalandara Ex.SI Todar Singh PW-48, deposed that kalandara Ex.Om Pal Singh PW-17, deposed that the photographs Ex.PW-17/1 to Ex.PW-17/7; negatives whereof are Ex.PW-17/8 to Ex.PW-14, were taken and developed by him.Sonu Kaushik PW-21, deposed having prepared the site plan to scale Ex.PW-21/A of the place of occurrence at the Crl.Rajnish Kumar PW-7, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi deposed that test identification of Jagpal was conducted by him and record Ex.Santosh Kumar Pratinidhi and that he is familiar with the handwriting of the said doctor.Shashi Bala PW-58, deposed that the FSL reports Ex.PW-58/A, Ex.PW-58/B, Ex.PW-58/C and Ex.PW-58/D were prepared by her.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 40 of 76In their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants denied everything and pleaded false implication.Additionally, appellant Mahavir Singh stated that Latesh, the wife of the deceased, and Attar Singh were having illicit relations.That they have murdered the deceased and have false implicated him in connivance with the police officials.Shanker Singh DW-10, deposed that he is a resident of house bearing Municipal No.1449/M16, Durga Puri, Delhi and that Ajit Singh who is his brother has never resided in his house.Vinod DW-3, son of Mahavir Singh, deposed that on 08.04.2004 the police officials had forcibly lifted his father from their residence and that he had got sent telegrams Ex.The reason is that if there are traces of the FIR being deliberately registered belatedly thereby making available time to think for the maker of the FIR, the same would have to be seen very carefully because more often than not when a person buys time to make a statement, he does so to deliberate and reflect on what he wants to speak and thereby taints his statement with the taint of not being a spontaneous statement but the result of a pre-conceived mind.The first information regarding the incident in question was received by the police at 09.30 P.M. on 05.04.04 as evidenced from the DD Entry Ex.PW-34/A. It has further come in the evidence on record that the police officers who reached GTB Hospital after receipt of the information; namely, Dharmender Kumar PW-50, SI Udaiveer Singh PW-33 and Crl.Suresh Kumar PW-31, met Attar Singh PW-2 at the hospital.It can reasonably be assumed that at the most, it would have taken 2 hours for the aforesaid police officers to reach the hospital, record the statement of Attar Singh and prepare the rukka on the basis of the said statement of Attar Singh.A perusal of the rukka Ex.A perusal of the testimony of Sufal Ram PW-30, the scribe of the FIR Ex.PW-30/A registered in the present case, and the contents of the DD Entries Ex.PW-30/B and Ex.Besides, the vial has obviously being seized from an open plot of land.As per the charge sheet, after committing the murder, Mustaq and Jagpal met Mahavir the same day and left Delhi in the Matiz car of Mahavir.Further, as per the charge sheet, the vial and the syringe were handed over to Mahavir who threw the same.The month of June receives pre-monsoon showers in northern India.The months of July and August are monsoon season.We are surprised that the vial (a small bottle) thrown in the open field and subjected to the vagaries of nature could show traces of cyanide even after being recovered after two months of lying in an open field and being subjected to rain water.Besides, the Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 70 of 76 prosecution has sought to lead inchoate evidence as to who actually disclosed about the place where the vial was thrown.In the confessional cum disclosure statements of Mahavir and Subash both have spoken of the vial.According to the prosecution, both Mahavir and Subash searched for the vial.As noted above, one witness of the prosecution speaks of Mahavir recovering the vial and others speak of Subash doing so.The pointing out memo Ex.PW-15/B of the place from where the vial was recovered is shown to be at the pointing out of Mahavir.The seizure memo Ex.PW-15/A records that Subash recovered the vial from within grass.Everything is inchoate and clouded.In said regards, it is most relevant to note the testimony of Vinod DW-3, the son of appellant Mahavir Singh, who deposed that on 07.04.2004 appellant Mahavir Singh was forcibly lifted by the police from his residence.To substantiate his claim, the witness produced three telegrams Ex.DW-3/A, Ex.Vide impugned judgment and order dated 10.09.2007, appellants Jagpal @ Raju, Mahavir Singh, Subash Chand @ Doctor @ Pradhan and Mustaq have been convicted for the offence of having hatched a conspiracy to murder Drav Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the "Deceased") and in pursuance of the said conspiracy having killed the deceased.Vide order dated 22.9.2007, they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine in sum of Rs.10,000/- each; in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for one year.Case of the prosecution is that the appellant Mahavir Singh and the deceased were real brothers and their relations were strained on account of a dispute pertaining to inheritance of ancestral property inherited through their father.All four i.e. the deceased, Attar Singh, Mustaq and Jagpal consumed a bottle of beer each in the park and when they were returning to the residence of the deceased, all of a sudden, Mustaq caught hold of the deceased and Jagpal jabbed the syringe containing potassium cyanide in the back of the deceased and fled.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 3 of 76Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 2 of 76Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 5 of 76 the hospital, the said police officers learnt that the patient named Drav Kumar had been declared brought dead.Inspector Dharmender Kumar obtained the MLC Ex.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 5 of 76Attar Singh PW-2, met the police officers at the hospital.He claimed himself to be an eye-witness to the murder of the deceased.Inspector Dharmender Kumar PW-50, recorded the statement Ex.PW-2/A of Attar Singh wherein he stated that he is a resident of village Khabra, District Bulandshar, UP and was employed by the deceased who was a resident of village Nazimpur Mudu, District Bulandshar, UP and was engaged in the business of property dealing since last 3-4 months.PW-50/B, of the place of occurrence; recording therein at points A and B the spots where the deceased, Attar Singh and the appellants Mustaq and Jagpal consumed beer and the spot where empty bottles of beer were found and the deceased was attacked by appellants Mustaq and Jagpal.Ompal Singh Crl.She further stated that her husband was having strained relations with Mahavir Singh on account of a property dispute.At the mortuary of GTB Hospital, Dr.S.K.Verma PW-25, conducted the post-mortem of the deceased at around 2:30 PM on 06.04.2004 and gave his report Ex.PW-25/A, which records following external ante-mortem injuries:-A one mm diameter puncture mark having a blackish discoloration around it (size 3.5 x 3.0 cms) directed anteriorly, medially and downwards, placed 3.5 cms to the right of midline and 12 cms above the right costal margin on right side back.On exploration the injury was going upto right kidney (posterior surface) 5 mm.A brownish abrasion of size 1.5 x 1.0 cms present over tip of right shoulder."Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 10 of 76Since appellants Mustaq and Jagpal were clearly named as the ones who had injected something in the body of the deceased and Mahavir Singh was named as a suspect by Attar Singh and the wife of the deceased, the police officers set out to apprehend them.As per the prosecution, on the basis of a secret information, the police party consisting of Inspector Dharmender Kumar PW-50 and SI Ram Kishore Pandey PW-28, arrested Mustaq in the presence of Attar Singh PW-2, at a place near Movie Palace Cinema, Seema Puri, Delhi at 09:30 PM on 15.04.2004 as recorded in the arrest memo Ex.PW- 28/A. On being interrogated by Inspector Dharmender Kumar PW-50, in the presence of Ram Kishore Pandey PW-28 and Attar Singh PW-2, Mustaq made a disclosure statement Ex.On 20.07.2004 Inspector Aas Mohd. filed an application Ex.PW-7/B before Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi for conducting Test Identification of Jagpal.Rajnish Kumar PW-7, Metropolitan Magistrate, conducted the proceedings pertaining to Test Identification of Jagpal.Rajpal PW-32 and HC Krishan Pal PW-52 arrested Mahavir Singh.On being interrogated by Inspector Aas Mohd. PW-56, in the presence of Const.Rajpal PW-32 and HC Krishan Pal, PW-52, Mahavir Singh made a disclosure Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 14 of 76 statement Ex.On the next day, Subash made another disclosure statement Ex.PW-9/C wherein he again stated that he can get recovered the potassium cyanide used in committing the murder of the deceased.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 15 of 76Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 15 of 76The seized materials; namely, the clothes, viscera, tissues and blood sample of the deceased; the vial recovered at the instance of Mahavir and the paper puria recovered at the instance of Subash were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for serological/chemical examination.Vide FSL report Ex.P-X, it was opined that the viscera, the blood sample Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 16 of 76 and tissue sample of the deceased had tested positive for the presence of cyanide.Vide FSL report Ex.P-X1, it was opined that vial and paper puria recovered at the instance of Mahavir and Subash respectively have tested positive for the presence of potassium cyanide.Vide FSL report Ex.PW-58/A it was opined that save and except the vest of the deceased, blood was not detected on the clothes of the deceased.Vide FSL report Ex.PW-58/B it was opined that human blood of group B was detected on the vest of the deceased.Vide FSL report Ex.PW-58/D it was opined that the blood group of the deceased was B.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 16 of 76The FSL reports pertaining to the chemical analysis of the viscera, blood sample and tissues of the deceased were sent to Dr.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 17 of 76Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 17 of 76Armed with the aforesaid material and citing the persons whose statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as witnesses of the prosecution, a charge sheet was filed against the appellants, accusing them of committing offences punishable under Section 120-B IPC and Section 302 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC.At the trial, 58 witnesses were sought to be examined by the prosecution.During trial, found to be irrelevant or unnecessary, some witnesses were dropped.Not noting the testimony of few formal police officers who deposed to the receipt of various articles in the malkhana and further movement thereof to FSL, we proceed to note the testimonies of such witnesses as is necessary for adjudication of the appeals, keeping in view the contentions urged at the hearing of the appeals.He brought a rickshaw and with the help of the wife of the deceased and the guard he put the deceased in the rickshaw.Thereafter they reached Jhilmil Chowk where the said guard arranged a three wheeler scooter and that they transferred the deceased to the said scooter and took him to a private hospital where the doctors refused to attend to the deceased.Thereafter they took the deceased to GTB Hospital where the deceased was declared brought dead.(It may be noted that in his statement Ex.PW-2/A he has simply stated that when the deceased expressed inability to walk further he made him sit near a drain and called the wife of the deceased and that both of them took the deceased to GTB Hospital.)Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 18 of 76(ii) After Mustaq and Jagpal attacked the deceased, they gave a telephonic call to Mahavir in his presence.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 19 of 76Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 19 of 76Pertaining to the events after the police arrived, which needless to state related to the investigation and could obviously not form part of this statement Ex.PW-2/A, he deposed that his statement Ex.PW-2/A was recorded by the police at the police station.He deposed that after Jagpal was arrested he pointed out the residence of the deceased and the place where Mustaq, Jagpal, the deceased and he consumed beer as also the place where the deceased was attacked.On being cross-examined about his relationship with the deceased, Attar Singh stated that he was the body guard of the deceased.On being cross-examined about his relations with Mahavir Singh, he stated that he along with other body guards of the deceased was arrested by the police on an earlier occasion when Mahavir Singh had opened fire on them.Myself and Ushpal were summoned for duties as body guards on 27.12.2003.....Ushpal used to sleep at the house of Drav Kumar till he remained in his services.He served Drav Kumar Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 20 of 76 for a period of two and two and a half months.' On being cross-examined about the omission of the presence of the security guard in his statement Ex.PW-2/A, he stated that: (Quote) 'A guard was there near the drain which was about one and one fifty meters from the place where Drav Kumar was murdered, by injecting a poisonous injection to him.This fact was told by me to the IO in my statement.Confronted with the statement Ex.PW-2/DA where the facts are not so recorded....We told security guard that a blow was wielded on the back of Drav Kumar and as such he is feeling severe pain.I had told the police that security guard met us.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 21 of 76 purchased a Matiz car for a sale consideration of Rs.94,000/- or that the wife of the deceased had given him the sum of Rs.94,000/- to purchase a car.He further stated that appellant Mustaq was arrested by the police at his instance.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 20 of 76Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 21 of 76On being confronted with the Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 23 of 76 portion in her statement Ex.PW-6/DA which records that Attar Singh brought the deceased in an injured condition to the house on the day of the incident, she stated (Quote) 'I had stated to the police in my statement that on 05.04.2004 Pradhan Attar Singh had brought my husband at about 8:30 PM in injured condition and thereafter I accompanied my husband and pradhanji to GTB hospital where my husband was declared brought dead'.On being cross-examined about her relations with one Uspal Singh, she stated that she did not know any person by the name of Uspal Singh.She admitted that the deceased was having a mobile phone with him on the day of the incident.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 23 of 76Vidya Devi PW-5, the mother of the deceased and Mahavir Singh, deposed that the relations between the deceased and Mahavir Singh were strained on account of a Will executed by her husband and the fact that the deceased had adopted a male child.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 24 of 76 and Raju came to their house and after having lunch went to the park along with her son.That the deceased never returned from the park to the house and Attar Singh informed her that the deceased had been murdered.That Mustaq and Raju used to visit their house to meet the deceased.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 24 of 76Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 25 of 76 arrested by the police on account of an incident of firing.Udai Veer PW-49, brother of Harbir Singh and Narsi Singh, deposed that the relations between the deceased and Mahavir Singh were strained on account of the fact that the deceased had adopted a male child.On being cross-examined he admitted that on 21.01.2004 he was made an accused in a Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 26 of 76 case registered under Sections 107 and 116 Cr.P.C. at the instance of Mahavir Singh.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 26 of 76Suresh PW-8, the brother of Latesh PW-6, deposed that the relations between the deceased and Mahavir Singh were strained on account of the fact that the deceased had adopted a male child.Mahavir Singh used to extend threats to the deceased due to which the deceased and his family left their native village and shifted to village Devipura and thereafter to Delhi.That neither Mahavir Singh nor any of his family members attended the cremation of the deceased.Shanti PW-10, the sister of the deceased and appellant Mahavir Singh, deposed that Attar Singh was having illicit relations with the wife of the deceased i.e. Latesh and that the relations between the deceased and Mahavir Singh were strained as Mahavir Singh used to object to the relations between Attar Singh and the wife of the deceased.That she had asked the deceased and his family members to leave the house as their reputation was suffering because of the illicit relations between Attar Singh and the wife of the deceased.On being cross-examined by the learned APP, she stated that the deceased and Mahavir Singh were arrested in connection with a dispute between them.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 28 of 76SI Udaivir Singh recorded the statement Ex.On being cross-examined about the presence of the wife and Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 29 of 76 mother of the deceased at the hospital, he stated that they were not present at the hospital.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 29 of 76Sufal Ram PW-30, deposed that the FIR Ex.PW-30/A and the DD entries Ex.PW-30/B and Ex.PW-30/C were recorded by him.Inspector Dharmender Kumar PW-50, deposed that on 05.04.2004 he reached GTB Hospital on receipt of information about the incident and recorded the statement Ex.On being cross- examined about the preparation of the rukka, he stated that: (Quote) 'Rukka was recorded by Ram Avtar SI, on my dictation.It was recorded in GTB Hospital around 10.30 PM.' He further stated that he did not obtain the specimen of handwriting of Mustaq and Jakir for the purposes of comparison with the handwriting contained in the diary purportedly recovered at the instance of Mustaq.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 30 of 76SI Ram Kishore Pandey PW-28, deposed that Mustaq was arrested by Inspector Dharmender Kumar PW-50 on 15.04.2004 in his presence and that the arrest memo Ex.DL-5CB-2024 at the instance of Mahavir Singh in the presence of Khajan Singh.On 10.08.2004 he arrested Subash at the instance of Mahavir Singh and recorded the disclosure statement Ex.PW-52/A made by Subash.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 33 of 76 recorded by me.Several members were present at that time, they were village people of Panchayat.Due to misconception, statements of Ram Bhool and Shri Ram were recorded.Subsequently, I came to know that they had expired prior to date of alleged recording of their statements.I was misguided by the persons present there.'Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 31 of 76Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 32 of 76He denied that Jagpal had pointed out the place of the residence of the deceased in his presence to the police.Prakash Chand, Chetan Singh and Kiran Pal Singh, the stated witnesses to the pointing out by Jagpal of the residence of Subash and the place where conspiracy to murder was Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 34 of 76 hatched by the appellants, were given up by the prosecution as being unnecessary witnesses.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 34 of 76Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 35 of 76Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 35 of 76On being cross-examined about the factum of pointing out the residence of Subash, he stated that: (Quote) 'Mahavir identified the house of Subash.On 25.07.04, when he had gone to house of accused subash after returning from there at that time apart from accused Jagpal and Mahavir, IO of the case Sh.Aash Mohd., one constable and me were in the police team.'Rajpal PW-32, deposed that Mahavir Singh was arrested on 08.08.2004 and in his presence.Thereafter he made a disclosure statement and got recovered a bottle and syringe from a vacant plot situated in village Bulandshar in his presence.That on 11.08.2004 Subash Chand was arrested in his presence.At this juncture, said witness was dropped by prosecution as being an unnecessary witness.Khajan Singh PW-9, the father of the wife of the deceased, deposed that in the month of September - October 2004 he had gone to village Bulandshar to visit his daughter when he saw Mahavir Singh and his associates having conversation in a room at Hotel Rajmahal and that he does not know the details of the conversation which was going on between them.He deposed that a vehicle was seized by the police at the instance of appellant Mahavir Singh and that the memo Ex.PW-9/A prepared in said regard bears his signatures.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 36 of 76Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 36 of 76On being cross-examined about the number of persons sitting with Mahavir Singh when he had seen him talking with his associates, he stated that: (Quote) 'I am not aware how many persons were sitting with the accused Mahavir Singh'.Ram Singh PW-15, deposed that he is acquainted with Mahavir Singh as he resides in his neighbourhood.PW-15/A and Ex.PW-15/B were signed by him at the instance of the police.On being cross-examined by the learned APP, he stated that: (Quote) 'It is correct that the other person who had accompanied the police alongwith accused Mahavir was accused Subash @ Pradhan @ doctor.I cannot say if accused Subash now present in court today was the same person who had accompanied accused Mahavir with the police'.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 37 of 76That he had no knowledge about the present case and that no article was recovered by the police at the instance of Subash Chand in his presence.Suresh Chand Sharma PW-14, deposed that on one occasion the police had brought a person to his STD booth and that he had told the police that he has no knowledge whether said person made any calls from his STD booth at any point of time.That the police disclosed the name of said person as Jagpal and that he cannot identify the person brought by the police.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 39 of 76Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 39 of 76S.K. Verma PW-25, deposed that the post-mortem report Ex.PW-25/A and the opinion Ex.PW-25/B regarding the cause of the death of the deceased was prepared by him.Parmeshwar Kumar PW-34, deposed that the MLC Ex.PW-34/A of the deceased was prepared by Dr.In support of his defence, Mahavir Singh examined 11 witnesses.D.R.Punia DW-1, Officer Punjab National Bank, Bulandshar, UP produced and proved Ex.DW-1/A, being statement of account pertaining to the saving account No.9591 maintained by Latesh, the wife of the deceased, at Punjab National Bank.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 41 of 76Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 41 of 76Naeem DW-2, Record Keeper, Nagar Palika Parishad, Bulandshar, UP proved the death certificate Ex.Mir Singh DW-5, Assistant Director, Horticulture Zone - 9, DDA, Ashok Vihar, Delhi deposed that on 05.04.2004 two security guards namely Ajit and Brahm Singh were stationed at CBD grounds and that their duty hours were 5:00 PM to 01.00 AM.N.P.Kaushik DW-9, deposed that he is resident of a house bearing Municipal No.1449/16, Street No.9, Durga Puri, Delhi and that the person named Ajit Singh is neither known to him nor resides in his house.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 42 of 76Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 42 of 76DW-3/A, Ex.DW-3/B and Ex.DW-3/C to National Human Rights Commission in said regard on the same day itself.Dharam Pal DW-4, a resident of village Nazim Pura, deposed that the relations between Mahavir Singh and the deceased were cordial and that Latesh, the wife of the deceased, and Attar Singh were having illicit relations.On being cross-examined about the relations between the deceased and appellant Mahavir Singh, the witness stated that: (Quote) 'On account of altercation between two brothers, Drav Kumar came to Delhi along with his family....It is correct that Mahavir Singh has been arrested for alleged murder of Drav Kumar.' Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 43 of 76Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 43 of 76Ram Rattan Singh DW-5, the brother-in-law of Mahavir Singh, deposed that there was no dispute between the deceased and appellant Mahavir Singh and that relations between them were cordial.That Latesh, wife of the deceased, had confessed having illicit relations with Attar Singh at a panchayat.Pintu DW-7, deposed that he was employed with the deceased since last 16 years and that Attar Singh used to visit the house of the deceased and the shop of the deceased.That on one occasion he had seen Attar Singh and the wife of the deceased in a compromising position.Sarvesh Kumar DW-8, deposed that he runs a security agency under the name and style Bharat Security at Bulandshar, UP and that a person named Attar Singh was never employed in his agency.However, on being re-examined by prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the witness stated that Attar Singh was employed in his agency and that he had sent Attar Singh to the deceased for the purposes of security of the deceased.S.P. Singh DW-11, a handwriting expert, deposed that the report Ex.DW-11/A which inter-alia records that the signatures of the deceased on the copies of the complaints Mark A-1 to Mark A-6 purportedly written by the deceased against appellant Mahavir Singh do not tally with each other and that Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 44 of 76 the signatures appearing on the copy of the receipt pertaining to the delivery of a Matiz bearing registration no.DL-5CB-2024 are not that of appellant Mahavir Singh was prepared by him.IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE STATEAppeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 44 of 76As already noted hereinabove, vide impugned judgment and order dated 10.09.07, the learned Trial Judge has convicted the appellants.The circumstances enumerated by the learned counsel for the State to prove the guilt of appellant Mahavir Singh are (i) abscondence of appellant Mahavir Singh Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 46 of 76 since the day of the murder of the deceased till his arrest; (ii) recovery of a diary containing the telephone of Mahavir Singh at the instance of co-accused Mustaq; (iii) evidence of Khazan Singh PW-9, pertaining to factum of conversation between appellant Mahavir Singh and his associates; (iv) motive of appellant Mahavir Singh to murder the deceased and (v) conduct of appellant Mahavir Singh of not attending the cremation of the deceased.(vi) recovery of a vial at the instance of Mahavir which was detected with the presence of cyanide.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 46 of 76LAW OF CONSPIRACYSince conspiracy is the primary charge against the appellants, we first advert to the law of conspiracy - its definition, essential features and proof.The said time difference of 4 hours between the receipt of the first information of the incident and the preparation of the rukka, particularly when Attar Singh was found present at the hospital by the police officers involved in making of the said rukka is excessive keeping in view the fact that the police officers claimed to have immediately left for and reach the hospital.PW-30/C shows that the FIR Ex.PW-30/A was dispatched at 2.30 A.M. on 06.04.04 for delivery to the Area Magistrate and senior police officials.The FIR Ex.It has to be noted here that the police official who had delivered the FIR Ex.PW-30/A to the Magistrate has not been examined by the prosecution.The said difference of 7 hours between the dispatch of the FIR Ex.PW-30/A from the Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 54 of 76 police station and its receipt by the Magistrate, when coupled with the fact that the official who had delivered the FIR in question to the Magistrate has not been examined by the prosecution shrouds the time of registration of the said FIR in great suspicion suggestive of the fact that probably the rukka was not dispatched as claimed by the police at 1:30 AM nor was the FIR registered and dispatched at 2:30 AM.As already noted hereinabove, Inspector Dharmender Kumar PW-50, SI Udaiveer Singh PW-33 and Const.Suresh Kumar PW-31, claimed to have participated in the investigation conducted in the present case till the registration of the FIR.Suresh Kumar PW-31, deposed that SI Udaiveer Singh is the scribe of the rukka Ex.PW-50/A which is contrary to the recording contained in the said rukka that Inspector Dharmender Kumar PW-50, is the scribe of the said endorsement.Suresh Kumar further deposed that the wife and the mother of the deceased were not found present at the hospital on the day of the incident whereas MLC Ex.PW- 34/A of the deceased establishes the presence of the wife of the deceased at the hospital on the day of the incident.It is also relevant to note the deposition of Const.Suresh Kumar PW-31, that the information of the incident was received by him and SI Udaiveer Singh PW-33 at 11:30 P.M. on 05.04.2004, which is in contradiction to the testimony of SI Udaiveer Singh, Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 55 of 76 as per whom the information of the incident was received by him at 09:30 P.M. on 05.04.2004 and that he and Const.Suresh Kumar reached GTB hospital at 10-10.15 P.M. in pursuance of the said information.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 55 of 76Inspector Dharmender Kumar deposed in his examination-in-chief that rukka in the present case was prepared by him at the place of occurrence, whereas in his cross-examination he stated that rukka was prepared by him at the hospital.The said discrepancy needs to be coupled with the deposition of Attar Singh PW-2, that his statement which formed the basis of the rukka in question was recorded at the police station; which is in complete contradiction to the recording contained in the rukka that the statement of Attar Singh was recorded at the hospital.Inspector Dharmender Kumar further deposed that SI Ram Kumar Yadav also participated in the spot investigation; whereas SI Udaiveer Singh and Const.Suresh Kumar have not deposed a word about the presence of SI Ram Avtar Yadav at the time of spot investigation.The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the time gap of 4 hours between the receipt of first information of the incident and the preparation of the rukka and the time gap of 7 hours between the dispatch of the FIR Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 56 of 76 from the police station and its receipt by the Magistrate leads to a very strong inference that the rukka/FIR prepared/registered in the present case were ante-timed, which inference is further reinforced by the fact that the police officials and other witness namely Attar Singh who played a role in the spot investigation, preparation of the rukka and registration of the FIR have contradicted themselves and each other in material particulars.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 56 of 76The necessary corollary which emerges from the aforesaid inference that rukka/FIR prepared/registered in the present case were ante-timed is that Attar Singh PW-2, gained time before giving his version pertaining to the incident of the murder of the deceased.In these circumstances, the testimony of Attar Singh PW-2, needs to be viewed with caution and subjected to a very close scrutiny.CASE AGAINST APPELLANT MUSTAQSince the first circumstance enumerated by the learned counsel for the State against appellant Mustaq is predicated upon the testimonies of Attar Singh PW-2, Latesh PW-6 and Vidya Devi PW-5, we proceed with the appreciation of the ocular evidence of the said witnesses.A perusal of the testimony of Latesh PW-6, shows that according to her, Attar Singh visited her house five times on the day her husband was murdered.The first visit was around Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 57 of 76 10:00 A.M. in the morning when she instructed Attar Singh to go to the park to meet the deceased; the second visit of Attar Singh was in the afternoon for the purposes of taking tea to the park; the third visit of Attar Singh was again in the afternoon for the purposes of taking lunch to the park but that she did not give him lunch and asked him to bring the deceased and appellants Mustaq and Jagpal to the house for taking lunch; the fourth visit of Attar Singh was again in the afternoon when he had come with the deceased and appellants Mustaq and Jagpal for eating lunch and the fifth visit of Attar Singh was around 8 PM in the night when he came to inform her about the incident.However, a perusal of the testimony of Attar Singh PW-2, shows that there is no mention of the visits pertaining to bringing of tea and lunch to the park in his testimony.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 57 of 76Latesh PW-6 and Vidya Devi PW-5, have deposed in their respective testimonies about the presence of Vidya Devi at the time of the removal of the deceased to the hospital, whereas Attar Singh in his testimony did not depose a word about the presence of Vidya Devi at the said time.The admission of Latesh PW-6, in her cross-examination that she had stated in her statement Ex.PW-6/DA given to the police that Attar Singh brought the deceased in an injured condition to her house creates a serious doubt on the Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 58 of 76 genuinity of her testimony as also of that of Attar Singh and Vidya Devi, that Attar Singh had come to the house of the deceased to inform the family members of the deceased about the incident, pursuant to which, Attar Singh, Latesh and Vidya Devi proceeded to the spot where the deceased was sitting and removed him to the hospital.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 58 of 76Another fact of great significance is that there is a material omission in the statement Ex.PW-2/A of Attar Singh vis--vis his testimony in the Court, inasmuch as, in Ex.PW-2/A Attar Singh did not state a word about the presence of the security guard around the place of occurrence and the role played by him in removal of the deceased to the hospital.It is further relevant to note the following statement of Inspector Aas Mohd. PW-56, who, in his cross-examination stated that: 'I had tried to contact the gatekeeper of Surajmal Vihar park, who had prevented complainant Attar Singh to consume beer inside the park, but complainant Attar Singh could not point out the said gatekeeper.I had contacted tow gatekeepers of Surajmal Vihar Park, who were on duty on relevant time, but complainant Attar Singh had not identified those gatekeepers to be the persons who had prevented them to consume the beer inside the park.' The said deposition implies that Attar Singh told Inspector Aas Mohd that one gatekeeper had prevented him, the deceased and the appellants Mustaq and Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 59 of 76 Jagpal from consuming beer inside Surajmal Park.The failure of Attar Singh to identify the gatekeepers who were on duty at Surajmal Park at the relevant time when coupled with the fact that Attar Singh did not depose a word about the incident pertaining to consumption of beer at Surajmal Park, strongly suggests that Attar Singh told a lie to Inspector Aas Mohd. that he, the deceased and the appellants Mustaq and Jagpal were prevented by a gatekeeper from consuming beer inside Surajmal Park.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 59 of 76The cumulative effect of the aforesaid discrepancies in the evidence of Attar Singh PW-2, Latesh PW-6 and Vidya Devi PW-5, is that the said witnesses are unreliable witnesses and thus no reliance can be placed on their evidence.In coming to the conclusion that Attar Singh is an untruthful witness, we are greatly influenced by the fact that Attar Singh gained time before getting recorded his first version regarding the incident of the murder of the deceased.At this stage, the defence set up by the appellants, particularly appellant Mahavir Singh, is worthy of a glance.The defence taken by appellant Mahavir Singh was that Latesh, the wife of the deceased, and Attar Singh were having illicit relations; they have murdered the deceased and have falsely implicated him in connivance with the police officials.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 60 of 76Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 60 of 76Eschewing reference to the testimonies of the witnesses of the defence and Shanti PW-10, the sister of the deceased and appellant Mahavir Singh, who have deposed about the factum of illicit relations between Latesh and Attar Singh, we proceed to note five facts.The first fact is that Latesh and Attar Singh denied in their respective testimonies that a sum of Rs.90,000/- was paid by Latesh to Attar Singh.However, the said claim of Latesh and Attar Singh is belied from the statement of account Ex.The second fact is that Attar Singh deposed that one Ushpal was also a bodyguard of the deceased and used to reside at the residence of the deceased.In her testimony, Latesh, denied knowing any person by the name of Ushpal.However, a perusal of the statement Ex.DW-1/A shows that various cheques were issued by Latesh in the name of Ushpal.The third fact is that Attar Singh deposed in his testimony that Latesh had given a sum of Rs.10,000/- to him on the day of the murder of the deceased for the purposes of arranging a rickshaw for removal of the deceased to the hospital.The question which arises is that why did Latesh gave a huge sum of Rs.10,000/- to Attar Singh for the purposes of arranging a rickshaw.The fourth fact is that the prosecution has sought to Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 61 of 76 establish that a Matiz car was purchased by appellant Mahavir Singh and used by him in the commission of the murder of the deceased.However, Javed PW-12, who was examined by the prosecution to prove the purchase of Matiz by appellant Mahavir Singh deposed that a Matiz car was purchased by Attar Singh ten days after the murder of the deceased for a sale consideration of Rs.94,000/-.It may be remembered here that Latesh had given a sum of Rs.90,000/- to Attar Singh on 25.02.04 evidenced from the statement Ex.DW-1/A.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 61 of 76We have already held that the FIR registered in the present case has traces of being ante-timed.From the afore- noted five facts, it can logically be deduced that there is something more between Attar Singh and Latesh than what meets the eye.There is a strong probability that Attar Singh and Latesh have conspired.Unfortunately, the features noted by us hereinabove have been ignored by the learned Trial Judge.This takes us to the second and last circumstance enumerated by the learned counsel for the State against appellant Mustaq; namely, the recovery of a diary at his instance.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 62 of 76In the instant case, save and except a bald deposition of Inspector Dharmender Kumar PW-50, there is no evidence to show that the any of the telephone numbers found written in the diary purportedly recovered at the instance of appellant Mustaq was that of appellant Mahavir Singh or his associates or the other appellants.In light of the fact that no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to establish the connection between the diary purportedly recovered at the instance of appellant Mustaq and the offences with which he is charged, nothing much turns on the Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 63 of 76 circumstance that a diary was got recovered by appellant Mustaq.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 63 of 76CASE AGAINST APPELLANT JAGPALThe first circumstance enumerated by the learned counsel for he State against appellant Jagpal has already been rejected by us in the foregoing paras i.e. paras 106 to 115 above.The same applies good even to appellant Jagpal.The second circumstance enumerated by the learned counsel for the State against appellant Jagpal is that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was got recovered by appellant Jagpal.Again, there is no evidence to establish the connection between the sum of Rs.10,000/- allegedly got recovered by appellant Jagpal and the offence with which he was charged.There is no evidence to show that the said sum was given to appellant Jagpal by any of the other appellants in furtherance of the conspiracy to murder the deceased.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 64 of 76Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 64 of 76Be that as it may, we proceed to deal with the evidence led by the prosecution to prove the factum of recovery of Rs.10,000/- at the instance of appellant Jagpal.Dharambir Singh PW-16, Rajesh Kumar PW-51, HC Krishan Pal PW-52 and Inspector Aas Mohd PW-56, were claimed to be witnesses to the recovery of Rs.10,000/- at the instance of appellant Jagpal.As already noted in the foregoing paras, Dharambir Singh PW-16, was dropped by the prosecution as being an unnecessary witness.Rajesh Kumar PW-51, did not support the case of the prosecution and denied that any article or sum of money was got recovered by appellant Jagpal in his presence.The aforesaid deposition of HC Krishan Pal shows that he is an untruthful witness inasmuch appellant Mahavir Singh could not have been present with the police on 25.07.2004, inasmuch as he was arrested on 08.08.2004 as claimed by the prosecution.It is apparent that HC Krishan Pal who has spoken an obvious lie with reference to the presence of Mahavir Singh when Jagpal allegedly pointed out the house Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 65 of 76 of Subash could well be a telling a lie pertaining to the recovery of Rs.10,000/-.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 65 of 76He deposed that Jagpal left the said employment within 10-15 days of joining.It does not stand to reason that appellant Jagpal would leave behind the considerable sum of Rs.10,000/- at the canteen and not take the same with him at the time of leaving employment.In view of above discussion, we hold that the prosecution has not been able to successfully establish that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was got recovered by appellant Jagpal.The last circumstance enumerated by the learned counsel for the State against appellant Jagpal is the refusal of appellant Jagpal to participate in the Test Identification.As already noted hereinabove, appellant Jagpal refused to participate in the test identification proceedings on the ground that the police had already shown him to the witnesses.We have already held that there are traces of the FIR being ante-timed.We shall be highlighting that the investigation conducted by the police in the present case was most perfunctory and that the police officers who Crl.The only circumstance enumerated by the learned counsel for the State against appellant Subash is that a paper puria containing a white substance was recovered at his instance, said articles and the white substance was found to contain potassium cyanide and the cause of death of the deceased was cyanide poisoning.Ram Singh PW-15, Inderpal Singh PW-23, Naresh Kumar PW-24, Khazan Singh PW-9 and Inspector Aas Mohd PW-56, were claimed to be witnesses to the recovery of the vial and paper puria at the instance of appellant Mahavir and Subash respectively.At the outset, it is most relevant to note the testimony of Const.Rajpal PW-32, who deposed that a bottle and a syringe was recovered at the instance of appellant Mahavir Singh in his presence.The aforesaid testimony of the said witness Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 67 of 76 seriously damages the case of the prosecution since no syringe was claimed to be recovered.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 67 of 76Be that as it may, Ram Singh PW-15 and Inderpal Singh PW-23, did not support the case of the prosecution and denied having witnessed recovery of any article at the instance of appellant Subash and Mahavir.Naresh Kumar PW-24, the brother of the deceased, deposed that a vial and a syringe were recovered at the instance of appellant Subash and Mahavir in his presence.The witness went on to describe the syringe recovered at the instance of appellant Subash.As per the prosecution, the articles purportedly recovered at the instance of appellant Subash was a paper puria.No syringe was claimed to be recovered at the instance of appellant Subash and Mahavir by the prosecution.When no syringe was recovered at the instance of appellant Subash and Mahavir, then how could Naresh Kumar witness the recovery of a syringe and even describe the syringe so recovered, is a mystery.Naresh Kumar further deposed that appellant Subash got recovered a paper puria from a cupboard lying in the house of appellant Subash in his presence.On being questioned as to where he was standing when paper puria was recovered, he stated that he did not enter the house of appellant Subash and was standing outside the said house.If Naresh Kumar was standing outside Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 68 of 76 the house of appellant Subash, then how could he see that a paper puria was recovered, from a cupboard lying inside the said house, is again a big mystery.Obviously, Naresh Kumar is telling a lie that he was present when the recoveries were made at the instance of appellant Subash.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 68 of 76This brings us to the analysis of the testimony of Khazan Singh PW-9, the father of the deceased, who deposed having witnessed the recovery of a paper puria at the instance of appellant Subash.It is also relevant to note that Khazan Singh did not depose a word about the said recovery in his examination- in-chief but stated the same when he was cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution.The reason given by him for not stating the said fact in the first instance that he is an illiterate person and thus forgot to mention the said facts due to inadvertence, is highly unconvincing.In such circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of Khazan Singh for the purposes of proving the factum of recovery of paper puria found to be containing potassium cyanide at the instance of appellant Subash.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 69 of 76Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 69 of 76Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 70 of 76The net result of the above discussion, it is apparent that the evidence pertaining to the recoveries attributed to Subash are highly doubtful; are tainted and hence most unreliable evidence against Subash.CASE AGAINST APPELLANT MAHAVIR SINGHThe first circumstance enumerated by the learned counsel for the State against appellant Mahavir Singh is that appellant Mahavir Singh was absconding since the day of the murder of the deceased till the time of his arrest.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 71 of 76Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 71 of 76DW-3/B and Ex.DW-3/C dated 08.04.2004 issued by him to National Human Rights Commission in the said regard.We disagree with the contention urged by learned counsel for the State that the sons of Mahavir are crafty persons and to create proof that Mahavir did not abscond, but was lifted by the police, have sent the aforesaid telegrams.Inspector Dharmender PW-50, admitted during cross examination that Mahavir Singh responded to his notice dated 7.4.2004 issued by him under Section 160 Cr.P.C. and made himself available for interrogation at PS Anand Vihar.He admitted that he was facing departmental proceedings in connection with an Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 72 of 76 allegation that by not arresting Mahavir Singh on 15.4.2004 when Mahavir Singh came to the police station.Thus, it is apparent that Mahavir Singh did not abscond.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 72 of 76The next circumstance enumerated by the learned counsel for the State is that a diary containing the telephone of appellant Mahavir Singh was recovered at the instance of co-accused Jagpal.As already noted hereinabove, save and except a bald deposition of Inspector Dharmender Kumar PW- 50, there is no evidence to show that any of the telephone numbers found written in the diary purportedly recovered at the instance of appellant Jagpal was that of appellant Mahavir Singh.In that view of the matter, the mere circumstance that a diary was recovered at the instance of appellant Jagpal and that some telephone numbers were found to be written in the said diary can hardly be used as an incriminating circumstance against appellant Mahavir Singh.Besides, as noted hereinabove while discussing the alleged incriminating evidence against co-accused Jagpal, the recovery of the diary itself is highly tainted.Qua the recovery of the vial we have discussed the evidence relating thereto while discussing the evidence qua the recovery of the paper puria and have noted the serious infirmities therein, which renders the recovery of the vial as claimed by the prosecution, highly doubtful.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 73 of 76Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 73 of 76That Mahavir did not attend the funeral of Drav Kumar is nothing but a fact of his ill will towards his brother and is the other side of the face of the coin: motive.PERFUNCTORY INVESTIGATION BY THE POLICEThe investigation conducted by the police in the present case is most perfunctory.We have already demonstrated that the FIR registered in the present case has a strong suspicion of it being ante-timed and that some of the police officers who ostensibly participated in the investigation in the present case have deposed most inchoately.There are three more facts which would highlight the defective nature of the investigation conducted by the police.The first fact is that Latesh PW-6, the Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 74 of 76 wife of the deceased, deposed that the deceased was having a mobile phone at the time of the incident.No evidence was collected by the police pertaining to the record of the mobile phone of the deceased, which if collected, could have given important leads to the police.The second fact is that the persons namely Ram and Ram Bhool Singh, whose statements were purportedly recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in connection with the present case, had expired much before the incident of murder of the deceased, which fact has been admitted by Inspector Aas Mohd, the scribe of the said statements.This shows that somebody was attempting to introduce false witnesses.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 75 of 76 appellants.Thus, we hold that the prosecution has not been able to establish that a conspiracy was entered into by the appellants to murder to the deceased.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 75 of 76The necessary corollary of the aforesaid conclusion is that the prosecution has not been able to establish that the appellants murdered the deceased in pursuance of the conspiracy entered into by them.Copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent Central Jail Tihar for compliance.(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (INDERMEET KAUR) JUDGE JULY 30, 2009 dk/mm Crl.Appeal Nos.688, 746/07 & 107, 108/08 Page 76 of 76

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

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

This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail who apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.328/2015 registered at police station, Kampu, district Gwalior for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 324, 336, 506-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The prosecution story is that the complainant Rajesh lodged the First Information Report against the accused persons on 17.6.2015 that accused person namely Mannu had hired D.J. and during the course of programme, a dispute ensued between them and the complainant.Thereupon, all the accused persons started beating the complainant with iron rod, axe, lathi and pelted stones as also hurled abuses on the complainant.From the M.L.C. report, four injuries have been found on the person of the complainant.However, after the C.T. Scan, taking into account the nature of injury sustained by the complainant, offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. was added.I have considered the submissions advanced on both sides.C. No.12895/15, shall be released on bail on her furnishing Personal Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.The applicant shall abide by the conditions as enumerated under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Accordingly, the application so far as it relates to applicant No.2 Smt. Muvina Begum in M.Cr.However, the bail applications of the remaining applicants are rejected.C.C. as per rules.(ALOK ARADHE)

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(i) Criminal Bail Application No.1746 of 2018 is allowed anddisposed off;(ii) In the event of arrest of applicants in connection with CR No.I-161 of 2018 registered with Chitalsar Police Station, Thane, theapplicants be released on bail on furnishing PR bond in the sum ofRs.15,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount;(iii) The applicants are directed to report the investigating officerof Chitalsar Police Station, Thane once in a week on every Saturdaybetween 10 am and 12 noon till filing of charge sheet;(iii) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence or threaten thewitnesses.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

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

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

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes GITA MITTAL, JThe petitioner herein at the relevant time in 1990, was working as a manager in the New Bank of India and was posted in its East of Kailash branch.On 6th April, 1990, the petitioner is alleged to have sanctioned the following three loansthrough: Mr. Anindya Malhotra, Adv. & Mr. Harish Gulati, Adv.for the CBI.Mr. Rajat Sharma, Adv.for the respondent/Bank.Mr. N.A. Khan, Adv.WITH Crl.M.C. No.501/2009 & Crl.M.A.1887/2009 O.P. Bhatia ... Petitioner through: Mr.Ashok Bhalla, Advocate VERSUS C.B.I. & Ors.....Respondents through: Mr. Anindya Malhotra, Adv.& Mr. Harish Gulati, Adv.for the CBI.Mr. Rajat Sharma, Adv.for the respondent/Bank.Mr. N.A. Khan, Adv.AND -1- Crl.M.C. No.559/2009 & Crl.M.A.2105/2009 O.P. Bhatia ... Petitioner through: Mr.Ashok Bhalla, Advocate VERSUS C.B.I. & Ors.....Respondents through: Mr. Anindya Malhotra, Adv.& Mr. Harish Gulati, Adv.for the CBI.Mr. Rajat Sharma, Adv.for the respondent/Bank.Mr. N.A. Khan, Adv.HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE GITA MITTALWhether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?(i) loan for the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to respondent no.3 in Crl.M.C. No.348/2009;(ii) loan for the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- to Shri G.K. Kandil, respondent no.3 in Crl.M.C. No.501/2009; and(iii) between 2nd April, 1990 & 23rd April, 1990 sanctioned loan amount totaling Rs.8,47,675/- in favour of Shri Ramesh Kumar Arora, respondent no.3 in Crl.It is the case of the prosecution that so far as loan at serial nos.1 & 2 are concerned, it is further alleged that Shri O.P. Bhatia, petitioner herein placed carbon copy of notices under Section 38 of the Insurance Act, 1938 and the forwarding letters addressed to unit no.11-D of the Life Insurance Corporation on record creating false evidence of dispatch of the notices and the said letters even though they were never sent.The allegation is that thereby the record of the bank was falsified.So far as the loan at serial no.3 is concerned, it is further alleged that a loan of Rs.50,000/- was sanctioned on 2nd April, 1990 against security of six LIC policies having the -3- surrender value of Rs.65,000/-; loan of Rs.1.60 lakhs was sanctioned on 4th April, 1990 by the petitioner against security of ten LIC policies having surrender value of Rs.1.78 lakhs and Rs.3,40,000/- of Rs.85,000/- each were sanctioned on 16th April, 1990 by petitioner against security of four policies having the surrender value of Rs.94,500/-; Rs.94,700/-; Rs.95,000/- and Rs.95,100/- respectively.A loan of Rs.2,00,000- was sanctioned on 8th April, 1990 without mentioning any LIC policy while a loan of Rs.97,600/- was sanctioned on 23rd April, 1990 without mentioning any LIC policy.However, not a single LIC policy was taken by the petitioner from the respondent no.3 nor were any of the policies assigned in favour of the bank as security.Not a single policy was sent to the LIC for registration of assignment and false documents were placed on record.Earlier, Indira Vikas Patras were mentioned on the ledger sheet which were later altered to read as LIC policy for the purposes of sanction of loan.In this background, the following cases were registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation:-In this background, the petitioner filed three petitions assailing the filing of the three chargesheets dated 1st January, 1992 by three separate petitions.So far as the transactions noted at serial no.(i) are concerned, the petitioner filed Crl.M.C. No.348/2009 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure making a prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet no.16/1993 in RC No.2(S)/92-DLI dated 1st January, 1992 primarily on the ground that the same stood compounded.On the same grounds, the petitioner filed Crl.M.C. No.501/2009 in respect of the transactions at serial no.2 above being a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. inter alia making a prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet no.15/1993 in RC No.2(S)/92-DLI dated 1st January, 1992 primarily on the ground that the same stood compounded on the same grounds.A third petition being Crl.M.C. No.559/2009 was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the charge-sheet no.12/1993 in RC No.2(S)/92-DLI dated 1st January, 1992 again mainly on the ground that the same stood compounded on the same grounds.The petitioner is also alleged to have destroyed the register where details of the loan documents including the LIC policies are maintained to avoid detection to his fraudulent acts.Other illegal acts including making of the endorsement of false statements on the bank records as well as manipulation of ledger sheets of the loan etc., are attributed to the petitioner.In this background, in all three cases it was held that the petitioner had entered into criminal conspiracies with the respondent no.3 in each of the case in the year 1990 and committed offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(I)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereunder.It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the payment of the loan amount by and respondent no.3, both the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 would stand absolved of the alleged offences committed by them.It was in this background that the case seeking quashing of the proceedings has been filed.So far as the transaction with Shri G.K. Kandil respondent no. 3 in Crl.As a result, the learned Special Judge on 7th September, 1999 framed charges under Section 120-B read with Section 477-A and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner and respondent no.3 in these facts.M.Case No.501/2009 has been filed thereafter assailing the criminal proceedings and framing of charges.So far as the transactions with Shri Ramesh Kumar Arora, respondent no.3 in Crl.- 10 -Reliance is also placed on the pronouncement of this court reported at 132 (2006) DLT 85 Alpana Das Vs.Learned counsel for the petitioner urges in the judgment dated 5th July, 1999 passed in Civil Writ No.2895/1997 entitled R.B. Singh Vs.So far as this pronouncement is concerned, in this case the charge against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings is similar to the charge against the present petitioner in the criminal prosecution.The finding of the culpability of the writ petitioner by the disciplinary authority was sustained and only the punishment of removal from service was modified to compulsory retirement.State of Karnataka & Anr.wherein in the facts and circumstances, the appellant was convicted by the trial court for an offence punishable under Section 279 & 304 A of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of a seven years old girl on account of rash and negligent driving.The sentence so far as the conviction under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code was concerned, was set aside by the High Court in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.The court was concerned with the conviction under Section 304-A for which the appellant was sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2,000/-.The bank has not filed or joined in filing a petition seeking quashing of the criminal prosecutions.documentary evidence is alleged to have been removed and destroyed to prevent detection of the offence.Undoubtedly, all these allegations are to be tested by the trial court which has recorded the evidence.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 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 first application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.817/2017 registered at Police Station Dabra, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under sections 323, 327, 506, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC.Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that on 15/10/17, at about 7 AM, when complainant was at his shop, applicant along with co-accused Parmal Singh Rawat, Gupta Rawat's brother, Gupta Rawat's nephew and two other accused persons came there and demanded Rs.10,000/-.On complainant's refusal, co-accused Parmal Rawat assaulted him with a Danda on both his calves , Gupta Rawat's brother gave a Danda blow on left elbow and Gupta Rawat's nephew gave a Lathi blow on his back, while the present applicant and two other accused persons assaulted him with kicks and fists.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant, who is a Government Teacher, has been falsely implicated in the case.According to him, the FIR in question has been lodged as a counter-blast to the FIR lodged by the applicant party against the complainant and his accomplices which was registered at Crime No.812/2017 for the offences punishable under sections 324, 323, 294 and 506 read with 34 of the IPC.Besides, plea of alibi has also been taken by the applicant, contending that on the date of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

It shows that his agricultural land is situate just adjacent to the agricultural land of Tukaram (original accused no.3).Canal goes through these two lands.On 2.4.1998, he was grazing his she-buffalo on the boundary of his agricultural land.That time, Tukaram was irrigating his agricultural field with the help of water that was flowing from the canal.The statement further shows Shridhar asked Tukaram as to when the irrigation of his land will be completed.On that count, a verbal altercation took place in between them.Thereafter, Tukaram gave a call to other accused Parashram, Ishwar and Liladhar.Ishwar caught hold the collar of Shridhar and Parashram gave a stick blow on his head due to which he received injury.It is also stated that he was also assaulted on the hand by the other accused persons.It is his further statement in Exh. 13 that Tukaram and Liladhar were giving choicest abuses to him and also instigating to make assault.According to Exh. 13 due to the injury he fell unconscious.judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ramtek, on 26.6.2002 in Regular Criminal Case no.93/1998, by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Heard Miss Ritu Kalia, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.The Advocate for the respondents remained absent during the hearing.::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2016 00:15:12 :::The statement of Shridhar Menghre recorded at Primary Health Centre, Ramtek, on 3.4.1998 is treated as an First Information Report in the present case (Exh.13).After regaining consciousness, he came to his house and, in the night, he made a report to the police.It is also stated that he lost his watch of make 'HMT' in that assault, on the spot itself.The aforesaid statement was recorded as an FIR vide Crime No.62/1998 for the offence punishable u/s. 325 r/ws. 34 of the I.P.C. with Police Station, Ramtek.::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2016 00:15:12 :::CRI.APPEAL.518.02 3 The investigation was entrusted to Israelkhan and Esufkhan (PW6).The spot was shown by the brother of the injured.He is Hiraman (PW 3).The panchnama of the spot was drawn (Exh.22).He also recorded the statements of the witnesses.The accused persons were arrested.Parashram, according to the prosecution, gave his memorandum statement (Exh.23), by which he agreed to show the place where he concealed the weapon, namely, stick.The said stick was seized, on the discovery being made by Parashram.On completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was presented in the Court of learned Magistrate.Charge was framed against the accused persons.They denied the same and claimed for their trial.The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, examined as many as six witnesses.After appreciating the evidence of the prosecution, the learned Magistrate acquitted all of them by recording the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Magistrate has erroneously ignored the evidence of injured Shridhar (PW 1).::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2016 00:15:12 :::In order to secure conviction for the offence punishable u/s.Though in her cross-examination she has stated that injured-Shridhar was examined by her, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the injury certificate of Shridhar is not filed on record.Further PW 5 Dr. Sunita is completely silent in her evidence as to what were the injuries she noticed on the person of Shridhar when she examined him.In absence of the evidence in that behalf and in the absence of any injury certificate of Shridhar, the Courts are at lurch to find out what were the injury suffered by Shridhar.Insofar as the submission of the learned A.P.P. in respect of Exh.19 is concerned, it has to be seen that as per the evidence of Dr. Sunita one X-ray was placed before her by the police for giving her opinion.The X-ray plate which was placed before Dr.Sunita in her examination is not produced on record by the prosecution.Further, the Xray Technician who has taken the X-::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2016 00:15:12 :::ray of the patient, is also not examined by Dr. Sunita, as candidly admitted in her cross-examination and it will be useful to reproduce her version which she gave in vernacular, "gs Eg.k.ks [kjs vkgs dh eh iksyhlkaP;k lkax.;ko#u eh fu'kk.kh 19 fnyk vkgs".7. Exh.13, the statement which is treated as an FIR, recites that after regaining consciousness, Shridhar reached his house in the night, he lodged the report with the police, however the said report is not coming on record.Further, Exh.13 is completely silent about the presence of Hiraman (PW 3), his brother.Hiraman, the brother of Shridhar claims that he reached to the spot immediately and he noticed his brother was lying on the spot and, therefore, he lifted him and brought to his house.According to the prosecution, the incident has occurred in the noon-time, whereas the FIR was ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2016 00:15:12 ::: CRI.APPEAL.518.02 6 lodged in the night.Hiraman could have easily filed the report against the accused persons.In absence of the presence being mentioned of Hiraman, the Court should not readily accept the evidence of Hiraman that he was on the spot at the time of assault being made on his brother Shridhar.::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2016 00:15:12 :::Consequently, the Appeal fails and is dismissed.JUDGE sahare ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2016 00:15:12 ::: CRI.APPEAL.518.02 7 C E R T I F I C AT E " I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order."::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2016 00:15:12 :::Uploaded by: N.B.Sahare P.S.::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2016 00:15:12 :::

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

PW1 married to one Edwin, who is the son of the deceased.Edwin had a illicit intimacy, with A2 and settled down in A2's house, and not visiting the deceased house.On the date of occurrence, there was a quarrel between A2 and Edwin, in the house of A2, on hearing the news, the deceased, PW1 and PW3 to 5, went to the scene of occurrence.Then the deceased and other injured witnesses were taken to Stanley Medical College and Hospital, Chennai.PW15, Doctor working in the Stanley Medical College and Hospital had received the body of the deceased and declared him dead, and he also examined PW2 and PW3 and found injuries on them and issued Accident Register to that effect.In the meantime, PW9, a doctor working in the Stanley Medical College and Hospital conducted the post-mortem autopsy on the dead body and found the following injuries:Blood strains and clots clinching to the injury and on wiping it, An eliptical spindle shaped Gaping stab wound seen on front of Right lower chest close to xiphi sternal area, lateral to mindline 0.5 cms and 6 cms inner to right mid clavicular line measuring 3 x 1cm x organ deep.Both Angles and margins are clean cut.On further dissection, it has entered Right diaphragm and Right lobe of Liver 3.5 cms.depth and is directed forwards, backwards and inwards.Abdominal cavity contained 1000 ml of fluid bood.Hyoid bone - Intact.Heart - Few Ml of fluid blood present in all chambers coronaris patent.Lungs - C/s.pale.Stomach - 250 gms.partly digested cooked rice particles present.Mucosa - Pale.Liver, Spleen, Kidneys - c/s.pale.2. A1, in S.C.No.9 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, is the appellant herein.He stood charged for the offence under section 148, 324, 302 r/w 149 IPC and and 302 IPC.The Trial Court found the appellant guilty of offence under section 304(ii) IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years and acquitted him from all other charges and also acquitted other accused from all the charges.Aggrieved against the above said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with the present appeal.Then PW1 went to the respondent-Police and lodged a complaint at 5.30 a.m. PW16-Inspector of Police/respondent on receipt of the complaint registered a case in Crime No.71 of 2002, for the offences under Section 147,148,323,324 and 302 IPC and prepared First Information Report.Thereafter, Inspector of Police went to the scene of occurrence at about 6.30 a.m. and prepared observation Mahazar and a rough sketch.He went to the Stanley Medical College, conducted inquest on the dead body in presence of Panchayatars and recorded the statement of other witnesses, and prepared inquest report, also recovered blood stained clothes of the deceased, then sent the body for postmortem.Bladder - 50ml of urine present.Brain - c/s pale.Opinion: The deceased would appear to have died of stab injury to the liver, (visera preserved for chemical analysis).The doctor was of the opinion that the deceased appeared to have died due to stab injury in the liver and issued postmortem certificate.PW17-Inspector of Police recorded the statement of the Doctor and other witnesses and after completion of the investigation, he filed a charge sheet.Based on the above incriminating materials, the Trial Court framed charges as mentioned earlier, the accused denied the same.In order to prove this case, prosecution examined 17 witnesses, marked 25 exhibits and 4 material objects.Out of the 17 witnesses examined, PW1, is the eye witness to the occurrence, she is the Daughter-in-law of the deceased.According to her, on 19.04.2002 at 8.30 p.m., she heard the news that there was a quarrel between A2 and her husband.When the deceased interfered, A1 attacked the deceased and other accused attacked the other witnesses.Immediately, they took the deceased and other injured persons to the hospital.PW2 is the wife of the deceased.When the deceased tried to prevent her, A1 attacked the deceased with the knife in the chest and other accused attacked the PW2 to 5 and all of them were taken to the hospital.PW3 is the niece of the deceased.She along with other eye witnesses went to the scene of occurrence.According to her, there was a quarrel at that time, all the accused attacked her and A2 instigated A1 to attack PW1 and at that time when the deceased interfered, A1 attacked the deceased with a knife.PW4 is the Daughter of the deceased.She also went to the scene of occurrence.According to her, all the accused attacked her with wooden log in the right leg, left leg and A1 attacked the deceased with the knife and then they took the deceased to the hospital.PW5 is another daughter of the deceased.She is also an injured witness.According to her, when they went to the scene of occurrence after hearing the news of quarrel, all the accused attacked PW7 and A1 attacked the deceased with knife in the chest.PW6 is the Son-in-law of the deceased.After hearing the news of quarrel, he went to the scene of occurrence and took the deceased in auto to the Stanley Medical College and Hospital alongwith all other injured witnesses.PW7 is the witness to the observation mahazar.PW8 turned hostile.PW9 is the scientific Assistant working for Forensic Laboratory, who examined blood stained material objects and gave a report.PW10 is the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body and gave the postmortem report.PW11 is a hearsay witness.PW12 also a hearsay witness.PW13 turned hostile.PW14 is the Head Constable, who identified the body for post-mortem and handed over the body to the family of the deceased.PW15 is a Doctor in the Stanley Medical College and Hospital attending the casualty, who received the deceased and declared him dead and also examined the other injured witnesses and treated them for injuries.PW17 is the Inspector of Police, completed the investigations and filed a charge sheet.When the above incriminating materials were put forth before the accused U/s.313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same and they did not examine any witnesses or marked any documents.Considering all the above incriminating materials, the Trial Court convicted the appellant/A1 under Section 304(ii) IPC and acquitted other accused from all other charges.Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.9. Heard the Mr.V.Sambamurthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs.M.F.Shabana, Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing on behalf of the respondents.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is a long delay in filing the FIR.Even though the occurrence took place at 8.30 p.m, complaint was lodged at 5.30 a.m in the morning.Apart from that all the eye witnesses are only related to the deceased and in absence of any independent witness, the Court below ought not to have convicted the petitioner.Out of which two of them are injured witnesses and they are also taken along with the deceased to the hospital.Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the eye witnesses.The the delay in filing FIR has been properly explained by the prosecution.Only based on the confession of the accused, the material object has been recovered, and there is no reason to disbelieve the recovery also.I have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the materials placed before the court.There are five eye witnesses for the occurrence.PW1 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased.PW2 is the wife of the deceased.PW3 is the niece of the deceased.PW4 and 5 are daughters of the deceased.After hearing the news, all the eye witnesses along with the deceased went to the house of A2, and there was a quarrel, during that quarrel, A1 tried to attack PW1, when the deceased interfered, he attacked the deceased in the chest and caused injuries.Thereafter, PW6, Son-in-law came into the scene and took the deceased to the Stanley Medical College and Hospital alongwith other injured eye witnesses, where the deceased was declared brought dead.The evidence of the Doctor-PW15, also corroborate the evidence of eye witness and Accident Register of the injured witness marked as P16, 17 and 18 would also show the other eye witnesses were also injured.Hence the presence of eye witnesses on the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted.It is the consistent evidence of all the eye witnesses that when A1 tried to attack PW1, the deceased interfered and A1 has stabed the deceased in the chest with a knife caused injury, which is ultimately proved fatal.In the above circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the eye witnesses, and it cannot be rejected on the ground that they are related to the deceased.The Trial Court after considering the evidence had come to a conclusion that A1 attacked the deceased with knife with knowledge that inflicting such injury on the liver is likely to cause death, but he acted without any premeditation or intention to cause the death or to cause such bodily injury as that was likely to cause death and convicted A1 under Section 304(ii) IPC to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment.I find no illegality or perversity in the finding of the Trial Court, and there is no reason to interfere in this appeal.So far as sentence is concerned, it is not a premeditated murder, and the appellant does not have any intention to cause death of the deceased.The appellant is a poor person and has no bad antecedents and he has a change to reform.Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances, the appellant is sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

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

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

JUDGMENT R. Regupathi, J.The above Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the accused, numbering four, as against the Judgment, dated 14.10.2004, passed by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, FTC No. 4, Poonamallee, in Sessions Case No. 81 of 2004, whereby, the Court found them guilty of both the charges under Sections 341 and 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC.and imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- payable by each of the accused, in default, to undergo imprisonment for three months.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The case of the prosecution, in short, is that PW-6 and the deceased were friends; that there was a quarrel between PW-6 and the accused, in which, PW-6 was assaulted by the accused, whereupon, a complaint was given by PW-6; that the deceased refused to accept the demand of the accused to help them by persuading his friend PW-6 for withdrawal of the complaint lodged by him; that the accused nurtured grudge against the deceased on account of the same; and that, with a motive to do away with the deceased, on 11.08.2003 at about 9 A.M., all the accused wrongfully restrained the deceased when he was travelling in his Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-20 U-4012 at Nagammai Nagar Main Road, near Murugappa Polytechnic at GTH Road, within the jurisdiction of Tirumullaivoyal Police Station; thereby, the first charge under Section 341 IPC.was framed against the accused.In the same place, all the accused, armed with knives, inflicted injuries on the deceased and as a result of the same, the deceased succumbed to death and thereby, the second charge under Section 302 read with 34 was framed.Initially, when the accused were questioned, they denied their complicity in the offence and therefore, trial of the case was taken up by the court of sessions.During the course of trial, the prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined PWS-1 to 15, marked Exs.P1 to P-27 and produced MOs.DW-1 was examined on the defence side but no document was marked.3. Let us first traverse into the case of the prosecution in its evidentiary backdrop.a) PWs-1 to 4 are the family members of the deceased and they were examined as motive witnesses.b) PW-1 is the father of the deceased, who has stated that on 11.08.2003 at about 09.30 A.M., while he was in an STD Booth, two persons came and told him about the assault on the deceased, whereupon, he went to the scene of occurrence and thereafter gave information of the incident to the Inspector of Police over phone and afterwards, went in person to the police Station and lodged the complaint Ex. P1 with the police.c) PW-2 is the wife of the deceased, who, on receiving information over phone regarding the assault on her husband, went to the police station and thereafter to the Hospital and came to know that her husband was no more.She has stated that two days prior to the occurrence, the deceased informed her that PW-6 was assaulted and when he questioned in support of PW-6, A2 threatened him.d) PW-3 is the mother of the deceased.On coming to know about the attack on her son, she went to the hospital to see him.According to her, on the previous day, the deceased told her that he questioned the assault on PW-6, whereupon, the assailants turned inimical towards him.e) PW-4 is the brother of the deceased and he has stated that, on coming to know that the deceased met with an accident and was admitted in the Hospital, he went there and found him dead.f) PW-5 has been examined to substantiate the enmity between the deceased and A-2, however, he has not supported the case of the prosecution.g) PW-6 is a motive witness for the occurrence.His emphatic evidence is that he does not know anything about the occurrence or the enmity between the 2nd accused and the deceased.Since he has not supported the prosecution case, he was treated hostile.As he did not support the case of the prosecution, he was treated as hostile witness.i) PW-8 is the Medical Officer, who examined the deceased on 11.08.2003 and, after noticing the injuries, he declared him dead.j) PW-9 is the Doctor, who conducted post mortem over the body of the deceased and issued the post mortem certificate Ex. P7, wherein, the following injuries have been noticed:A deep cut wound over submental region extending from right to left measuring 20x3x5 cm with cut fracture of body mandible.A cut wound over mid occipital region 17cm x 3 x scalp deep wound cut fracture of occipital bone.A cut wound over front of neck 3x 1 x 2 cm.Superficial incised wounds over right axil 3 x 1 x 1 cms.3 x 2 x 4 cm, 5 x 2 x 1 cm.A cut wound over right Right finger 2 x 1 x 1 cm with cut fracture of distal phalanx 2 x 1 x 1 cm.A cut wound over right middle finger 4 x 2 x 1 cm with cut fracture proximal phalanxReddish brown abrasions left clavicular region 5 x 2 cm.left upper shoulder 10 x 1 cm.Left knee 10 x 2 cm.Laceration of right occipital lobes 4 x 3 x 2 cm with sub arachnoid and subdural haemorrhage and right parieto temporal lobes all the cut wounds edges are regular and clean cut.All the above injuries are antemortem in nature.The viscera was sent for chemical analysis and after obtaining the report under Ex. P6, the Doctor had given his opinion that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of multiple cut injuries.As these witnesses did not support the prosecution case, they were treated hostile at the instance of the prosecution.l) PW-11 is the Village Administrative Officer, who attested the statement of the accused and also the mahazar for recovery of the Material Objects.m) PW-12 is the Constable, who accompanied the dead body of the deceased to the Hospital and after the autopsy was over, he received the clothing of the deceased and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer.n) PW-13 is the Sub Inspector of Police.On the complaint given by PW-1, the father of the deceased, he registered the F.I.R. under ExP.13 in Crime No. 310 of 2003 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.and forwarded the same to his superiors as well as court.He examined the witnesses present in the scene of occurrence.He proceeded to the Hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body between 14.30 and 15.30 hours and Ex. P17 is the inquest report.He sent those material objects to court with his requisition Ex. P19 to forward the same for chemical examination.P21 and P22 are biological and serologist reports received by the Inspector of Police.On coming to know about the surrender of the accused, he filed an affidavit before the learned Magistrate for taking them into police custody and the same having been granted, statements of A1 to A3 were recorded.Pursuant to the statement of the accused, MO.7 Auto bearing Registration No. TN-20 C-8016, MOs-8 to 10 knives, MO-11 TVS Suzuki Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-20 U-4012 and MO-12 Baniyan were recovered.The vehicles were produced before court under Form-95 and MOs-8 to 10 and 12 were sent for chemical analysis through Court.The Inspector of Police, on conclusion of the investigation, filed final report against the accused on 03.11.2003 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating materials produced on the side of the prosecution, they pleaded innocence.On the side of the defence, DW-1, who is said to have attested the mahazars along with PW-11, was examined.He has stated that he does not know anything about the preparation of mahazars and that he signed the papers shown to him by the Investigating Officer.On conclusion of the trial, after hearing the submissions made on either side, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned.PW-7, who has been examined as attesting witness for observation mahazar Ex. P14, also turned hostile.DW-1, who attested the statement of the accused and recovery mahazar was not examined by the prosecution, however, he was examined by the defence and it has been deposed by him that his signature was obtained by the Investigating Officer in some papers and that he did not know for what purpose the signature was obtained.Though it has been substantiated through the evidence of the medical officers PWs-8 and 9 that the death was due to homicidal violence, their evidence does not in any way improve the case of the prosecution to connect the appellants with the crime.Without looking into such aspects, the learned trial Judge erroneously convicted the accused based on surmises and conjectures and relying upon the voluntary surrender of the accused as well as the alleged statement given by them leading to recovery.The fact that there was no bloodstain on the recovered weapons escaped the consideration of the trial court.Though the motorcycle is said to have been recovered through the statement of A-1, such recovery was only near the compound wall of Tambaram Railway Station, a place accessible to the public and not within the exclusive possession of the first accused.At the first instance, it is submitted that PWs-1 to 4, who are the family members of the deceased and being motive witnesses, have spoken to about the grudge nurtured by the second accused against the deceased though other motive witnesses, who are independent witnesses, have turned hostile.Though PWs-10 and 14, cited as eye witnesses, did not support the case of the prosecution, they have been cross-examined and the earlier statement given by them to the Investigating Officer has been put against them.The Medical Officers PWs-8 and 9 have substantiated that the death was due to homicidal violence.The report was given without any further delay by the father of the deceased.At any rate, the reasons given by the trial court for convicting the appellants are well-founded.We have perused the materials available on record and considered pensively the rival contentions projected by the counsels appearing on either side.In fact, the prosecution examined PWs-10 and 14 as 'eye witnesses', but, both of them uniformly deposed that they knew only the deceased and do not know the accused and further, they did not know directly as to how the deceased died.In the chief examination, they have never spoken to anything about the case of the prosecution as put forth in the charges framed against the accused.Barring them, the main motive witness is PW-6, who was earlier assaulted by the accused, whereupon, a complaint was given by him against the accused.Surprisingly, the prosecution did not choose to mark the complaint given by PW-6 and during examination in the Court, PW-6 totally denied the earlier case that he was assaulted by the accused and that the accused developed enmity against the deceased when he questioned their action.The other independent witness to speak about the enmity between the accused and the deceased is PW-5 and he also did not support the case of the prosecution, however, he has not been treated hostile by the prosecution.Further, the evidence of PWs-1 to 4 viz., father, wife, mother and brother of the deceased, is not in direct terms but in the nature of hearsay, and suffers from contradictions.PW-2, the wife of the deceased deposed that the information received from PW-4 was that her husband sustained injury on account of an accident.Though she has stated that two days prior to the occurrence, the deceased had spoken to her about the earlier incident at the instance of A2, PW-3, the mother of the deceased, stated that it was on the previous day.Further, the wavering testimonies of PWs-1 to 4 do not serve as a strong piece of evidence to establish the identity of the accused/assailants.Though PW3 has stated that the deceased was having Motorcycle bearing Registration No. 4012 (TVS), the same has not been identified by his family members as that of the deceased.Since the accused went into the hands of the Investigating Officer, the possibility of creating incriminating materials against the accused cannot be ruled out.Though PW-11, the Village Administrative Officer, supported the case of the prosecution put forth by PW-15, the Investigating Officer, PW-7, who had put signature in the observation mahazar turned hostile.Further, DW-1, who in the normal course ought to have been examined by the prosecution was not examined by them, but on the contrary, he was examined on the defence side and deposed that he just signed the papers shown to him by the Investigating Officer.The F.I.R. prepared on the complaint given by PW-1, father of the deceased, appears to be quite vague and bald.By stating that the deceased was found with injuries at the scene of occurrence, registration of a case was sought for.If eye witnesses were available, certainly, they would have intimated PW-1 immediately, whereupon, the number and names of the assailants and particulars of eye witnesses would have found place in the FIR itself.Moreover, during the course of inquest, PWs-10 and 14 were not even examined by the Inspector of Police.It is quite unfortunate that the learned trial Judge has placed much reliance on the surrender of the accused before court and the subsequent recoveries made when they were in police custody.Such aspects alone would not be sufficient to connect the appellants with the crime particularly when the evidence of the hostile eye witnesses was contentious and that of the motive witnesses was of no use.Thus, as could be seen, on the one hand, the independent witnesses, mahazar witnesses and eye witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, thereby the edifice of the prosecution case had become irretrievably unstable, and on the other hand, the so-called motive witnesses, who are none else than the family members of the deceased, do not support or improve the prosecution version as their evidence corrodes from inconsistency and watered by contradictions.In the absence of strong piece of evidence, the trial court based conviction on certain fragile and feeble aspects which in no way directly implicate any of the accused/appellants, hence, the judgment passed by it deserves to be set aside.In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

He has completed more than 10 years actual jail sentence and near about 14 years of jail sentence including remission, hence, the sentence of the appellant be modified as already undergone because the appellant has completed more than sentence than minimum sentence of 10 years.The prosecutrix PW/1 was aged about seven years at the time of incident.She deposed that she was playing at around 2 O'clock near her house on the road.At that time the appellant had called her at his house with a promise to give sweets where the appellant slammed her in the bed thereafter committed sexual intercourse with her, due to which blood was oozing from my private parts.Thereafter, I came back to my house and told the incident to my mother and mother told the father, thereafter father told the incident to other family members.They had taken me to Mandla Hospital where I was treated for a period of twenty days and FIR was lodged.PW/2 mother of the prosecutrix deposed that the appellant is neighbour and he is also releative.At the time of incident age of the prosecutrix was near about seven years.When I returned back from the fields at around 5 O'clock, the prosecutrix told me that the appellant had Cr.A. No. 2623/2007 3 committed rape with her.Blood was oozing from her private part.Thereafter, mother of the appellant came to my house, I told the incident to my husband and thereafter, husband told to other villagers and report was lodged at police station Mohgaon.The prosecutrix was admitted in the Hospital, Mandla.She was examined by the doctor.5. PW/4 Subbedas father of the prosecutrix deposed that when I returned back to house, my wife told me that the appellant had committed rape with the prosecutrix due to which blood was oozing from her private part.I found the blood on the body of the prosecutrix and on her clothes, thereafter, mother of the appellant came to my house.I signed the same.The allegation against the appellant is that he has committed rape on 11/11/2006 with a minor girl.Report of the incident was lodged on 12/11/2006 by father of the prosecutrix, thereafter, police conducted the investigation and filed the charge-sheet for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC against the appellant.The trial court held appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and awarded sentence RI for life and imposed fine amount of Rs. 5000/-.Cr.A. No. 2623/2007 2The prosecutrix was admitted in the hospital Mandla.PW/5 Motidas, PW/6 Mulludas, PW/7 Balidas who are villagers deposed that the father of the prosecutrix told them about rape committed by the appellant.PW/10 Dr. Ravindra Sharma, deposed that I had examined the appellant and found that the appellant was Cr.A. No. 2623/2007 4 competent to perform sexual intercourse.Doctor Smt. Reeta Shrivastava PW/3 deposed that I was posted as Assistant Surgeon at District Hospital Mandla on 12/01/2006 and examined the prosecutrix who was aged about seven years.I do not find any sign of injury on her body, however there were signs of blood on private part and lower part of thigh.Hymen was ruptured from where blood was oozing.Doctor gave opinion that the sexual intercourse was committed with her.The prosecutrix was admitted in the hospital Mandla.PW/11 R.D. Kanva, deposed that I was posted as station house officer at Police Station Mohgaon.On the report of the complainant Subbedas an offence was registered against the appellant which is Ex.P/6, I signed the same.Thereafter, I recorded statements of Motidas, Balidas, Mulludas and arrested the appellant vide arrest memo Ex.P/17, I signed the same and send the appellant for medical examination thereafter, the seized articles were send for FSL, Sagar.Appellant in his defance had examined Nandlal, however, his evidence is not of much important.There is evidence of prosecutrix which is natural, her mother PW/2, her father PW/4 and evidence of other villagers, it is established that the appellant committed rape with the prosecutrix.This fact is also supported from the evidence Cr.A. No. 2623/2007 5 of PW/3 Doctor who examined the prosecutrix.The report was lodged on the next day and investigating officer who conducted the investigation has verified the facts.

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

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

They use caustic and pungent language panning and castigating the Delhi Police for dishonourable and damnatory conduct of harassment, torture and false implication of innocents like the author/perpetrator.Secondly, as a part of his strategy, the perpetrator had made telephone calls to intimate and inform to the police that he had left the dead corpse outside the jail.We have proceeded on the aforesaid legal principles, which are of relevance in these cases as the prosecution alleges and submits and the trial court judgment holds that the appellant-Chandrakant Jha was a serial killer and a psychopath.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 16 of 89A. The First Information Report, post-mortem of the unidentified decapitated body and initial leadsAt about 7.20 a.m. on 20th October, 2006, DD No.8A, marked Ex. PW-ASI Sukhdev Singh (PW17) and Constable Surender Singh (PW21), on being directed to ascertain the factual position, reached the spot where a headless body of a male, aged about 25-28 years, in a basket (tokri) tied with a rope was found wrapped in a jute bag with pieces of plastic and newspaper.Inspector Sunder Singh (PW22) on reaching the spot at about 7.53 AM, inspected the said headless dead body.The severed neck of the deceased was covered with an underwear and one purple pant and sky blue shirt was also found wrapped with the body.The deceased had a tattoo mark of a scorpion (bichhoo) on the left shoulder and word Amit in Hindi inscribed on the right arm.Two bluish marks were observed on the knee and another bluish mark was also noticed on the ribs towards the left lower back.A letter written by the perpetrator was found near the dead body.Mobile Crime Team was called and photographs were taken.Rukka marked Ex.PW22/A was prepared by Inspector Sunder Singh (PW22) at about 10:15 AM and FIR No.609/2006, Ex. PW-15/A, was registered.The FIR specifically mentions that a letter in Hindi which began and ended with the words Delhi Police......................Tumhare intezar me tumhare logo ka baap Jijaji (C.C.) was found near the dead body.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 17 of 89The time of death was estimated to be about 10 days prior to the date of post mortem examination.Blood in gauze piece, gunny bag, nylon rope, two underwear and sternum for DNA finger printing were preserved, sealed and handed over to the police.PW2 was not cross-examined.Inspector Sunder Singh (PW22) has stated that ASI Bal Kishan (PW7) had informed him about having received a call from a criminal, who had expressed desire to talk to the Inspector Hoshiyar Singh and he had given his mobile number.In the meanwhile, Inspector Hoshiyar Singh (PW-34) had received a call from landline number 25993011 and had been warned of continuous dropping of dead bodies in front of the jail, for the caller had been harassed by jail officials/police.Inspector Sunder Singh (PW22) along with other police officers had visited the telephone booth from where the call was made and had met one Ram Babu (PW-12), who was operating the said booth, allotted to a handicapped person called Mahesh Bhatia.They had learnt that the caller had left the booth immediately after making the call.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 18 of 89Inspector Hoshiyar Singh (PW-34) has testified that he was using telephone No. 9871284644 on 20th October, 2006 and had received a call from landline No. 25993011 and had spoken to the caller, who had identified himself as CC.For the sake of convenience and clarity, we would at this stage itself record that Tarun Khurana (PW-33) has affirmed that telephone No. 9871284644 was subscribed by Inspector Hoshiyar Singh vide customer application form, Exhibit PW-33/A. He had also proved the call record details (CDR, for short) of the said phone between 19th October, 2006 and 21st October, 2006, marked Exhibit PW-22/Z15, which had the signature and official seal of the then Zonal Officer, R.K. Singh.Registration of FIR Nos. 243/2007 and 279/2007 on 25th April,2007 and 18th May,2007 are not disputed and challenged.Registration of the FIR No. 243/2007 on 25th April, 2007 on recovery of another body outside Tihar Jail stands adverted to by Inspector Sunder Singh (PW-22).This witness had discussed this case with Inspector Hoshiyar Singh (PW-34).Inspector Sunder Singh (PW22) has also deposed about the recovery of the third headless body outside Tihar Jail on 18th May, 2007 with a hand written letter addressed to the police.FIR No. 279/2007 was registered and PW-22 had visited the spot and interacted with Inspt.Ombir Singh.Efforts were made to trace the accused as a Crl.Sunder Singh (PW-22) has testified:-(i) On 18th May, 2007, he had learnt from the secret informer that the perpetrator was available in the area around the Tihar Jail.Attempts were made to trace the culprit, but without success.(ii) On 19th May, 2007, the secret informer met PW-22 and gave the clue that the perpetrator was residing near Shiv Mandir, Alipur.(iii) On 20th May, 2007, the said informer again came to PW22's office at Tagore Garden and on this occasion had specific information that the perpetrator was available in his room at Alipur.(iv) After obtaining permission from seniors, a police team of Inspector Sunder Singh (PW22), ASI Virender Tyagi and other officers of Special Staff and Dilip Kaushik, SI Jai Prakash of P.S. Nangloi and SI Jarnail Crl.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 20 of 89 Singh etc., was constituted.The team reached Alipur, Delhi at about 12 noon.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 20 of 89(v) Watch was kept at Shiv mandir wali gali and at about 2 p.m., Chandrakant Jha was apprehended.Initially the appellant resisted and remained uncooperative, but after persistent and continuous interrogation, Chandrakant Jha broke down and made a disclosure statement marked Ex. PW-22/K.(vi) Chandrakant Jha was arrested on 20th May, 2007 at 3 P.M. vide arrest memo Ex.(viii) An engine operated rickshaw identified by Chandrakant Jha was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW22/L.(ix) Chandrakant Jha thereafter took the police team to a rented room on the ground floor in property No. 229 at Haiderpur.The Crime Team Crl.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 21 of 89 and FSL experts were called.The lock affixed on the door of the room was broken.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 21 of 89(x) Three long knives statedly the weapon of offence with blood stains were sealed with the seal NK FSL, Delhi.The sketches of the three knives were prepared and marked Ex.PW22/N. All the knives were put in separate parcels and sealed with the seal of NK FSL, Delhi and seized vide memo Ex.PW22/O.(xi).Another important material or evidence found at the spot were telephone numbers and names written on the wall.(xii) A mobile phone instrument bearing no. PLC 2682840208 with a SIM of TATA Indicom found in the almirah at Haiderpur, was taken into possession vide common seizure memo marked Ex.PW22/P.(xiii).A visual site plan Ex.PW22/R was prepared.Inspector Sunder Singh (PW22) identified the mobile phone instrument recovered from the almirah of the room at Haiderpur, used by the appellant Chandrakant Jha as Ex.P22, the three knives recovered from the room at Haiderpur place as Ex.P17, Ex.P18 and Ex.P19 respectively and the rickshaw with a scooter engine from Alipur as Ex.SI Kartar Singh (PW1), ASI Sukhdev Singh (PW17), HC Vijender Singh (PW-19), ASI Virender Tyagi (PW23), Inspt.Dalip Kaushik (PW24), and Crl.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 22 of 89 SI Narender Kumar (PW32) have deposed on the arrest of Chandrakant Jha at Alipur, personal search and recoveries from Haiderpur.516. C. Recovery of Skull and Jaw from the banks of the River Yamuna on rd 23 May, 2007:Inspector Sunder Singh (PW-22) on this aspect has testified:-(i) On 23rd May, 2007, appellant Chandrakant Jha was taken by the police team to the banks of river Yamuna.(ii) They recovered a skull with lower jaw, one red cloth and a ghaghri.(iii) Site plan of the place from where the skull and jaw were recovered was prepared and marked Ex.Inspector Sunder Singh (PW-22) identified the skull recovered from the banks of river Yamuna as Ex.P13, the jaw as Ex.P14, the red cloth as Ex.P15 and the ghagri as Ex.On the question of recovery of skull and the jaw on 23 rd May, 2007, we have affirmative and identical testimonies of ASI Virender Tyagi (PW-14) [E]ven apart from the admissibility of the information under Section 27, the evidence of the investigating officer and the panchas that the accused had taken them to PW 11 (from whom he purchased the weapon) and pointed him out and as corroborated by PW 11 himself would be admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act as conduct of the accused.D. Identity of the dead body in F.I.R. No. 609/2006Dr. Anil Shandilya (PW-2) had conducted post-mortem, vide report 982/06 marked Exhibit PW-2/A, on an unknown male aged between 25- 30 years, with a tattoo mark of scorpio (bichoo) on his left shoulder and the name Amit engraved on his right forearm.He had preserved the sternum for DNA finger printing and the same was sealed and handed over to the police officers.Naresh Kumar (PW-11), Senior Scientific Assistant, FSL Rohini had proved the biological and serological report Exhibit PWs-11/A and 11/B and has stated that certain parcels were sent to the DNA Division for DNA examination.PW35 opined that the alleles from the source of blood samples of Hari Singh and Saroj Devi did not match with the DNA profiling (STR Crl.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 32 of 89 analysis) of the bone piece sternum.He proved his report Ex.Thus, the DNA report Ex.PW-35/A firmly establishes that the headless torso found on 20th October, 2006 was not of Anil Mandal@ Amit son of Hari Singh or Saroj Devi, but of some other person.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 32 of 89The DNA report (Ex.40).The said report was marked Ex.PW35/D and the geno type data marked as Ex.PW35/E. In his cross-examination, PW35 has stated that STR analysis had been used for matching the DNA samples and when 10 or more bands out of 15 match, the probability that the DNA was of the same origin was very high.In this case, 15 out of 15 bands had matched.DNA report Ex.PW35/D, thus convincingly and definitely showed that the headless torso found outside the Tihar Jail was of Anil Mandal@ Amit son of Tiwari Mandal and father of Manda (PW41).PW35 has referred to the DNA finger printing profile of the teeth of the recovered skull vide FSL No.2007/DNA-2804 and the DNA profile of the bone piece i.e. sternum vide FSL No.2007/DNA-2849 in FIR No.279/07 and FIR No.609/06, both of P.S. Hari Nagar.PW-35's affirmative conclusion from the DNA profiling (STR analysis) of the aforesaid two exhibits i.e. the teeth of the jaw and the DNA of the sternum, was that the two biological samples belonged to the same person.He proved his report marked Ex.Inspector Jai Singh had also collected the dossier record, which has been marked Ex.PW28/A and had the photograph of Anil Mandal @ Amit.PW-36 has also referred to the finger prints taken by Ravinder Kumar from the unidentified headless body in FIR No.609/06, P.S. Hari Nagar and their comparison with specimen left finger/palm/palm prints slip in the dossier of Anil Mandal, son of Tiwari Mandal.He has deposed about the finger print report of Ravinder Kumar, marked Ex.PW36/A. On 29th October, 2011, PW-36 had visited the village Ugri, district Bhagalpur, Bihar and had taken blood samples of Tiwari Mandal and his wife Madho Devi at a government hospital in Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur, Bihar.However, the DNA finger print profile could not been prepared due to non-amplification of DNA.Thereafter, PW-36 had got in touch with the widow of Anil Mandal, namely, Bharti Devi and had requested her to give blood samples of her children.On his request dated 26th December, 2011, FSL report Nos.2007/DNA/2804 and 2849 were supplied.As per Crl.Possibly, this was an attempt by Chandrakant Jha to mislead and delude the investigation.Finger prints also matched.E. Identification of appellant ChandraKant Jha by Ram Babu (PW12).Under heading A' we have referred to Inspector Sunder Singh (PW22)'s deposition that on 20th October, 2006, Duty Officer ASI Balkishan had received a telephone call and the caller had asked for the mobile phone number of the SHO, expressing his desire to talk to him.The aforesaid factum stands confirmed by Inspector Hoshiyar Singh (PW34), who in his testimony accepts being posted as the SHO of P.S. Hari Nagar on 20 th October, 2006 and being informed that someone calling himself Mukesh Tiwari wanted to speak to him about dumping of a dead body in a bag (katta) outside Gate 3, Tihar Jail.After about 10-15 minutes, PW34 had received a call from the landline number 25993011 and the caller, who had identified himself as CC, had professed having thrown the said headless body outside Gate 3, Tihar Jail.The caller had proclaimed that Crl.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 39 of 89 he was earlier falsely implicated in a case under the Arms Act but refused to divulge the details.Besides, the caller had stated that he had remained in custody from 30th to 3rd and had complained about mis-treatment in the Tihar Jail and had stated that one Head Constable Balbir had tortured him.The caller had warned that he would continue to drop bodies in front of the Tihar Jail.Inspector Hoshiyar Singh (PW34) had tried to engage the caller in a prolonged conversation but the caller had disconnected the phone.After the said call, they had called back on the phone number 25993011 and were connected to Ram Babu, who had informed that his telephone booth was located in front of the Delhi Jal Board office, Tilak Nagar.PW34 had passed on this information to Inspector Sunder Singh (PW22).A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 39 of 89ASI Balkishan Sharma (PW7) has independently confirmed that at about 7.05 a.m. on 20th October, 2006, a call was received from the alleged perpetrator, who had identified himself as Mukesh Tiwari and as asked, PW7 had given the telephone number of Inspector Hoshiyar Singh to the caller.The second call from the said Mukesh Tiwari was received at about 8.45 a.m.Testimony of Tarun Khurana (PW33) and the CDRs Ex.PW22/Z15 referred to under heading A', affirm the said facts.With this lead and information, a police team led by Inspector Sunder Singh (PW22) had proceeded to the telephone booth where the aforesaid landline connection was installed and had interrogated Ram Babu (PW12).Ram Babu (PW12) accepts and affirms the aforesaid version given by Inspector Hoshiyar Singh (PW34) and Inspector Sunder Singh Crl.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 40 of 89 (PW22) and the fact that on 20th October, 2006, police had come to his telephone booth.He affirms that at about 8.30-8.45 a.m., one person aged about 40 years had made a call and left, after making a payment of Rs.12/-.Thereafter, he had received a phone call from Inspector Hoshiyar Singh (PW34) of P.S. Hari Nagar.By then the caller had left the booth.Police had tried to trace the caller, but all in vain.He affirmed that the caller was a tall person of brown colour and was speaking eastern Hindi dialect.He identified the appellant Chandrakant Jha as the person, who had made the call.He has deposed having gone to Rohini Courts and thereafter to the Tihar Jail to identify the appellant in Test Identification Proceedings (TIP Proceedings), but the same were not conducted.In his examination in chief, PW12 had given the said date as 26th October, 2006, which is obviously wrong." ............. Mere priyajano.delhi police ke jaanbaz D.H.G.se lekar I.P.S. Tum sabhi ko tumhare jijaji aur tumhare daamad ke taraf se khullam-khulla challenge hai ki agar vakai mein tumlogon ki maa ko tumlogon ke hi baap ne xxxx paida kiya hai to mujhe pakarkar dikhao varna tum saare upar se niche tak ke delhi police ka staff najayaz maa + baap ka paidaish kahlaoge aur tum log yahi sochna ki vakai mein tum logon ki maa aur behan kisi aur adhikar wallon se xxxx wall hai kyonki (xxxx) xxxx ke aulaad tum delhi police vale bahut hi behxxxxd aur maa chxd ho kyonki tum log najayaz case lagakar ek sharif aadmi ko bahut hi galat tarike se pareshaan aur mazbur tatha badnaam kar dete ho ki vo kamane khane ke laayak bhi nahin reh pata hai.Lekin saale tum log ye bhul jaate ho ki jab ek sharif aadmi sharafat chor kar crime karta hai to phir tum logon ki aise hi maa behan xxxx hai jaisa ki Tihar Jail par hota aaya hai aur hota hi rahega jab tak ki tum log mujhe (DCP) Manish Kumar Aggarwal se nahin baat karva doge aur main ek baat (SHO Hoshiyar Singh ji) se jarur kehna chahoonga ki abhi jo pichle hi saal 20.10.2006 ko laash mill thi usme us laash ka app logoon ne thik dhang se muaayena nahin kiya tha kyonki us laash par uske haath par (Amit) naam likha tha lekin aap loogoon ne akhbaar mein uska naam bhi nahin dalwaya tha.Vaise main ye letter - likhta to nahin lekin abhi jo shayad 24 ya uske ek aadh din aage- piche April mein main-ne murder karke Tihar Jail par delhi police ke liye tohfa bheja ,tha uske andar jo letter nahin mila to bechare akhbar vale bhi pareshaan ho gaye ki aakhir delhi police valoon ke damaad aur jijajine abki baar letter kyon nahin bheja.Isliye main aap logoon ke shikavat par gaur pharmaya hai.Mujhe ummid hai ki ye shilshila aise hi chalta rahega aur delhi police valoon ki maa + behan xxxx rahegi varna mujhe (DCP Manish Kumar Aggarwal) se baath karva do nahin to shale har 15 din mein aisa tohfa bhejna shuru kar doonga aur tum log mera xxxx bhi nahin bigar paaoge.Kramshah Pr CC Main CC ye baat sina taan kar kabul kar raha hoon ki karib karib saal mein kam se kam 7-8 murder har haal mein karta hoon varna mera dimaag pagal hone lagta hai kyonki ye xxxxx delhi police vaaloon ne mujhe najayaz case laga-lagakar itna Majboor kar diya ki mujhe majburan Crl.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 48 of 89 ye kadam uthana pada taki unko bhi pata chale ki jab koi sharif aadmi apne haath mein hathiyar uthata hai to uska irada kitna jyada khatarnaak hota hai.Aur shale delhi police ke chote se bare ohdedaaroon tumhe zara si bhi akal nahin hai ki kam se kam itna murder karne vale ke upar abhi tak nahin kuch to 50 hazar inaam to rakh hi doon ya upar valoon se is CC ke baare mein jyada se jyada khunkhar aur khatarnaak ka upadhi de kar inaam rakhvaane ka koshih karo taki is khel mein kuch maja aaye kyonki tum to shale sharif ke baare mein akhbar aur challan mein aise darshaate ho jaise ki vo janamjaat peshevar criminal ho lekin xxxxx delhi police vale main teri maa behan xxxx raha hoon khullam-khulla to mere upar inaam kyon nahin rakh rahe ho.Main apne upar inaam ki raashi jaanne ke liye ati utsuk hoon.Dhyan rakhna ki mere kaam ke laayak inaam jarur hona chahiye varna meri beijjati hogi to main tum sabki beijjati karva doonga.Ye letter akhbar valoon ko bhi padhwa dena.Aage phir Tohfa ko samay par bhej doonga -- tum loogoon ka -- jijaji +daamaad = C. C"A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 48 of 89A reading of the said letter shows that the writer, who had thrown the dead body, was hateful and detested the Delhi Police.He had made reference to Manish Kumar Aggarwal and Hoshiyar Singh, the SHO.He had defied and challenged the Delhi Police to catch and arrest him.Pertinently, this letter refers to the first occurrence dated 20th October, 2006 and the second occurrence in the month of April, possibly 24 th, when a dead body was thrown outside the Tihar Jail without any letter in order to confuse and traumatize the police.The writer had warned that more murders would take place.He had described himself as CC, as in the first letter.We would in our judgment refer to this letter as the second letter.By order dated 25th May, 2012, certified copy of the second letter, which has been described as the confession letter, specimen handwriting of 64 Crl.PW22/U7, and has proved his report Ex.PW47/A. He has opined that the questioned and specimen documents were subjected to careful and thorough examination with scientific instruments like stereo microscope, video spectral comparator IV, Docucenter and VSC-2000/HR etc. under differing lighting conditions.In his cross-examination, Sanjeev Kumar (PW47) affirmed that the questioned handwriting and specimen handwriting were received in the department's office at the receiving counter/section, which also records the number of pages received.The said report reads:-The specimen writings marked S1 to S64 show freedom in their execution, natural variation and internal consistency among themselves.The questioned writings marked Q1 to Q3 are also freely written, show natural variation and internal consistency among themselves.The mere fact that the letter was Crl.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 61 of 89 addressed to the sub-Inspector, and not to any third person, would not by itself make the letter inadmissible.In the present case, the confessions are in the form of letters which were written earlier and before the appellant was first apprehended by the police which signify that they were written voluntarily.There was no chance of inducement or threat.Confessions made in the two letters are admissible.Pankaj (PW-45) has testified that he was working at Bhramik Ayurved Ashram Bhiwani and knew one Upender, his cousin, who was working in Delhi.He used to also come to Delhi and had for the first time met Chandrakant Jha at Jahangirpuri.At that time, he wanted help for release of two boys from Prayas Children Home.Upender had introduced them to Chandrakant Jha and stated that he could help.PW- 45 narrates that he had in May, 2007 called on number 9211463743 and had spoken to a girl, statedly daughter of Chandrakant Jha.She had asked him to call after ten minutes.PW-45 had called after 10-15 minutes and conversed with Chandrakant Jha, whose voice he identified.PW45 had enquired and questioned Chandrakant Jha about Upender and was told that Upender had taken Rs.20, 000/- and his rehri/thela and gone Crl.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 62 of 89 somewhere.In his cross-examination PW-45 continued to affirm his version and has elaborately narrated about his interaction with Chandrakant Jha on different occasions and how father of Upender had come to Delhi and at that time they had learnt that Chandrakant Jha was involved in a murder case.He voluntarily added that Upender was residing with Chandrakant Jha only.As per Inspector Sunder Singh (PW-22), Chandrakant Jha had indicated during interrogation that the headless body of the deceased found outside Tihar Jail on 25th April, 2007 was that of Upender.At the time of arrest and on personal search of the appellant, Tata Samsung phone having No. 8562-A099 and SIM of Tata Indicom 921143742 was recovered.At the time of arrest, a paper containing some telephone numbers, Exhibit PW-22/Z9, was also recovered.The paper had the name and address of one Pankaj Rathor, resident of 140 Richo Industrial Area Bhiwadi Alwar and telephone No. 01493-22069 with the words Pinku Dost of Upender written in Hindi.The said paper had several telephone numbers and names written thereon.M.N. Vijayan (PW-46), Nodal Officer, Tata Teleservices Limited has proved that the two telephone connection Nos. 9211463742 and 9211463743, were subscribed by one Rahul Jain vide application forms Exhibits PW-46/A and PW-46/C. PW-46 had also proved the call detail records for the period 1st April, 2000 to 20th May, 2000 for telephone No. 9211463742 vide Exhibit PW-29/B and of telephone number 9211463743 for the period 11th March, 2007 to 20th May, 2007 vide Crl.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 63 of 89 Exhibit PW-29/D. In his cross-examination, PW-46 has stated that CDRs were retrieved from the main server at Hyderabad and the CDRs had been sent by the Hyderabad branch.They had power back up system for 24 hours and denied the fact that the CDRs had been fabricated or manipulated at the instance of the police.He further clarified that they had necessary security measures and it was not possible to tamper or change the call records.West-4, Rohini Courts noticed that there were three connected charge sheets arising out of FIR Nos. 609/2006, 243/2007 and 279/2007 all under Sections 302 and Section 201 IPC and relating to Police Station Hari Nagar, in which Chandrakant Jha was facing prosecution.The aforesaid Additional Sessions Judge by the said order had directed that the case may be put up before the District Judge-1 and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts for appropriate orders.Thereafter, the Sessions Judge, Delhi passed an order dated 1st December, 2010 stating that the aforesaid cases were connected with common witnesses and should be tried in one court.Charge sheet in FIR No. 243/2007 was thereby transferred to the court where the connected charge sheets relating to FIR No. 609/2006 and 279/2007 were pending (charge sheet in FIR No. 243/2007 relates to Crl.(i) The three FIRs, all registered at the Police Station Hari Nagar, namely, FIR No. 609/2006, FIR No. 243/2007 and FIR No. 279/2007 have striking similarities and uniqueness for in each case a headless torso of unknown person was found in the early morning hours outside the Tihar Jail.The perpetrator had made telephone calls in the first and third case informing the police that he had left the headless decapitated bodies and had taunted the police to identify and arrest the caller.Two hand-written letters were found with the dead bodies in the first and third FIR.(ii) Chandrakant Jha was arrested on 20th May, 2007 and made a disclosure statement Exhibit PW-22/K. On 23rd May, 2007 a skull and a jaw was recovered at his behest from the banks of river Yamuna.(iii) On interrogation and disclosure statement Ex.Further, on 19th October, 2006, Anil Mandal @ Amit had attended a court hearing.(iv) The DNA report Exhibit PW 35/D and F affirms and proves that the headless torso found outside Tihar Jail on 20 th October, 2006 was of Anil Mandal @ Amit son of Tiwari Mandal, father of Manda (PW-41).The DNA report Ex.PW37/F proves that the jaw recovered at the behest of Chandrakant Jha was of the same person, i.e., Anil Mandal @ Amit, son of Tiwari Mandal and father of Manda (PW-41).The aforesaid DNA reports are crucial and critical for the disclosures and leads given by Chandrakant Jha had enabled the Police to ascertain and identify that the headless torso and affirms that the jaw was of Anil Mandal @ Amit son of Tiwari Mandal and father of Manda (PW-41), whose headless torso was found outside Tihar Jail.The clues led them to one Pankaj (PW-45), who knew Upender and had met Chandrakant Jha, a number of times.PW-45 identified Chandrakant Jha and has deposed that Upender was working and associated with Chandrakant Jha.PW-45 has testified and spoken about his conversation with Chandrakant Jha after Upender had gone missing and the appellant's evasive answers.(viii) The two letters recovered with the headless corpse on 20th October, 2006 and 18th May, 2007 are confessions by the perpetrator, and are admissible in evidence.They exposit the motive and intent behind the three murders.The appellant-Chandrakant Jha has filed three appeals impugning three separate judgments, all dated 24th January, 2013, convicting him for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC for short).These convictions arise from the charge-sheets filed in FIR No.609/2006 dated 20th October, 2006; FIR No.243/2007 dated 25th April, 2007 and FIR No.279/2007 dated 18th May, 2007 recorded at the Police Station Hari Nagar after headless torsos of unknown persons were Crl.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 1 of 89Firstly, hand written letter, one in Crl.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 3 of 89 each case, were found and recovered along with the decapitated body left outside the Tihar Jail.These letters taunt and ridicule the police with a challenge to identify and incarcerate the perpetrator.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 3 of 89We would decide the three appeals and the two connected death references by three separate judgments taking into account the evidence led in each case, albeit we also elucidate and refer to commonality of motive and facts as established by applying similar fact evidence' principle as permitted under Sections 14 and 15 of the EvidenceIn the present judgment we are dealing-with Criminal Appeal No. 216/2015 and Death Reference No. 2/2013 which arise from the judgment dated 24th January, 2013 and the order of sentence dated 6th February, 2013 relating to the charge sheets filed in FIR No. 609/2006, P.S. Hari Nagar.Similar Fact Evidence Crl.(g) the defendant has made an attack on another person's character.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 19 of 89 secret informer had indicated that the culprit was available in the area, but the culprit could not be traced.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 19 of 89Thus, the three cases were blind murders, with neither identity of the victims nor that of the perpetrator of the crime being initially known.The police, for obvious reasons and grounds, felt and had deduced that the perpetrator was a common person.B. Arrest of Chandrakant Jha and recoveries made from Alipur and Haiderpur:We would begin with and refer to the testimony of Inspector Sunder Singh (PW-22) on the events leading to the arrest of Chandrakant Jha.PW22/I, which records the place of arrest as the thoroughfare near Chota Mandir, Alipur, Delhi.Intimation regarding his arrest was conveyed to Mamta Jha, wife of the appellant who had signed the arrest memo.(vii).On personal search a mobile phone Samsung model SCHS 109, with TATA Indicom SIM was recovered and recorded in the personal search memo (Ex.PW22/J).This memo also refers to the recovery of a paper with telephone numbers written thereon.This paper was subsequently seized vide Memo Ex.PW-22/Z8 and was identified by PW- 22 in the court as Ex.This paper is of relevance and was used to identify the victim in FIR No. 243/2007 and trace the witness Pankaj (PW45).These numbers and names were copied on a piece of paper which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW22/Q. Photographs (Ex. PW14/A-1 to Ex. PW14/18) which included photographs of the wall with telephone numbers, etc. were taken by Ct.Suresh Kumar (PW-14).Negative of these photographs were filed in the charge sheet arising out of FIR No. 243/2007, but the positives were compared with the said negatives and were taken on record in the present case.Sanjay Mann (PW-13) identified the appellant and has testified that on 10th May, 2007, the appellant Chandrakant Jha's wife had come with their children and PW-13 had rented out two rooms to them for Rs.600/- per month.PW-13 had seen Chandrakant Jha on one or two occasions, but had never spoken to him.PW-13 has accepted that his statement was recorded by the police and, at the time of arrest, the appellant was residing at the said address.However, PW-13 was not present at the time of arrest.Rajeev Kumar (PW-30) has testified that the property No. 229/2 Haiderpur was in the name of his grandmother Ram Kali and had about 12 rooms, including 8 rooms on the ground floor.He had earlier in October, 2004, rented out one room to Vikas, a resident of Bihar.At the instance and on reference of the said Vikas, PW-30 had rented out one room of the said property to the appellant, whom he identified.Chandrakant Jha had told PW30 that he was working in Azadpur Sabzi Mandi.The appellant had stayed in the said room with his family, including his mother, who had come to stay with him for sometime.Later on, his mother had left the premises.PW-30 has testified that Crl.In his cross-examination, PW-30 reiterated that the police had broken the lock of the said room and had seized the floor pieces etc.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 23 of 89Chandrakant Jha has contested and challenged his date of arrest.He professes being arrested on 19th May, 2007 and places reliance on a news item published in Dainik Jagaran dated 20th May, 2007, marked Ex.A similar assertion was made by Chandrakant Jha in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. We have read the said newspaper item, but hold that the same cannot be read as evidence of truth of its contents.Inspector Sunder Singh (PW22) has highlighted that the news item did not have the name of the arresting officer or the accused.As per the police version and deposition of Inspector Sunder Singh (PW-22), Insp.Dalip Kaushik (PW24), ASI Virender Tyagi (PW23) and SI Narender Kumar (PW32), noticed above, Chandrakant Jha was arrested on 20th May, 2007 vide arrest memo Ex.PW22/I which is also signed by his wife Mrs. Mamta Jha.Even if we assume that Chandrakant Jha was arrested a day earlier on 19th May, 2007, it would not corrode or nullify the prosecution case.At best, it would be an irregularity and not an illegality which materially knocks the charge.In Asif @ Shabbu v/s State, Cr.l.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 24 of 89 police officer void ab initio and at the most it may affect the probative value of the evidence regarding arrest or search and in some cases it may invalidate such arrest or search.But such violation by itself does not invalidate the trial or the conviction if otherwise there is sufficient material.[See H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh Vs.The State of Delhi: AIR 1955 SC 196, Manubhai Ratilal Patel Tr.Ushaben Vs.State of Gujarat and Ors.: AIR 2013 SC 313, Sadhwi Pragyna Singh Thakur Vs.State of Maharashtra: 2011 (10) Scale 77, Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs.State of Sikkim: AIR 2011 SC 1363, State of M.P. Vs.Ramesh C. Sharma, (2005) 12 SCC 628, and State of Punjab Vs.Balbir Singh,: AIR 1994 SC 1872 and State Through Reference Vs.Ram Singh & Ors.And Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs.State, (Death Sentence Reference No. 6/2013 and CRL.No. 1398/2013 Decided On: 13.03.2014)].(iv) Photographer Sanjay Kumar @ Rajesh (PW-20) took 11 photographs of the skull, jaw etc., at the place of recovery which were Crl.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 25 of 89 sealed with the seal of DK and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW19/A.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 25 of 89Inspector Sunder Singh (PW22) and Sanjay Kumar @ Rajesh (PW-20) identified two sets of 11 photographs (22 photographs in all), taken by the latter, marked Ex.PW20/A-1 to A-11 and Ex.PW20/1 to Ex.PW35/A) had prompted Chandrakant Jha to move an application before the trial court seeking discharge.Inspector Jai Singh of P.S. Hari Nagar also moved an application, Ex.PW1/T, before the Additional Sessions Judge, inter alia, stating that further investigation had revealed that one Anil Mandal @ Amit, son of Tiwari Mandal, resident of village Ugri, district Bhagalpur, Bihar, who was arrested in FIR No.26/2003 dated 13th January, 2003 under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, P.S. Shalimar Bagh was known and associated with Chanderkant Jha.Examination of the dossier of the said Anil Mandal @ Amit son of Tiwari Mandal had revealed presence of tattoo marks of a scorpion on his left shoulder and the word Amit' on his right arm.On verification, it was learnt that the said Anil Mandal @ Amit son of Tiwari Mandal was missing since the date of the occurrence and possibly the headless body, subject matter of post mortem No.982/2006 could be of the said Anil Mandal @ Amit.A.K. Srivastava (PW35) thereafter had conducted DNA profiling (STR analysis) on two blood samples received on 30th November, 2011 of Vijay (PW-40) and Manda (PW-41), which were subjected to DNA Crl.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 33 of 89 isolation.The data was analyzed using Gennescan and Gen Mapper ID-X software.The test showed that the bone piece sternum, subject matter of PM (Post Mortem) No.982/06 received on 3rd December, 2008, was the biological father of Manda (PW-41).The report also records that partial DNA profiling could be deduced from the blood sample of Vijay (PW-A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 33 of 89PW35/F, which was forwarded to the SHO vide letter dated 3rd January, 2012.This report establishes that the jaw recovered on 23 rd May, 2007 from the banks of the river Yamuna at the behest of Chandrakant Jha was of the same person whose headless torso was found Crl.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 34 of 89Inspector Harpal Singh (PW36) has deposed that after the transfer of Inspector Sunder Singh (PW22), the investigation was conducted for some time by Inspector Jai Singh, who had made inquiries regarding the criminal record of Anil Mandal @ Amit, which was traced out and collected.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 35 of 89 the said reports, the jaw and headless body had matched and were of the same person i.e. Anil Mandal @ Amit, son of Tiwari Mandal.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 35 of 89Ravinder Kumar, Finger Print Expert (PW37) has proved his finger print report marked Ex.PW36/A and has testified that he had compared the finger prints of Anil Mandal available in the dossier Ex.PW28/A with the search slip Ex.PW28/B and had opined that they were of the same person.The said comparison was made pursuant to letter No.1135 dated 9 th June, 2010, received from the SHO, P.S. Hari Nagar.Head Constable Sahan Singh (PW28) in his affidavit has deposed that the dossier with photographs of Anil Mandal, son of Tiwari Mandal, resident of Jhuggi AA Block, Shalimar Bagh was handed by him to Inspector Jai Singh.He identified the dossier with photographs of Anil Mandal (the dossier, Ex.PW28/A, and finger prints enclosed as Ex.PW28/B).The DNA profiling also proves and identifies the deceased as Anil Mandal @ Amit, father of Manda (PW41).Apposite, the jaw was recovered at the behest of Chandrakant Jha, from the banks of River Yamuna.In Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph versus State of Maharashtra, (2014) 4 SCC 69, the Crl.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 36 of 89 Supreme Court emphasised on the transcending impact of the DNA profiling on the forensic investigation for if the profiles of the samples of the accused match with any sample found at the scene of crime, the said result would be of extreme relevance and would be reliable and safe to accept.In Dharam Deo Yadav versus State of U.P., (2014) 5 SCC 509, the Supreme Court acknowledged extensive use of DNA tests in investigation of crimes and that the courts often accept opinions of DNA experts.While DNA profiling tests were generally valid and reliable, the Supreme Court cautioned that the result would depend upon the quality control and quality assurance procedures in the laboratory.Significantly in the present case, the DNA test report Ex.PW35/A did not support the prosecution version as it was opined that the DNA profiling of the sternum did not match the blood samples of Hari Singh and Saroj Devi.This had, as noted above, prompted Chandrakant Jha to file an application seeking discharge in the trial in the charge-sheet filed in the FIR No. 609/2006, pleading that the DNA report did not corroborate the identity of the dead body with the prosecution version and had belied the disclosure statement marked Exhibit PW-22/K. Negative DNA report (Ex.PW-35/A) had actuated the prosecution and forced them to carry out further investigation.Acting on the leads given by Chandrakant Jha in his disclosure statement Ex.PW22/K that the victim named Anil Mandal @ Amit had a criminal background, they came across dossier of one Anil Mandal @ Amit, son of Tiwari Mandal.Thereafter, he did not return.PW-39 identified the photograph of Anil Mandal @ Amit marked Exhibit PW- 39/A on the dossier maintained by the police as that of her husband.PW- 39's version is corroborated by Paro (PW-42), aunt of Anil Mandal @ Amit.Bharti Devi (PW-39) affirmed that her children Vijay (PW-40) and Manda (PW-41), had given blood samples, a factum also affirmed by Vijay (PW-40) and Manda (PW-41).A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 36 of 89A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 37 of 89Identification of the victim Anil Mandal @ Amit, son of Tiwari Mandal, biological father of Manda (PW-41) and the recovery of the jaw of the said Anil Mandal @ Amit at the behest of the Chandrakant Jha are relevant and admissible evidence, which implicates and incriminates.They bring home the said charge, for Chandrakant Jha was aware and knew that the de-headed skull/ jaw could be found at the banks of river Yamuna and the identity of decapitated body.But for the said revelation and disclosure by the appellant-Chandrakant Jha, the jaw would not have been recovered and the identity of the victim, whose de-capacitated torso was found outside the Tihar Jail on 20th October, 2006 would not have Crl.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 38 of 89 been ascertained and established.These revelations and disclosures are weighty and substantive evidence.They carry considerable and significant probative value.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 38 of 89The witness had identified the appellant in a photograph.PW-12 has deposed that on his narration, a portrait sketch of the caller was prepared on a computer at the police station.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 40 of 89Inspector Sunder Singh (PW22) has also testified that on 26th June, 2007, he along with Ram Babu (PW12) had gone to the Court No.108, Rohini Court Complex, where the appellant was produced from judicial custody.PW-22 had accordingly recorded the Crl.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 41 of 89 supplementary statement of Ram Babu (PW12) under Section 161 Cr.P.C.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 41 of 89Constable Babu Lal (PW8) has testified that on 10 th November, 2006, he was posted as a Computer Operator in the Dossier Cell, PS-Rajouri Garden and had drawn a computer sketch on the basis of the description given by Ram Babu (PW12).He proved the computer sketch, which was marked Ex.PW8/A.It is correct that the photograph of Chandrakant Jha had appeared in a newspaper and his photograph (PW-22/DX) was also taken when the crime team had visited Haiderpur.Chandrakant Jha had claimed that he was shown to the witness and photographs were taken at Police Station Hari Nagar.He had also stated that his face had been shown in newspapers and TV news channels.Inspector Sunder Singh (PW-22) has, however, stated that Chandrakant Jha had deliberately unmuffled his face and did not accept the advice and direction to keep his face muffled and concealed.This fact was recorded in the police case diary and even a DD entry was recorded.PW-22 has stated that on 4th June, 2007, Ram Babu (PW-12) was brought to Rohini Court Complex and as per the directions of the Metropolitan Magistrate taken to Rohini Jail to participate in the TIP proceedings.Chandrakant Jha had refused to participate in the TIP proceedings vide Exhibit PW-22/Z11 (an admitted document).Reliance was placed on information dated 11th August, 2009, marked Ex.DW1/E, furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005, (RTI Act, for short) that Chandrakant Jha was not produced in any court on Crl.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 42 of 89 26th June, 2007, which contradicts the testimony of several police witnesses and Ram Babu (PW-12).It will be wrong and assumptuous to take and treat the contents of the said RTI reply as gospel truth and thereby reject the depositions of the aforesaid witnesses, including investigating officer for the simple reason that the RTI reply is based on records made available to the officer communicating or required to supply/ furnish the information.The information conveyed would be from a particular or specific record.There could be other records which would indicate that the appellant, at the relevant time, was housed or taken from a different jail.Shortly thereafter, telephone call was made from the Police Station Hari Nagar and police officers had also interrogated and questioned Ram Babu (PW-12).We believe and accept the prosecution case that the dock identification by the said witness of Chandrakant Jha carries weight and should be accepted.In Manu Sharma Vs.The weight to be attached to such identification should be a matter for the courts of fact.In this context, reference to a passage from Visveswaran v. State, would be apt.The appellant had filed an application Crl.M.A. No. 10421/2015 under Section 391 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. Order dated 21st September, Crl.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 45 of 89 2015, records that the appellant-Chandrakant Jha was only pressing for taking on record Annexures P-1 and P-2 to this application.The said annexures are information received under the RTI Act to the effect that Babu Lal (PW-8) was on leave from 26th October, 2006 to 24th January, 2007 (90 days).The contention of Chandrakant Jha is that Babu Lal (PW-8) could not have purportedly drawn the computer sketch on the basis of the description given by Ram Babu (PW-12) on 10th November, 2006 as he was on leave.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 45 of 898)'s testimony that the sketch was drawn on 10th November, 2006 and equally affirmative Ram Babu (PW-12)'s statement that on his description a sketch was drawn.Babu Lal (PW-8) could well have drawn the said sketch on being specifically requested and asked, though he was on leave.The said aspect should have been put to both Ram Babu (PW-12) and Babu Lal (PW-8).With the aforesaid observations, the application Crl.Along with the decapitated body found outside Tihar Jail on 20 th October, 2006 (in FIR No.609/2006), a letter written in Hindi, which was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/B, was also found.The said letter avoiding expletives used, reads:-A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 46 of 89".......delhi police teri maa ki xxxxx, teri maa ki xxxx.As recorded earlier, another letter written in Hindi was found with the decapitated body found outside Tihar Jail on 18 th May, 2007, which Crl.The said letter in Hindi (avoiding expletives used) reads:-A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 47 of 89A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 49 of 89 pages and the report of the handwriting expert, were taken on record in the present case.Thereafter, the prosecution moved another application, which was disposed of vide order dated 25th September, 2012, inter alia, recording that the FSL report (relating to the first and the second letters subject matter of FIR No.609/2006 & FIR No. 279/2007) were per se admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C., but as authenticity and correctness of the FSL reports was under challenge, the expert Sanjeev Kumar should be examined in the court and formally asked to prove the FSL report.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 49 of 89Sanjeev Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer (document), FSL, Delhi (PW-47) had examined the first letter (Q1 and Q2), identified and marked as Ex.PW-22/B, and specimen handwriting of the appellant (S1 to S7), marked Ex.PW22/U1 to Ex.During the course of cross- examination, counsel for the accused i.e. the appellant had confronted Crl.He affirmed that the specimen handwriting running into 64 pages had the signature of the learned Magistrate.Referring to the questioned documents, he opined that the handwriting rhythm was absent.The reports marked Ex. PW-47/A is elaborate and illustrative of the minute details and thorough examination undertaken.The report reads:-A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 50 of 89The specimen writings marked S1 to S7 show freedom in their execution, natural variation and internal consistency among themselves.The questioned writings marked Q1 and Q2 are also freely written, show natural variation and internal consistency among themselves.On comparison, similarities are observed between questioned and specimen writings, the detailed execution of characters and parts of characters such as - manner of execution of Hindi letter in two pen operations, nature and direction of finish of its curved body part as observed in Hindi words (Q2), (Q1), (Q1 & Q2), (Q1 &Q2), (S6), (S6); manner of execution of Hindi letter , nature of its start and bifurcating movement of its body part in continuation with its downward vertical stroke as observed in Hindi words (Q1), (Q1), (Q2), (S1), (S6): manner of formation of Hindi letter direction of its finish as observed in Hindi words (Q1), (Q1), (Q2), (Q2), (S3); manner of execution of Hindi letter , nature of its shoulders, direction of its finish as observed in Hindi words (Q1, Q2 & S3): manner of execution of Hindi letter in two pen operations as observed in Hindi word (Q1), (Q2), (S3); manner of Crl.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 51 of 89 formation of Hindi letter , nature of its lower curved body part as observed Hindi words (Q1), (Q1, Q2 & S3), (S3): manner of formation of Hindi letter , nature and direction of finish of its body part as observed in Hindi words (Q1, Q2 & S3); manner of execution of Hindi letter , nature of its lower curved body part as observed in Hindi words (Q1, Q2, S3, S5, S6).(Q1), (S1):A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 51 of 89manner of formation of Hindi letter elongated nature of its lower body part; manner of formation of Hindi letter , location of its start and direction of its finish as observed in Hindi words (Q2), (Q2) (S3), (S5): manner of formation of Hindi letter , nature of its start; manner of formation of Hindi letter , nature of its start as observed in Hindi words (Q1), (Q2), (S1), (S1), (S3); peculiar manner of formation of UKAR as observed in words (Q1), (Q1 & Q2), (Q2), (S3 & S6), (S3): manner of formation of curved part of chanderbindu & direction of its finish as observed in Hindi words (Q1, Q2, S1 & S3).(Q2), similar manner of formation of Hindi letters and figure 2: manner of formation of character and direction of its finish; etc. etc. as observed in questioned is also similarly observed in specimens with similar variations at one or the other places.Similarities are also observed in general features such as writing movement, skill, spacing, relative size & proportion of characters and nature of commencing & terminating strokes etc. There is no divergence observed between the questioned and specimen writings and the aforesaid similarities in the writing habit are significant and sufficient and cannot be attributed to accidental coincidence and when considered collectively they lead me to the above said opinion.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 52 of 89A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 52 of 89The report of Sanjeev Kumar, in respect of the second letter and specimen handwriting is equally elaborate and lucid as to the reasons and findings.For convenience, we would refer to this report as the second report.On comparison, similarities are observed between questioned and specimen writings in the detailed execution of various characters and parts of characters such as - manner of execution of Hindi letter in two pen operations, nature and direction of finish of its curved body part as observed in Hindi words (Q1 &, S2, S10), (Q1, S11), (Q2, S4), (Q2, Q3, S22), (Q2, S11), (Q3, S50), (Q3, S45); manner of execution of Hindi letter nature of its start and bifurcating movement of its body part in continuation with its downward vertical stroke as observed in Hindi words (Q1 & S4), (Q1 & S3) (Q2 & S12), (Q2 & S13); manner of formation of Hindi letter direction of its finish as observed in Hindi words (Q1), (S15 & S19); (Q1 & S14), (Q2 & S13), (Q3 & S41) (Q3) (S43);manner of execution of Hindi letter nature of its shoulders, direction of its finish as observed in questioned similarly observed specimens; manner of formation of Hindi letter nature of its lower curved body part as observed in Hindi words (Q1, Q3, S8 & S22), (Q2 & S5); manner of formation of Hindi letter nature and direction of finish of its body part as observed in Hindi words (Q1).(Q2), (Q1 & S23), (Q3 & S39); manner of execution of Hindi letter nature of its curved body part as observed in Hindi words (Q1, Q2, Q3, S7 S10 & S17), (Q1 & Q3, S3, S8); manner of information of Hindi letter elongated nature of its lower body part; manner of formation of Hindi letter nature of its start as observed in Hindi words (Q1 & S14), (Q2 & Crl.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 53 of 89 S41), (Q3) (S51); peculiar manner of formation of UKAR manner of formation of curved part of chanderbindu and direction of its finish; manner of combining EEKAR in continuation with the Hindi letter as observed in words (Q1, Q2, Q3 & S11, S15); similar manner of formation of Hindi letters ; peculiar manner of formation of Hindi letter in continuation with IKAR as observed in words (Q1, Q2) (Q1, S20), (Q2 & S20), (S23 & S41); manner of formation of character O', location of its start, nature and direction of its finish; manner of execution of M' nature of its shoulders as observed in Q1; manner of execution of D', nature of its curved part; manner of execution J', direction of its finish as observed in Q1 is similarly observed in S28; shape of oval part of a', movement while making its downward staff; movement in the formation of character n', nature of its shoulder; shape of oval part of d', blind loop formation while making its downward staff as observed in word and' (Q1 & S28); flying start of character I' nature of its loop; nature and location of t-cross bar; manner of formation of letter r' nature of its lower round part as observed in the word letter' (Q2 & S33); manner of formation of figure 2'; nature of start of figure 6'; manner of combining 00' as observed in figures of date in Q2 is similarly observed in S12; manner of execution of figure 7', nature of its cross-bar; manner of formation of figure 8', nature of its commencement; similar manner of formation of characters C', P' & H' and figure 5'; etc. etc. as observed in questioned is also similarly observed in specimens with similar variations at one or the other places.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 53 of 89Similarities are also observed in general features such as writing movement, skill, speed, spacing, relative size & proportion of characters and nature of commencing & terminating strokes etc. There is no divergence observed between the questioned and specimen writings and the aforesaid similarities in the writing habit are significant and sufficient and cannot be attributed to accidental coincidence and when considered collectively they lead me to the above said opinion.PW47, in his cross-examination, has stated that he had examined more than 1000 handwriting styles and he had more than 12 years' of Crl.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 54 of 89 experience having dealt with examination of handwriting in different laboratories.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 54 of 89On 21st May, 2007, when Chandrakant Jha was produced after arrest, before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Inspector Sunder Singh (PW-22) had moved an application seeking permission to obtain his specimen handwriting as they were required for comparison with the questioned document, i.e., the first letter.The order dated 21st May, 2007 on the application stands recorded/passed on the application itself.It mentions that the appellant was produced in a muffled face and an advocate from legal aid was present.The application was allowed and the IO was permitted to take specimen handwriting of Chandrakant Jha.There cannot, therefore, be any doubt about the said specimen handwriting.The specimen handwritings on two occasions were taken with the permission of the Metropolitan Magistrates.Sanjeev Kumar (PW-47) had examined and opined on the two letters and had the benefit of examining and comparing specimen handwriting of 64 pages and the second letter as well as the first letter and the specimen handwriting going into 7 pages.M.N. Vijayan (PW-46) had brought and proved the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, marked Exhibit PW- 46/E. This electronic record maintained by a third party confirm the factual narration of Pankaj (PW-45).A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 63 of 89H. Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973By order dated 25th November, 2010, Additional Sessions Judge, North-A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 64 of 89 murder of Upender).Pertinently, the order dated 25th November, 2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, North-West-4, Rohini Courts records that the defence counsel had no objection.No dissent or protest was raised by the appellant during the trial of three charge sheets before a single Court/Judge.Thereafter, during the course of proceedings before the same Additional Sessions Judge on 4th January, 2012, the three charge sheets were taken up for hearing and it was directed that the State would examine the common witnesses.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 64 of 89In the three cases, recourse to Section 219 of Cr.P.C., which permits one trial of three offences of the same kind committed within a span of 12 months from the first offence, would have curtailed duplication of evidence and also brought clarity and avoided procedural and technical difficulties as evidence is intertwined and is inextricably harnessed in a chain, could have been brought on record and read together.This would have expedited the trial and obviated the need to file repeated applications for leading additional evidence.I. Defence Evidence and StandThe appellant-Chandrakant Jha in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. does not dispute that he was residing at Alipur in the property owned by Sanjay Mann (PW-13) but disputes that he had ever occupied the room at Haiderpur as deposed by Rajeev Kumar (PW-30).In response to question No. 35 in the same statement, appellant-Chandrakant Jha has claimed that he was lifted from his house on 19 th May, 2007 along with his wife and children, who were kept separately.In response to question No. 42, the appellant has stated that he did not stay at House No.220, Haiderpur at any point of time and he was made to sit in a Maruti Crl.In response to question No. 146, he has stated that he used to reside in Gali No.6 at Haiderpur.He was taken to the house of Rajeev Kumar at Haiderpur, and had remained there for hardly five minutes.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 65 of 89DW-3 has stated that she was also lifted and taken in a jeep along with her children and detained for four days.In her cross- examination, however, DW-3 was unable to give the name of the landlord Crl.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 66 of 89 of the house they used to occupy at Haiderpur.There would be divergence even if the same witness was asked to repeat facts so stated.When contents of a document contain a matter which is hearsay, the matter cannot be a content of a document.Facts or opinions, which are second hand, deviate from the best evidence rule.It is for these reasons, that newspaper reports are not treated as evidence of contents thereof, unless proved by examining the author.Reference was made before us to DD No.21A dated 7 th May, 2007 recorded at Police Station Hari Nagar.He was Crl.The aforesaid DD entry would not in any way assist or show that the appellant Chandrakant Jha was or was not the perpetrator in the present set of cases.In fact, the DD entry, it can be urged, would support the prosecution case that they had suspected involvement of a person called Chandrakant Jha.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 70 of 89CRL.M.A. No. 3886/2015By order dated 17th July, 2015, Crl.M.A. No. 3886/2015 was disposed of directing that we would examine Annexures P-1, P-7 and P-27 at the time of arguments, including the legal effect and other aspects.Annexure P-8, which is an RTI reply enclosing therewith copy of DD No. 29A dated 7th May, 2007, as observed above, does not dent or in any way negate the prosecution case, but on the other hand, would indicates that the police had some information that Chandrakant Jha was possibly the person, who had committed the murders and had thrown decapitated bodies outside Tihar Jail.Annexure P-12, we may note, as per the State is not relevant as the fact that Chandrakant Jha had deliberately unmuffled himself before the media was recorded contemporaneously in the case diary dated 21st May, 2007 of the Special Cell.(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 72 of 89 The aforesaid principles described as five golden rules, constitute the foundation of the proof in a case based upon circumstantial evidence.PW22/K, the deceased in FIR No.609/2006 was identified as Anil Mandal @ Amit.(v) Ram Babu (PW-12), telephone booth operator, from where the call was made to the police on 20th October, 2006, identified Chandrakant Jha as the person, who had made the said phone call from his booth.(vi) On the basis of narration and description given by Ram Babu (PW-12), Constable Babu Lal (PW-8) had prepared the sketch Exhibit Crl.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 74 of 89 PW-8/A. The sketch broadly matches with the face of Chandrakant Jha.A.No.216/2015 & Death Reference No. 2/2013 Page 74 of 89(vii) Evidence gathered and collected from the tenanted accommodation at Haiderpur, disclosure statement Ex.PW-22/K and the leads given to the police helped the police identify and ascertain that the second headless torso found outside Tihar Jail on 25 th October, 2007, was of Upender.

['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 case, in nut-shell, is as under :-(A) Accused - Vijaya Narendra Mohore and Complainant - Dada Pohare, both are Labour Welfare Officers.Prior to that, accused was working at Jalgaon as Labour Welfare Officer.Complainant reported the fact to police that it revealed in audit that accused had committed misappropriation of Rs.55,218=75 while working as Labour Welfare Officer at Jalgaon.Accused had taken false entries in cash book.She had also ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 01:18:21 ::: cria319.03 3 withdrawn Rs.40,000/- from Bank of Maharashtra and used the said amount for her own purpose without permission of Bombay Office.DATE : 6TH JANUARY, 2018 JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.] :This Appeal is filed by the State challenging the Judgment and order dated 17th ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 01:18:21 ::: cria319.03 2 January, 2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon in Regular Criminal Case No.223 of 1994, thereby acquitting the Respondent/original accused - Vijaya Narendra Mohore for the offence punishable under Section 409 and 47-A of the Indian Penal Code (For short "I.P. Code").::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 01:18:21 :::Thus, accused made defalcation of Rs.83,892=50/-.This report is lodged by the complainant on 2nd June, 1994 at the police station.Police registered offence against the accused.Police recorded statements of witnesses.They have seized relevant registers from the office of the complainant.After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 01:18:21 :::(B) Charge at Exhibit-8 was framed against the accused person and the same was explained to her.The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, with the defence of total denial.After recording the evidence and conducting full fledged trial, the trial Court acquitted the accused from the offence with which she was charged, as stated herein above in Para-1 ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 01:18:21 ::: cria319.03 4 of the Judgment.Hence this Appeal.::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 01:18:21 :::Heard learned A.P.P. appearing for the Appellant-State, at length.The counsel appearing for the Respondent -accused is not present.With the able assistance of learned A.P.P., we have carefully perused the entire original record including the notes of evidence, so as to find out whether the findings recorded by the trial Court are in consonance with the evidence brought on record or otherwise.The evidence on record shows that only two employees were working in the Labour Welfare Office and those were accused and PW-2 Rajesh Bambe.Accused was working as Labour Welfare Officer and PW-2 Rajesh Bambe was working as junior clerk in the said office.It is the case of the prosecution that only the accused was responsible for the alleged misappropriation of amount in the said office.::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 01:18:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 01:18:21 :::We have carefully perused the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and in particular, evidence of PW-1 Dada Pohare, who is the complainant.PW-1 Dada Pohare admitted in the cross-examination that only one clerk was provided to their office.He admits that during the period of accused and during his period also one Suresh Bambe (PW-2) used to work as clerk.The clerk was also dealing with the work of cashier and that clerk was having right to distribute the amount to the villages under the jurisdiction of said office.It is the duty of the clerk to accept whatever fees received to their office, such as admission fee, monthly and yearly subscription, deposit and utilize the amount.PW-1 Dada Pohare admits that during the relevant period PW-2 Ramesh Bambe used to deal with the above stated work and if any amount remained with the office, it was the duty of the clerk to deposit the same in the Bank.Depositing amount in Bank, accepting its receipt ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 01:18:21 ::: cria319.03 6 and maintaining its account was duty of the clerk in the office.It was duty of the clerk to inform his superior officer about the day-to-day transactions took place in the office.Cashier used to write cheques in the name of the customers.It is the duty of the clerk to take entry from whom he received the amount and to whom he had given the amount.::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 01:18:21 :::Upon careful perusal of the evidence of PW-1 Dada Pohare, as already observed, it is crystal clear that only two employees were working in the office i.e. accused herself and PW-2 Ramesh Bambe.PW-2 Ramesh Bambe was working as junior clerk in the office and he used to carry out all the work in the office including acceptance of amount, deposit of amount, writing of cheques.Therefore, if misappropriation of any amount takes place in such office where only two employees are working, the complaint should have been lodged against both the employees and not against only ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 01:18:21 ::: cria319.03 7 one employee.The prosecution has not brought on record that any departmental enquiry was conducted against PW-2 Ramesh Bambe in respect of the said misappropriation and that he was exonerated from the said charge.Surprisingly, in this case PW-2 Ramesh Bambe is not made accused but he is examined as witness by the prosecution and therefore it appears that the prosecution against the accused is motivated.Upon perusal of oral evidence of PW-2 Ramesh Bambe also, it is clear that it was his responsibility to do all the monetary transactions in the office.::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 01:18:21 :::It is the case of the prosecution that it was shown by the accused that some amount was paid to one Mr. Jogi and Mr. R.L. Jadhav, but actually the amount was not paid to those persons and the same was misappropriated by the accused.However, said Jogi and R.L. Jadhav were not examined by the prosecution who were the vital witnesses.Though it is alleged by the prosecution that accused had ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 01:18:21 ::: cria319.03 8 withdrawn the amount from the bank account of the office and misappropriated the same, to prove the said fact the concerned employee from the bank was not examined.::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 01:18:21 :::The trial Court has further observed that the prosecution absolutely failed to make out nexus of the accused with the alleged crime.Considering all the evidence on record, the trial Court has acquitted the Respondent from all the charges with which she was charged.::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 01:18:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 01:18:21 :::In the light of discussion herein above, on independent and in-depth scrutiny of entire evidence, we are of the opinion that the trial Court has considered all the evidence brought on record in its proper perspective and recorded the findings which are in consonance with the evidence on record.Hence the Appeal stands dismissed.[A.M. DHAVALE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] asb/JAN18 ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 01:18:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 01:18:21 :::

['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ORDER P.L. Bhargava, J.This is an application in revision by Shri Rama Shankar Saukla, a lawyer practising before the Income-tax and Sales.tax Officers in Kanpur.Shri Rikhabh Kumar filed a complaint against the applicant, on 18-6 1949, charging him with an offence, punishable under Section 420, Penal Code.It was alleged in the complaint that Shri Shukla had induced the complainant to pay him Rs. 1,100 on the assurance that he had some influence with the Income-tax Officer, Kanpur, and that he would exert that influence to secure some relief in the assessment of income-tax on the complainant; but the applicant did nothing of the kind and it was subsequently discoverd that Shri Shukla had no such influence over the Income-tax Officer.The Magistrate, who took cognizance of the offence, recorded all the evidence produced in support of the prosecution and also examined Shri Shukla.Then he proceeded to hear arguments on behalf of the complainant and Shri Shukla and dismissed the complaint and discharged the accused.Babu Lal Munim (P. w. 2) was examined to prove an entry in the account-books of the complainant, which showed a payment of Rs. 1,100 to the applicant.There were two other witnesses, Bal Mukund and Bharat Singh (p. Ws. 3 and 4), who stated that in their presence the applicant had admitted having obtained the money from the complainant, and had also promised to return the same.The Income-tax Officer was examined as P. W. 6, who stated that the complainant had made a complaint to him against the applicant.

['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.

necessary to decide the present appeal can briefly be stated as under:-Between 9.00 to 9.30p.m.the complainant Arun Chandran (P.W.3) along with his friend Amit Mishra (P.W.4) were proceeding towards Vasai (East) on their scooter.On the bridge, they saw one person was assaulting by stick to the victim.Complainant Arun Chandran (P.W.3) and his friend Amit (P.W.4) stopped their vehicle and rushed towards the person (victim) who was being assaulted.As soon as Arun and Amit rushed towards the person who was assaulting the victim by stick, he ran away.(ii) Arun (P.W.3) and Amit (P.W.4) thereafter took the injured from an auto rickshaw to the hospital.From the diary which was found from the injured person they came to know the name of the injured as Faim Ibrahim Khan.Arun (P.W.3) intimated the family members of Faim Khan.Thakare (PW-22) of LCB, Thane (Rural).JUDGMENT : (Per A.S. Gadkari, J.) :The appellants have questioned the correctness of the judgment and order dated 10.7.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai, District Thane in Sessions Case No.329 of ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 ::: Nalawade A.S. 3/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 :::2007.. By the said judgment and order dated 10.7.2012 the appellant- original accused No.2-Haresh Patil has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment of one year.The appellant -original accused No.1 Kamlesh @Babla @ Bablya Shankar Malpedi, accused No.2 Haresh Patil and accused No.3-Faim @ Lala Ibrahim Khan have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each.The Trial Court has thus convicted the original accused No.1 Kamlesh @ Babla @ Bablya Malpedi and accused No.3 Faim Lala Ibrahim Khan for the offence punishable under Section-120B of the Indian Penal Code.By the same impugned judgment and order the Trial Court was pleased to acquit the original accused No.4-Durgeshkumar @ Durga Ramshankar Pande from all the charges levelled against him.For the sake of brevity the appellants named herein above will be referred to with their original accused numbers as they were before the Trial Court.The facts which are enumerated from the record and ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 ::: Nalawade A.S. 4/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 :::Arun also lodged FIR (Exh.71) with Manikpur Police Station.On the basis of the said First Information Report bearing CR NO.I-125/2007 came to be registered.The investigation was initially carried out by PSI Naikwade of Manikpur Police Station.Mr. Naikwade drew the spot panchanama, Inquest panchanama and the seizure panchanama.He also recorded the statements of some of the witnesses.The said investigation was subsequently transferred to PSI Nitin ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 ::: Nalawade A.S. 5/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 :::He arrested the accused persons.He also discovered the sticks at the instance of accused No.1 Kamlesh under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. PSI Nitin Thakare collected the call detail record pertaining to the mobile phones of the appellants.He also gathered the post mortem notes and Chemical Analysis report during the course of investigation.After completion of the investigation PSI Nitin Thakare submitted the charge sheet in the court of J.M.F.C. Vasai at Vasai under Section 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.(iii) As the offence under Section-302 of the I.P.C. was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned J.M.F.C.committed the said case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Vasai, At Vasai.After committal of the case, the learned Trial Court framed the charge below Exh.18.The said charge was read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in support of its case and to prove the guilt against the accused persons examined in all 22 witnesses.The learned Trial Court after recording the evidence and after hearing the parties to the said case was pleased to convict the appellants as stated herein above.3 The present case is based on ocular evidence of Arun Chandran (P.W.3), Amit Mishra (P.W.4) and Siddesh Kadam (P.W.21), ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 ::: Nalawade A.S. 6/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 :::P.W.3 Arun Chandran in his testimony has deposed that on 2.4.2007 he along with his friend Amit Mishra (P.W.4) were going towards Vasai (East) by a scooter.On the bridge they saw one person assaulting by stick to the victim.He therefore, stopped his vehicle and went to see what was happened.In the mean while, the person who was assaulting the other person (deceased) threw the stick there and ran away.P.W.3 Arun thereafter took the injured person by auto rickshaw to the hospital.He also found a diary near the injured person.The name of the injured person was Faim Khan.The said injured was admitted to Kanekar hospital.P.W.3-Arun Chandran gave intimation about the incident to the family members of Faim Khan.He handed over the said diary to the police.In the night he received a phone call from the police that the said injured expired.He had seen the person who had assaulted the deceased.He was called for identification parade wherein he identified the said person.He was Haresh Patil (Accused No.2).In the cross examination this witness had admitted that Amit (P.W.4) was driving scooter.From the other side of the road he saw the accused assaulting.That, when he carried the injured (Munna) to the hospital, he was unable to talk.He further admitted that when he reached on the bridge it was about 9.00 to 9.30 p.m. He had seen the assailant assaulting the victim from the distance of about 10 to 15 ft. and the scooter on which he was pillion rider was at a speed of about 30 K.M. per hour.That, they reached near the injured within 30 ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 ::: Nalawade A.S. 7/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 :::In the cross examination P.W.4 Amit has admitted that victim was also having scooter.On the date of incident P.W.4 was riding the scooter at the speed of 30 K.M. per hour.That, he stopped his scooter 50ft. ahead from the place where victim was lying.That, within 15 to 20 seconds they reached towards the injured.P.W.21 Siddesh Kadam has deposed that on 2.4.2007 at about 7.30p.m.he along with his friends decided to go to Vasai (West) and they started proceeding on their motorcycle.They stopped on the flyover connecting Vasai East and West.At that time, he saw one person assaulting the said 'uncle' with something in his hand.As a result of which the said person on the scooter fell down on the road.Thereafter said two persons left the place and ran away.P.W.21 thereafter left the said spot.In the cross examination this witness has admitted that he reached to the flyover at about 9.00p.m.That his statement was recorded by police after about 5 days from the date of incident.He did not remember whether there was light on the flyover or not.He saw the said incident from the distance of about 200ft.6 P.W.12 Avinash Koshti was serving as Resident Naib ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 ::: Nalawade A.S. 8/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 :::Tahsildar, at Vasai.P.W.12 has conducted the Indemnification parade.In his deposition he has stated that witness Arun Chandran (P.W.1) has identified the accused No.3 Harish.P.W.12 has also stated that another witness has also identified Haresh.P.W.12 is silent about the fact whether P.W.21 Siddesh Kadam has identified the accused No.2 Harish or not.At this stage we must note here that the evidence of P.W.12 Avinash Koshti is as vague as possible and is of no help to the persecution.The minute scrutiny of his deposition leads us to conclude that he was very casual while deposing in the court.That, the appellant No.2 Haresh was arrested on 22.5.2007 and the identification parade was conducted by the police on 4.8.2007.There is substantial delay caused at the instance of the investigating agency in conducting the said identification parade.He therefore, submitted that reasonable doubt arises about the bonafide of the test identification parade.In support of his ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 ::: Nalawade A.S. 9/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 :::At this stage, we may also observe that after taking into consideration the evidence of P.W. 3 and 4 in observing accused No.2 in such a short span of 30 seconds precisely and then identifying him after a lapse of more than about four months appears to be very doubtful.As far as P.W.21 is concerned, though he claims himself to be an eye witness he has not identified accused No.12 Harish as the assailant.It further appears that P.W.21, Siddesh is a chance witness and claims that he had seen the incident from a distance of about 200ft.In view of the fact that sufficient delay in conducting the test identification parade by the investigating agency, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nath and Another (supra) is applicable to the present case and we hold that identification by P.W.3 and 4 of accused No.2 Haresh is doubtful and the benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused No.2 Haresh Patil.8 It is further to be noted here that P.W.3 in his testimony has categorically deposed that the person who was ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 ::: Nalawade A.S. 10/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 :::assaulting the victim had thrown the stick on the spot and ran away.However, surprisingly the police have discovered two wooden logs by effecting a panchanama dated 28.5.2011 (Exh.145) from accused No.1 Kamlesh.The said discovery panchanama has been proved by P.W.22-Nitin Thakare, the Investigating Officer.The scene of offence panchanama which is at Exh. 58 discloses one wooden log was found at the spot of incident itself.The prosecution case rests on the theory that only Accused-2 i.e. Haresh assaulted the deceased with a wooden log and in that view discovery of 2 more wooden logs from accused no.1 Kamlesh creates doubt in the mind of this Court.After taking into consideration the direct contradictions about the wooden log used in the crime and its place of discovery, it creates strong doubt in our mind about the genuineness of the discovery panchanama itself.Discovery at the instance of accused No.1 Kamlesh therefore, assumes no value and is not at all useful to the prosecution as the weapon of assault was found on the spot of incident itself, there was no recovery at the instance of accused No.2, Haresh, to whom role of actual assault is attributed.The record pertaining to the present case is absolutely silent about the fact that there were any finger prints found on the said weapon, of the appellant Haresh.9 The prosecution has examined P.W.18 Ashok D.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 :::Nalawade A.S. 11/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.Bhande, P.W.19 Kundan K. Jadhav to prove the motive behind the crime.They deposed that deceased Naim Khan was the brother of accused No.3 Faim @ Lala Ibrahim Khan.Accused No.3 Faim @ Lala Ibraghim Khan was doing the business of transport alongwith deceased Munna @ Naim Khan.A dispute ensued between the brothers on account of money.By the mediation of P.W.18 and 19 the said dispute was resolved.The deceased Munna @ Faim Khan started his own business and was doing well in the same.That, enraged accused No.3 ig Faim @ Lala Ibrahim Khan and therefore, he decided to kill his brother- Munna @ Naim Khan.10 The prosecution has thereafter examined P.W.9 Manoj Sagare to further prove the motive and also the conspiracy hatched by the accused persons.P.W.9 has deposited that on 12 th of year 2007 (month not mentioned).Lala had called him with vehicle and accused no.1, accused no.2 and accused no.3 had been to the High Court.On the next day he along with accused persons were returning from S.P Office in the vehicle of accused No.3 Faim @ Lala Ibrahim Khan when Lala (accused no.3) said that Munna (deceased) was having excess fat (Charabi) and he (deceased) was to be managed.This is the only sentence which was uttered by accused Faim @ Lala Ibrahim Khan on the basis of which the prosecution has put forth the theory of conspiracy ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 ::: Nalawade A.S. 12/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 :::hatched by the accused persons.A close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.9 reveals that the said statement made by accused No.3 Faim Khan is neither inculpatory nor is the statement which would lead us to infer that it amounts to conspiracy.It appears that Faim @ Lala Khan (accused no.3) was jealously talking about his brother who was flourishing in his own business and nothing more.11) The prosecution has also relied upon recovery of three mobile phones at the instance of accused No.3 Faim @ Lala Ibrahim Khan.Out of the said three mobile phones, two mobile phones bearing Nos.9322444929 and 9322444930 were in the name of accused No.1 Kamlesh Malpedi and Mobile No.9321662525 was in the name of accused No.3 Faim Khan.The learned counsel appearing for accused No.3 Faim Khan criticized the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court in Paragraphs 55 and 56 of the impugned judgment wherein, the Trial Court has held that call detail record shows that there were en number of calls exchanged between these two mobile phones belonging to accused No.1 Kamlesh Malpedi.He further held that it is impossible that anybody having two mobile phones with it, would call himself from one mobile to another.That, the case of ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 ::: Nalawade A.S. 13/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 :::the prosecution that mobile phone No.9322444429 was used by accused No.2 appearing to be more probable.In the absence of any evidence to the effect that the said mobile phone bearing No.9322444929 was with accused No.2 Haresh, at the time of incident, the observations made by the Trial Court in Paragraphs 55 and 56 of the impugned judgment and the finding recorded thereto, in our considered opinion is based only on conjectures.Mr. Shirodkar, learned counsel appearing for original accused No.1 Faim @ Lala Ibrahim Khan further submitted that assuming for the sake of arguments that there were exchange of phone calls on 1.4.2007 and 2.4.2007 inter see in the said two mobile numbers, the same itself would not attract the charge of conspiracy.In support of his contention he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Curt in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru reported in (2005) 11 SCC 600 wherein Supreme Court has held that there were exchanges between two persons on cellular phone but form that circumstance alone no inference can be drawn of reasonable degree of certainty that said persons have entered into conspiracy.According to us, in the present case the prosecution has failed to prove that exchange of telephone calls between the said three phone numbers was for the purpose of firstly hatching and thereafter executing the conspiracy entered into by and ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 ::: Nalawade A.S. 14/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 :::Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 :::The evidence relating to electronic record, as noted herein before, being a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same.Generalia specialibus non derogant, special law will always prevail over the general law.It appears, the court omitted to take note of ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 ::: Nalawade A.S. 16/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 :::Sections 59 and 65A dealing with the admissibility of electronic record.Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65-B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible."In the present case the date of incident is 2.4.2007.The amendment of Section 65 of the Evidence Act came into effect from 17.2.2000 and therefore, it was mandatory for the prosecuting agency to produce the certificate in terms of Section 65-B obtained at the time of collecting document (CDR) without which the secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record is inadmissible.Thus, in view of the mandate of Section ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 ::: Nalawade A.S. 17/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 :::The test identification parade which was held belatedly also creates doubt about the said fact that whether after the lapse of about four months P.W.3 and P.W.4 the eye witnesses were really able to identify accused No.2-Haresh.As stated above, the P.W. Nos.3 and 4 had at the most only 30 seconds to observe the accused No.2 at the time of incident from a running scooter and they have identified the accused no.2 in test identification parade after a gap of about 4 months without any special characteristics of accused no.2 and therefore, it creates doubt about their claim of identifying the accused No.2-Haresh Patil.As stated earlier the record of call details of the aforesaid three mobile numbers produced by the prosecuting agency is inadmissible in view of the mandate of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and therefore, according to us the accused persons are entitled for benefit of doubt.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 :::Nalawade A.S. 18/18 Cri.Appeal No.1009/12 & ors.14 Thus, the benefit of doubt is given to the accused persons and they are acquitted from the charges framed against them.Hence, the following order.a) The appeals preferred by the respective appellant are allowed.They are acquitted from all the charges framed against them.b) Fine, if any, paid by the appellants be refunded toc) them.The appellants be released from Jail forthwith if they are not required in any other case.d) The Appellant-Accused No.3 is on bail and his bail bond stands cancelled.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2015 23:59:04 :::

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

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

The prosecution story in short was that on 20.5.2007 at around 11.00 PM to 11.45 PM while deceased Anil was talking to his brother Sachin (PW4) at Ambe Square, Indore, appellant Durgesh came with two other co-accused persons and started abusing Anil.When Anil protested, one of the accused caught hold of Anil and appellants - Durgesh and Manish, inflicted knife injuries on Anil.When Anil shouted, witnesses Sonu (PW9), Rajkumar (PW18), Manoj (PW6) and Naresh (PW13) arrived at the spot.Injured Anil was taken to the M.Y. Hospital, Indore where he died and police was intimated by telephone operator of M.Y. Hospital.Merg was instituted on the basis of information received.(Indore dt.13/1/2020) PER SHAILENDRA SHUKLA, J :-This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, preferred against the judgment dated 11.11.2010, passed by the ASJ, (Special Electricity Act, 2003), Indore, in S.T.No.333/2007, wherein the appellants - Durgesh and Manish, have been convicted as under :-Thereafter FIR was lodged in the MIG police station by Sachin against Durgesh and two unknown persons and after due investigation, a charge sheet was filed against Manish, Durgesh and Ritesh.The trial court framed charges under Section 294, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC against all three accused persons.Charge under Section 25(1)(b)(b) of the Arms Act were framed against Manish and Durgesh.The accused abjured their guilt and prosecution proceeded to examine its witnesses.In all 20 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in its support.--3-- CRA No.1434/2010The appellants did not lead any defence evidence in their support.The trial court after considering the evidence pronounced its judgment on 11.11.2010 whereby accused Ritesh was acquitted of all the charges and appellants - Durgesh and Manish were acquitted from the charge under Section 294 of IPC.However, they were convicted and sentenced as described in para 1 of the judgment.The grounds for appeal are that the trial court committed an error in relying upon the evidence of witnesses Sachin (PW4), Satish Kushwah (PW5) and Manoj (PW6).Even though there are number of contradictions and omissions in their depositions and in the identification parade, the complainant had identified only one accused, both of them have been convicted; FIR was in the name of unknown persons and the value of identification parade assumed great importance; FIR was ante timed which was not considered by the trial court; the trial court failed to see that the articles seized were recovered from the open space and that witnesses are chance witnesses who are unreliable.Incident had occurred in the night and it was pitch dark and there was sudden fight.It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant be set aside.--4-- CRA No.1434/2010In their accused statements, the appellants have stated that they have been falsely implicated in the offence.The question before this court that whether in view of the grounds contained in the appeal memo, trial court has wrongly convicted the appellants and whether the appellants deserve to be acquitted.The questions for determination in this appeal are as follows :-1) Whether death of Anil was a result of culpable homicide ?Regarding question No.1 -Dr. A. K. Lanjewal (PW-11) states that on 21.05.2007, he was posted in M. Y. Hospital at Indore and on that day, dead body of deceased Anil S/o Tarachand was brought by Constable for postmortem and the body was identified by Naresh, brother of Anil.It was found rigor mortise spread over the whole body and there was hypo- stasis present on the whole body.There were six distinct injuries found on the body which were stab wounds,--5-- CRA No.1434/2010 are as follows :-a) Stab incised wound 10cms below left of sternum - size 2 x 1 x 8 cm by which left lung had been affected and there was one litre blood clotted in thoracic cavity.b) Stab incised wound present anteriorly 7 cm right of upper border right superior iliac spine - size 2 x 1 x 9 cm.On dissection, large retroperitonial hematoma was visible and part of small intestine affected along with blood vessels and abdominal cavity contained 2 litres of partly clotted blood.Ecchymosis was present.c) Stab incised wound present over tip of left shoulder skin deep - size 3 x 0.5 x. 0.2 cm.Ecchymosis present.d) Stab incised wound present 23 cms below superior iliac crust of left-side thigh.In the middle anteriorly, which goes through and through affecting muscles, blood vessels with exit wound present.Size of entrance wound 5 x 1.5 x 4cm and exit wound 5.5 x 2 x 4cm.e) Stab incised wound oblique in nature size 4 x 1.5 x 9cm to the left and 15 cm of C-7 vertebra.This injury passed through the lower part of 8th rib and upper part of 9th rib due to which inter---- muscles and left lung become impacted.f) Stab incised wound size 1.5 x 1.5cm present on the right superior iliac spine which has affected muscles.The stomach contained some semi digested food because of death was excessive bleeding and the resultant shock.The injuries were caused with a hard sharp and penetrating object and the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the death has been caused within 24 hours and was homicidal in nature.The postmortem report is Exhibit-P/5 carrying signatures of the witness from B-B part.This postmortem examination--6-- CRA No.1434/2010 conducted on 21.05.2007 at 11.25 AM shows that the death was caused within 24 hours.The same witness was sent the seized knives and in his query report at Exhibit-P/33, the witness had stated that the injuries can be caused by such knives.Regarding question No.2-The prosecution story hinges on the eye-witness account and also on circumstantial evidence.The prosecution has examined Sachin (PW-4), Manoj (PW-6), Sonu (PW-9), Naresh (PW-13), Vijay (PW-17) and Rajkumar (PW-18) as eye-witnesses.However, barring Sachin (PW-4), all other witnesses have been discredited by the Trial Court.Manoj (PW-6) has been discredited in para-13, Sonu (PW-9) has been discredited in para-31, Naresh (PW-13) has been discredited in para-32, Vijay (PW-17) has been discredited in para-33 and Rajkumar (PW-18) has been discredited in para-34 of the impugned judgment.The evidence of Sachin (PW-4) however, has been relied upon in convicting the appellants.The prosecution agency has not controverted theSachin (PW-4) is the eye-witness who has stated that on 20.05.2007 at around 11.00 to 11.30 PM, while he was strolling after taking dinner along with his deceased brother near Ambe square, appellant Durgesh along with his two other associates came and started abusing and Durgesh abused Anil saying that he was threatening his men (Durgesh's men).Deceased denied such accusation and told him to stop abusing.The accused then pushed the deceased and took him near a housing apartment and one of the associates of Durgesh caught hold of Anil and Durgesh and another co-accused stabbed Anil with knives.The deceased suffered injuries on his left and right side of stomach and also on his thighs.The witness states that after committing crime, all the three accused persons fled in a motorcycle bearing registration No.The witness states that registration number of the motorcycle was given to him by Satish and it was Satish who told names of two witnesses Manish and Gudda @ Ritesh.The witness states that thereafter, he went to Police Station MIG for lodging report and Satish Kushwah and others took his brother to--8-- CRA No.1434/2010 M. Y. Hospital.The report lodged by the witness is Exhibit-P/9 carrying his signatures from A-A part.He further submits that on 04.08.2007, he had participated in the identification parade and identified two of the accused persons.Their identification report is Exhibit-P/11 carrying signatures of witness from A-A part and B-B part.As already stated Sachin (PW-4) had stated that all the three accused persons fled from the spot in a motorcycle bearing registration No.MP08 L 2911 and this number was told to him by Satish.Satish Kushwah (PW-5) has stated that on the night of the incident, he had seen all the three accused persons fleeing from the spot in a motorcycle bearing registration No.The witness states that he saw the accused persons while he came back from the house of Anil.The witness states that he knew all the three accused persons since 20 years.He narrated the same to Sachin who was with injured Anil.This witness states that he took Anil to M. Y. Hospital and during treatment he died.Sachin had told him that three accused persons had abused his brother and stabbed him.Sachin (PW-4) in para-11 of his cross-examination, states that within two minutes of he and his brother arriving at the temple, the accused persons came over and Durgesh immediately indulged in abusing.The witness states that at the time of--9-- CRA No.1434/2010 incident, his brother Anil was sitting near Ambe temple and the witness had gone to fetch pouch for him to a kirana shop and as the witness proceeded towards his brother with pouch, he saw the accused persons abusing his brother and assaulting him.The witness states that he did not run to rescue his brother.He states that just before arriving near his brother, accused had taken his brother to a building of Housing Board.He states that near the building of the Housing Board, no one else was there apart from three accused persons, he himself and his brother.He states that his brother was assaulted, he shouted and then the accused persons fled from the spot.It was at that point of time when Satish arrived and told him that the three accused persons had fled in a motorcycle and then he proceeded towards police station for lodging the report and after lodging report, he went to M. Y. Hospital and found his brother to be already dead.Satish Kushwah (PW-5) also states that he saw Anil in an injured condition along with Sachin and then he told Sachin about the accused persons.Such statement also shows that Sachin was near the spot of incident and he lodged an FIR immediately after the incident in which he has stated to have seen the incident and also stated that Rajesh has taken his brother to MYH Hospital, thus no doubt remains that Sachin (PW-4) was with his Brother--10-- CRA No.1434/2010 Anil when the incident had taken place.The evidence of Sachin (PW-4) is thus complimented by Satish Kushwah (PW-5).The evidence of Satish Kushwah regarding him having seen the appellants immediately after the incident is a relevant piece of evidence under Section 8 of Evidence Act, 1872 showing subsequent conduct of appellants.Further, there are no such contradictions and omissions in the cross-examination of Sachin (PW-4) so as to render his evidence as not reliable.The statements of Satish Kushwah has been recorded on 21.7.2007, ie., two months after the incident.However, his reference has been made inFIR Exhibit-P/9 was lodged by Sachin (PW-4) which shows that the same has been lodged at 11.45 PM on 20.05.2007 and the accused Durgesh has been named while other two co-accused persons have not been named and it has been stated that Anil was stabbed with knives by Durgesh and one another accused.He states that on 20.05.2007, he was posted at Police Station MIG on the post of ASI and Sachin had come to the police station and had lodged report which is Exhibit-P/1 which carries his signatures from B-B part while Sachin (PW-4) has exhibited this FIR as Exhibit- P/9 and PW-15 in his deposition has shown FIR as Exhibit- P/1 however, both exhibits are in respect of same document and it appears to be an inadvertent mistake on the part of the Presiding Officer.--12-- CRA No.1434/2010 (PW-14) has stated that on 21.05.2007, an intimation was received from M. Y. Hospital and on the basis of which merg was registered.The witness B. R. Sisodia (PW-14) has been cross- examined on this point.In para-7, the witness admits that merg was instituted on 21.05.2007 at 1.40 AM.However, this witness clarifies that even before receiving merg intimation, information was already there with Police Station MIG.This witness was then asked question that if FIR has been received at 11.45 PM, then immediately whether any effort was made to determine regarding whereabouts of the deceased and his condition or not? The witness replied that it had come to be known that the deceased was admitted in M. Y. Hospital and the doctors were asked orally about his condition, who told that the condition was serious and after making such enquiry, further investigation ensued.In para-8 of his cross---13-- CRA No.1434/2010 examination, he further states that even prior to the institution of merg, the witness had knowledge as to who were the accused who had committed the offence and submits that there was only accused Durgesh named in the FIR (Exhibit-P/1) but the report does not depict the names of two other accused persons.A clear position thus emerges from the evidence of this witness that there is no anti-timing of FIR.The FIR was duly recorded at 11.45 PM and meanwhile, deceased had been admitted to the hospital where he expired soon after and then intimation was sent from the hospital regarding his death and merg was registered.Had the deceased been brought to the hospital by a policeman and the FIR had not been recorded, then after death of the deceased FIR could have been recorded after institution of merg but in this case, FIR was lodged immediately by Sachin (PW-4) subsequent to which deceased died and his merg was instituted.Thus, it cannot be stated that FIR was anti-timed.Learned counsel states that there has been delay in lodging the FIR and has cited the case of Praveen Mondal & another vs. State of West Bengal, 2009 SAR (Cri.) 1045 in which it was laid down that when the FIR was lodged belatedly and victim did not inform the doctor as to how the incident has happened, the accused was liable to be--14-- CRA No.1434/2010 acquitted.In the case in hand, the incident had occurred on 20.5.2007 at around 11.00 PM to 11.15 PM and the FIR was lodged at 11.45 PM thus, there was no delay at all.Learned counsel has also pointed out that the identification proceedings were doubtful and unreliable as the same were conducted very belatedly.He has cited the case of Jarapala Deepala & others vs. State of A. P., 2006 Cr.L.J. 267 (Andra Pradesh High Court).The identification parade (Ex.P/11) has been conducted by Sanjay Sharma (PW-7) who is Naib Tehsildar.He states that on 04.07.2007 that he had conducted the identification proceedings of the accused and Sachin identified the accused-Manish by putting his hand on the head of accused-Manish.The identification proceedings are at Ex.These proceedings were carried out in the jail premises.The witness states that at the time of conducting identification parade, there was no one present apart from him in the area where the proceedings were conducted.In para-6, he denies the suggestion that Sachin had told him as to how he will identify the accused.P/11 shows that number of persons had been made to wait to stand along with accused and such persons were ten in number.The evidence of this witness could not be impeached in cross- examination appropriately.P/11 shows that while--15-- CRA No.1434/2010 accused-Manish was correctly identified by Sachin (PW-4), the other co-accused-Ritesh could not be identified by Sachin.Learned counsel has submitted that before the identification proceeding, the faces of accused had not been covered from the date of their arrest to the date of identification proceeding.Learned counsel submits that after the arrest, memorandum and seizure proceedings were carried out and during this period the faces of the accused were uncovered and therefore there was an ample opportunity to see the faces of accused by the complainant and therefore the subsequent identification proceeding carry no meaning.Learned counsel has referred to the evidence of B.R. Sisodia (PW/4) who admits in para-21 that in the arrest memo in Ex.P/31 and Ex.P/32, there is no mention that the faces of the accused had been covered.He however denies the suggestion in para-20 that from the date of the arrest on 23.05.2007, till the date of the identification parade on 04.07.2007, the faces of the accused were kept uncovered so that they could be easily identified at the time of identification parade.This suggestion has been denied by the witness.--16-- CRA No.1434/2010 proceeding on 04.07.2007, however, there is no evidence to show that the complainant had seen the accused prior to the date of identification proceeding.The arrest memo and seizure document do not mention the complainant as one of the witnesses.Further, if the complainant had seen both the accused persons before the date of identification proceeding then he would have identified both the accused i.e. Manish and Ritesh but as the situation emerges, Sachin (PW/4) had identified only accused-Manish and not Ritesh.This amply shows that any doubt in this respect is misplaced.Thus, the eye-witness account of Sachin (PW-4) is unimpeachable and has been supported by identification proceedings which have been carried out properly.Thus, there was not much gap between these two occurrence.P/24 on the basis of which knife was recovered from a culvert near 'Somnath Ki Juni Chhal'.From the same place, a motorcycle bearing registration No.MP08L-2911 was seized.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the place from which knives were recovered are open spaces accessible to the members of public and therefore it cannot be stated that they were discoveries of facts when these knives were recovered.He has pointed out towards para-22 of the statement of Mr. B.R. Sisodiya (PW-14) in which he has admitted that Ambedkar Garden has open space where one can come easily.The question is whether these weapons were ordinarily visible to others or not ? No such suggestion has been given to Mr. B.R. Sisodia (PW-14) that weapons could have been ordinarily visible to others.Thus, it is found that pursuant to information revealed by the accused, there was discovery of weapon on investigation.These weapons were sent to Dr. A.K. Lanjhewar (PW-11) who in his query report at Ex.P/33 has admitted that the injuries could have been caused due to these weapons.Of-course, there has been a lacuna on the part of prosecution agency as there is no FSL report regarding human blood traces on these weapons.Mr. B.R. Sisodiya (PW-14) who has caused out the investigation, has submitted that no explanation was there as to why the--19-- CRA No.1434/2010 weapons were not sent to the FSL.This shows negligence on the part of Investigating Officer in not carrying out the residual investigation tasks.However, eye-witness account of Sachin (PW-4) and evidence of Rajesh (PW-5) whose evidence is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872, identification proceeding (Ex.P/11) and discovery of weapons on the basis of information revealed by the accused and query report by Dr. Lanjhewar (PW-11) as also recovery of motorcycle used for escaping at the instance of appellant-Durgesh together form a chain of circumstances which conclusively point at guilt of accused and are sufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.It is thus found proved that deceased-Anil was stabbed to death by appellants-Durgesh and Manish.The identity of third assailant has not been established and it is thus found proved that accused committed culpable homicide of deceased-Anil.The question No.2 is also thus answered in affirmative.Regarding question No.3-Hence, they should be directed to be set-free.Learned counsel has submitted the citation of Atul Thakur vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 Cr.On due consideration, it is found that the accused had come to the spot armed with weapons with an intention to settle the score with deceased-Anil with whom they had grudge that Anil was threatening their men.The deceased- Anil was dragged to a place which was isolated and darker.Dr. Lanjhewar PW-11 has found that the injuries were--21-- CRA No.1434/2010 sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death which attracts thirdly of Section 300 IPC and these injuries were struck on vital parts of the body of deceased-Anil and there were multiple stab wounds which clearly shows the intention to commit murder.Hence, the appellants were rightly convicted under Section 302 IPC by the trial Court.Consequently, this criminal appeal stands rejected.(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE JUDGE SS/- Digitally signed by Shailesh Sukhdev Date: 2020.01.14 10:50:56 +05'30'--22-- CRA No.1434/2010 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE Hon'ble Shri Justice Prakash Shrivastava & Hon'ble Shri Justice Shailendra Shukla CRA No.1434/2010 Indore dt.16.11.2019 Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Seema Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.Shri Anil Ojha, Public Prosecutor for State.Heard finally.Reserved for judgment.(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE JUDGE _____1.2020 Judgment delivered, signed and dated.

['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

They were not connected at all with the RPG Transmission Limited.They are ready to serve the concerned company.Their funds were not given in an appropriate manner.The learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 5 also read the information given 4 M.Cr.(Passed on the 10th day of September, 2013) By way of present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicants have challenged the order dated 22.9.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur (Shri Sharad Bhramkar) in MJC No.3/2007 whereby the complaint for the offences under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC was registered against the applicants.The prosecution's case, in short, is that the respondents No.2 to 5 had moved a criminal complaint against the applicants before the trial Court with the pleadings that they were workers in RPG Transmission Limited.They were forced on the point of gun to resign from the company and thereafter their dues were not 2 M.Cr.C. No.9665 of 2007 given to them.It was found that the various deductions relating to provident fund and insurance were done by the company according to the agreements from time to time, but no contribution was given by the management to the Life Insurance Corporation or such offices, and therefore the amount entrusted to the applicants was misappropriated and a cheating was done by the applicants.Under such circumstances, a complaint for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 342, 406, 420, 467, 471 and 506-B of IPC was filed.The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur after considering the prosecution evidence dismissed the complaint for the remaining offences, but registered it for the offence punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC.The learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that the respondents No.2 to 5 could not show as to how the applicants No.3 and 4 were made party in the case.C. No.9665 of 2007 submitted that the complainants had moved the Labour Court and thereafter the Appellate Tribunal, but their matter was dismissed.The Writ Appeal No.215/2014 filed by them was also dismissed.C. No.9665 of 2007 by the Life Insurance Company to widow of one employee about the status of pension etc.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the respondents No.2 to 5 have filed a criminal complaint after prosecuting the matter before the Labour Court and the Appellate Tribunal.For the offence under Section 409 of IPC, it was for the complainants to show that a criminal breach of trust was done by the accused persons.When the Labour Court found that the all the dues of the complainants were paid and nothing remained to be paid, then it cannot be said that the pension, insurance amount or provident fund which was deducted but not deposited by the applicants before the concerned authorities or misappropriated by them.If the dues of the complainants were not found any more by the Labour Court, then it could be said that nothing was misappropriated by the applicants or the accused persons.Prima-facie no offence under Section 409 of IPC was made out against the applicants.If the company was not made as an accused, then it was for the complainants to establish the overt-act of each and every accused.

['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(Order of the Court was made by S.TAMILVANAN,J.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, viz., Tirunavukarasu, son of Loganathan, aged 45 years.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law1.Sevvapet Police Station Cr.No.307/2014302 IPC @ 147, 148, 341, 302, 120[b] r/w 109 IPCThough the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his arguments on the ground that there is variation in translation in the Remand Report in respect of the alleged offences, which has deprived the detenu in making effective representation to the authorities concerned and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission.

['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No.2, made a written complaint against the applicant and other co- accused persons, alleging that she got married to the younger brother of the applicant on 25-11-2014 and her father had spent near about 8-10 lacs on her marriage.When she came to her matrimonial house for the first time, her mother-in-law and her husband, started passing taunts that she should bring an amount of Rs. 2 lacs from her father and started pressurizing her to take divorce.Thereafter, her husband and mother-in-law, forcibly sent her to her father's home.No body came to take her back, therefore, on 25-1-2015, she came back to her matrimonial house, along with her mother and brother.Thereafter again, her mother-in-law and the husband started torturing and harassing her.Her mother-in-law, started saying that in case, the respondent No.2 wants to reside in her 8 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.9238/2017 (Vikas Mandre vs. State of M.P. & Anr.) matrimonial house, then she will have to bring Rs.2 lacs and whenever, she refused to accept the demand made by her, she was beaten by her husband and mother-in-law.On 1-7-2015, her mother-in-law, forcibly sent her back to her father's house and instructed that she should come back only after the Rakhi festival and also should make arrangements for the money.The husband of the complainant came to Guna on 1-10-2015 and took her back and kept her in a rented house.The High Court therefore is entitled to go into the reasons given by the Sessions Judge in support of his order and to determine for itself whether the order is justified by the facts and circumstances of the case.Section 482 of the New Code, which corresponds to Section 561-A of the Code of 1898, provides that:Her husband used to come in the night for sleeping purposes only.In the month of December 2015, he took her back to her matrimonial house.After the proceedings before the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra were over, her mother-in-law and the husband again started ill-treating her and again started making demand of dowry.They also used to insist that the complainant should leave the house.Abusive language was also used by them, and every time, they used to pressurize her to bring Rs.2 lacs from her father.Her husband never came to her father's house.On 4-2-2016, her mother-in- law, started saying that if she wants to reside in the matrimonial house, then she should bring an amount of Rs.2 lacs.When she refused to accept their demand, then her mother-in-law, father-in-law and her husband got furious and started abusing her and locked her in a room.She somehow, managed to inform her parents and 9 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.9238/2017 (Vikas Mandre vs. State of M.P. & Anr.) accordingly they came on 5-2-2016 and tried to persuade them, but her mother-in-law misbehaved with them and after taking all her ornaments, turned her out of the matrimonial house and threatened that in case, if she does not bring the amount, then she should not come back.Thereafter she initiated Paramarsh proceedings in which they sought a months' time.Thereafter, her husband, the applicant and her mother-in-law came to her father's house and again demanded Rs.2 lacs and insisted that only thereafter she should come back.When she refused to fulfill their demand, they created a scene and extended the threat that unless and until, their demand is fulfilled, they would not keep her.On this F.I.R., the police registered the offence and filed the charge-sheet for offence under Sections 498-A, 294, 34 of IPC.The allegations made against the applicant are sufficient for his prosecution.At this stage, the possibility of conviction can not be a criteria.

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

It is relevant to mention the following averments made in the plaint :a) The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the promoters/Directors of the Company M/s Fountainhead Motels Pvt. Ltd. (defendant No.1) which was incorporated on 16th June, 2005 under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 who owns the Hotel Claremont which is constructed on a land admeasuring 12 bighas 9 biswas bearing khasra No.558/2 (1-5), 559/1 (2-2), 559/2 (2-14), 558/1 (3-9), 575/2 (1-8), 576 (1-They also invested their savings into purchasing the plot of land for setting up the Hotel Claremont.The plot of land was purchased by the defendant No.1- Company which is equivalent to land admeasuring 12 bighas 9 biswas bearing khasra No.558/2 (1-5), 559/1 (2-2), 559/2 (2-14), 558/1 (3-9), 575/2 (1-8), 576 (1-11) in village Aya Nagar, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi.They desired to expand and restructure the CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 3 of 93 defendant No.1-Company.They came into contact with two individuals; Mr.Davinder Sharma, son of Seesh Ram, resident of No.708, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110065 and Mr.Baljeet, son of Rattan Lall, resident of Village and Post office Bharthal, New Delhi 110077 and both represented themselves to be expert real estate developers with expertise in debt structuring and corporate restructuring.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 3 of 93d) Mr.Davinder Sharma and Mr.Baljeet made the plaintiffs sign various documents and cheques for the purpose of creating liability on the defendant No.1-Company in their favour who were coerced under gun point and severe physical harm to sign the documents and cheques in favour of Mr.Davinder Sharma and Mr.Baljeet.e) The plaintiffs had lodged an FIR No.12/2008 at the Police Station, Sunlight Colony, New Delhi against Mr.Davinder Sharma and Mr.However, the police authorities did not make proper investigation against the accused persons.The plaintiffs were not able to obtain any relief.They were then roped in frivolous and false cases and litigation by Mr.Davinder CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 4 of 93 Sharma and Mr.Baljeet, owing to which the plaintiffs were besieged with very harsh circumstances, result of which they had lost control of their defendant No.1-Company and faced the threat of being evicted from their residential farmhouse and Hotel Claremont.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 4 of 93f) In early 2010, the plaintiffs came into contact with defendant No.2, who assured and promised them that he would protect them from harm from any person and also assist them in obtaining their full rights and interest in the Hotel Claremont and the defendant No.1-Company which had been taken away from the plaintiffs.After some time, the plaintiffs found that defendant No.2 is a devious unscrupulous man who has high connections in the Punjab State machinery.Defendant No.2 claimed that he would help the plaintiffs and ensure their safety from Mr.Davinder Sharma in case Mr.Davinder tried and rope the plaintiffs in false cases from Punjab.Davinder Sharma had initiated false cases against the plaintiffs from Punjab.Defendant No.2 exercised his resources and powers and got an enquiry done into all such false cases initiated by Mr.Davinder Sharma against the plaintiffs.g) Thereafter,Punjab Police ultimately found that the cases against the plaintiffs were false and therefore, Mr.Davinder Sharma was arrested by the Punjab Police for initiating such false cases against the plaintiffs.Defendant No.2 helped and assisted the plaintiffs in their endeavour to retrieve their CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 5 of 93 property and defendant No.1-Company in return for monetary consideration offered by the plaintiffs.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 5 of 93However, he after being released from jail in Punjab pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, he filed a Civil Suit No. 1978/2010 in this Court titled as 'Davinder Sharma and Ors.The plaintiffs were forced by defendant No.2 to enter into a Settlement Agreement dated 8th July, 2010 with Mr.Baljeet wherein the defendant No.1-Company agreed to make a payment of Rs.5,50,00,000/- to Mr.Baljeet.The plaintiffs never agreed to such settlement terms and were coerced and forced by defendant No.2 to sign the document.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 6 of 93Defendant No.2 threatened to implicate the plaintiffs in false cases from Punjab police in offences punishable with life imprisonment if they did not accede to his demands.The defendant No.2 and his associates inflicted severe physical harm upon the plaintiff No.1 and humiliated and disrespected by stripping him naked and kicking him in his testicles before unknown armed men, in order to coerce him into signing the Share Subscription Agreement dated 3rd August, 2010 in which 76% share holding of the defendant No.1-Company was transferred in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 for a nominal sum of Rs.6,60,00,000/- as described in the agreement.j) The payment of sum of Rs. 6,60,00,000/- was a mere sham as the plaintiffs being the majority shareholders of the defendant No.1-Company on 3rd August, 2010 were never benefitted from any such amount and the defendants No.2 and 3 retained control of the entire sum.k) After assuming majority control of the defendantCompany, defendants No.2 entered into another Memorandum of Settlement dated 28th March, 2011 with Mr.Davinder Sharma.As they were helpless and completely at the CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 7 of 93 mercy of defendant No.2 they signed the document and also cooperated in the registration of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 28th March, 2011 despite the fact that an Agreement to Sell dated 28th March, 2011 was also executed wherein it was agreed to sell the Hotel Claremont for a sum of Rs.110,00,00,000/- to a third party and the sale proceeds were to be divided between plaintiffs and defendants No.2 and 3 and Mr.Davinder Sharma.The plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 were to divide a sum of Rs.70,00,00,000/- between them in the ratio of their shareholding in the defendant No.1-Company and Mr.Davinder Sharma were to get a sum of Rs.40,00,00,000/-.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 7 of 93Hence the entire transaction of transferring shares equivalent to 76% shareholding of the defendant No.1- Company in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 was a sham and it was done to usurp upon the entire property of the defendant No.1-Company to the detriment of plaintiffs.l) Subsequent to signing of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 28th March, 2011, defendant No.2 inflicted great physical harm upon plaintiff No.1 and humiliated and mortified him by ill treating him as a prisoner.The defendant No.2 had also forced the plaintiffs to requisition their children who are all British Nationals, to send a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- to defendant No.2 failing which he will get plaintiff No.1 arrested for the aforementioned offences.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 8 of 93Thereafter the plaintiffs' daughter transferred a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- on 8th September, 2011 from her NRI account No. SB/3/990013 NRI account, Corporation Bank, Gurgaon Branch, Haryana to plaintiffs No.1's account bearing No.04/70009, in the Corporation Bank, Gurgaon Branch, Haryana.The transaction was a complete sham and illegal transfer of sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/-.m) Thereafter assuming control of the defendant No.1-Company, defendant No.2 forced the plaintiff No.1 to transfer from his CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 9 of 93 personal savings account bearing No.04/70009 in Corporation Bank, Gurgaon Branch, Haryana a sum equivalent to Rs. 80,00,000/- to the defendant No.1- Company's account OD70001 TLS/0/50004 loan account in Corporation Bank, Gurgaon Branch, Haryana.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 9 of 93Defendant No.2 then illegally and forcefully usurped upon the silver coloured Mercedes Benz car (bearing registration No.DL 4CU 5000) and Honda Accord car (bearing registration No.DL 3C 1817).n) Plaintiff No.1 was also compelled to sell their property at Nawanshehar, Punjab for a sum of Rs.50,90,000/-; the sale proceeds of which were illegally usurped by defendant No.2 by forcing plaintiffs to execute a self cheque dated 21st September, 2011 for the sale proceeds so received.o) Plaintiff No.1 was constrained to sell his Bentley Arnage car which has a market price of Rs.1,25,00,000/- upwards for a very nominal price of Rs.50,00,000/- as they were in desperate need of money to sustain themselves.Once the entire CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 10 of 93 shareholding of defendant No.1-Company was transferred in favour of defendants No.2 and 3; the plaintiffs were forced to leave the Hotel Claremont.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 10 of 93p) After that the plaintiffs had taken a small flat on lease at Flat No.B-2, Richwood Estate, Gurgaon and were making payment of the monthly rentals for the premises out of the sale proceeds from the Bentley Arnage car.Defendant No.2 avarice was not just satisfied with the usurping of the entire defendant No.1-Company, he also forced the plaintiffs to handover a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- from the sale proceeds of Bentley Arnage of Rs. 50,00,000/-.It was under the threat that the plaintiffs signed the blank documents and left the country.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 11 of 93s) The defendants No.2 and 3 have not paid any consideration for the transfer of shares of defendant No.1-Company in their favour.It is alleged that the defendants No.2 and 3 have illegally and unlawfully usurped upon the defendant No.1- Company and all the properties moveable/immoveable of the plaintiffs leaving them penniless.They have illegally and unlawfully procured the transfer of 100% shares of the defendant No.1-Company in their favour.The Claremont Hotel is the only asset of the defendant No.1-Company which the defendants No.2 and 3 are seeking to sell by causing wrongful loss to the plaintiffs and wrongful benefit to themselves.The execution of the said documents is not denied by the plaintiffs.As per Section 91 of the Evidence Act the plaintiffs are barred to take such plea and also to lead oral evidence against the documents, so executed by them.(c) The plaintiffs are habitual litigants, hardened criminals, seasoned cheaters and are involved in several cases of cheating and fraud.They have earned an expertise in twisting the facts to suit CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 13 of 93 their own ill deeds and they very well know how to tackle the cases and then wriggle out of them by making a mockery of judicial proceedings and the process.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 13 of 93(i) FIR No.74/2008 P.S. EOW under Section 420/406/468/471 IPC (cheating of Rs. 22.50 crores) against defendants No.1 and 2 and their son Shri Gurinder Chopra for cheating Mumbai based firm M/s Litoller Property (P) Ltd. and its Director Mr.Ashok Mittal, owner of the Hotel Ramada previously Ashok Yatri Niwas, New Delhi.Subsequently on complaint of Sh.Ashok Mittal and after investigation, defendant No.1 was arrested.The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have similarly cheated other persons.The CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 14 of 93 defendant Nos.1 and 2 are habitual offenders and it is seen that their modus-operandi is to cheat people, appropriate huge money and then file false cases against them and/or to turn back and say that the transactions were made under threat and force.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 14 of 93(ii) FIR No.477/1997 P.S. Vasant Vihar under Section 468/471/420/120B IPC (cheating of crores of rupees)(iii) FIR No.6/2007 under Section 498 A/406 IPC P.S. Hazrat Nizamuddin New Delhi against defendant No.1 and his sons Shri Gurinder Chopra and Sh.Jitender Chopra.(iv) Case of cheating and forgery filed by American Express Bank under Section 420/467 IPC against the entire family for manufacturing fake credit cards involving amount of about Rs. 160 crores.(v) Multiple cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 IPC.(vi) Case registered by EOW against defendants No.1 and 2 by his daughter in-law Aarti Sabharwal;(vii) FIR No.70/2010, P.S. Indrapuram Ghaziabad under Section 420/406/120B IPC, for cheating Mr.Atinder Jain of Rs. 6.5 crores.In this case, the defendant No.1 was arrested from Goa.The defendant No.2 approached Allahabad High Court, but her writ petition (for quashing of the FIR) was dismissed and this Court in its order has referred to various Criminal Cases against defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 15 of 93 order itself reflects that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are seasoned criminals and cheaters.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 15 of 93(viii) A case was registered against Mr.Harbhajan Singh Chopra, and Surjit Kaur Chopra at P.S. Galshahid FIR No.43 under Section 406/420/467/471 IPC and plaintiff No.1 and 2 were taken in custody and later on released on bail.Cheating case at Moradabad, U.P. in which FIR has been registered and the plaintiff No.1 was taken into custody and later released on bail.(ix) One another FIR was lodged against Harbhajan Singh Chopra in P.S. Fatehpuri Beri New Delhi and concerned court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi had issued NBW on 9th February, 2012 against Mr.Harbhajan Singh Chopra.(x) Mr.Mani Gill belonging to Gurgaon having flourishing business lodged an FIR against Harbhajan Singh Chopra for cheating him of Rs. 2 crores and thereafter getting his cheque bounced.(xi) An FIR lodged by Harbhajan Singh Chopra against Mr.Sanjay Kriplani FIR No.3 P.S. City Kapurthala, Punjab under Section 341/387/506/34/25/27 /54 /59 Arms Act.(xii) An FIR was registered Mr.Harbhajan Singh Chopra and his son Parvinder Singh Chopra P.S. Mehtpur, District Jalandhar Rural, FIR No.21 under Section 307/120B IPC read with 25/54 /59 Arms Act.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 16 of 93(xiii) CS (OS) No.1883/2006 titled as 'M/s. Ishvakoo Grant Plaza vs. Parvender Singh Chopra and Anr'.(xiv) A complaint filed by the Harbhajan Singh Chopra to the Chairman of Bar Council of Delhi against Mr.(d) The plaintiffs earlier had a dispute with one Mr.Baljeet Singh and owed liabilities towards him.The said Mr.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 18 of 93CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 27 of 93With regard to acquisition of 76% of first tranche shareholding of defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3The plaintiffs in para 1.17 of plaint admit that owing to frivolous and false cases and litigation by Mr. Devinder Sharma, plaintiffs were besieged with hard circumstances, as a result of which they lost control of defendant No. 1 Company and faced the threat of being evicted from their residential farm house and Hotel Claremont.The plaintiffs have also disputed that there was a loan of Rs. 3.10 crores taken from Corporation Bank against the mortgage of the land belonging to defendant No. 1 and plaintiff No. 1 had personally guaranteed the said loan and defendant No. 1 was under a tax liability of over Rs. 80 lacs.The registered Wills dated 18th June, 2010 which were admitted during admission/denial of documents.They also admit that a consideration of Rs. 6.60 crores was paid by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 for acquisition of 76% shareholding of defendant No. 1 in terms of the MOU dated CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 29 of 93 20th July, 2010 and 3rd August, 2010 but alleged that the said consideration is sham and that they did not get the benefit thereof.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 29 of 93It is admitted by the plaintiffs that to regain control and to stop Mr. Devender Sharma from misusing his powers and positions, the plaintiffs on 19th September, 2008, increased the authorized share capital of the company to Rs. 1 Crore (from 15 Lacs) and allotted 6,50,000 shares.i) The son of the plaintiffs namely Mr.Jitender Singh Chopra was married to Mrs. Aarti Sabharwal.Respondent no.2 states that he is still in touch with his son.Respondent no.2, surprisingly states that even in the property of the son known as Clairmont Hotel the land of which was transferred to a limited company controlled by him now his shareholding stands diluted to only 2 to 3%.We call upon respondent nos 2 and 3 to file an affidavit setting out the shareholding pattern of Fountain Motels Pvt Ltd. (FMPL) from its inception till date and as to how, in what manner, for what consideration and to which parties has this shareholding being transferred.The affidavit shall also provide the names of present directors of FMPL.At this stage, respondent no.2 states that 15% of the shareholding is being held by his daughter.The affidavit will be supported by relevant documents of FMPL.Respondent CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 33 of 93 no.2 will also set out all assets, to his knowledge of respondent no.1/his son, in India, at the time when he went away to UK and their status as on date.We may note that respondent no.1 is stated to be a UK citizen who, despite orders of this Court, without obtaining a divorce, from the concerned court in India, has not only remarried but has also stopped paying the maintenance which was being paid earlier.The maintenance was being paid by respondent no.2 which has not been paid for quite some time.There is no explanation for this inaction.The appellant has been compelled to engage a counsel and incur legal expenses when her husband (son of respondents 2 and 3) is not paying the maintenance.That the son of Respondent No. 2 has no relationship with the Company and the Hotel Claremont is the property of the Company.The land and building was purchased by the Company vide sale deed dated 30.03.2006 from the Respondent No.1 The respondent No. 2 as on this date holds 22% of the equity capital while the Respondent No. 3 holds equity capital in the company.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 36 of 93Devinder Sharma and Smt Seema Sharma on the other hand compromised the claim to the shares of the Company.That the disputed shares which were being claimed by Sh.Devinder Sharma and Smt Seema Sharma were transferred on 20.07,2010 to the Respondent No, 2 herein.Vinod Yes 24-Jul-10 ---That Sh.The Respondent No. 2 intended to convey that 15% share Is for the daughter.However by inappropriate words used he conveyed as If 15 % share are held by the daughter.It was in the above stated context the deponent was trying to convey that after transferring 15% share he would not be left with 5-7% shareholding.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 38 of 93This Hon'ble Court had further directed the Respondent No. 2 state on affidavit all assets, which in his knowledge, are held by his son/Respondent No. 1 at the time when he went away to UK and their status as on date.In respect to the assets of the Respondent No. 1 it is stated that the Respondent No. 2 & 3 had constructed an apartment at Court-118 Old DLF, Gurgaon Consisting of 11 flats.Each son has a share of one flat each in the apartment.However, one Sh.Gurvinder had sold his flat to his brother Paryinder.However one Sh.Baljeet Singh S/o Sh.Ratan Lai has grabbed the entire property whereby he got the sale deed executed with respect to the entire property, forcibly, in his name without-any consideration thereof.The Respondent No. 2has lodged FIR with Crime Branch and the same is pending investigation.As per the knowledge of respondent no.2 his son had no other asset in the year 2007 when he went away to U.K.That the Respondent No. 2 had spoken to his son regarding possibility of any amicable settlement.MM Sh.Pritam Singh.Copy of the said order is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-4."viii) Consequently, an additional affidavit was filed by the plaintiff No.1 (respondent No.2 in the said appeal) which was affirmed on 30th June, 2011, wherein the plaintiffs admitted that a Memorandum of Understanding dated 20thJuly, 2010, the Company defendant No.1 CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 39 of 93 herein and its Directors i.e. the plaintiffs had committed to allot 2533350 equity shares to Shri Krishan Kumar and Smt. Meenakshi defendant Nos. 2 and 3 at a price of Rs. 25 per share; Rs. 10/- as the share value plus Rs. 15/- as premium.A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 20th July, 2010 was also annexed with the said affidavit.The contents of the above said affidavit dated 20th June, 2011 are given as under:-CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 39 of 93"I, H.S. Chopra Respondent No.2 herein S/o Sh.Gurbax Chopra, ages about.83 years R/o Hotel The Claremont, Aya Nagar, Mehrauli, Delhi - 110 030 - do hereby so solemnly state that I am swearing this compliance affidavit.That by way of the instant additional affidavit the deponent is placing the documents relating to share transfer in favour of Shri Krishan Kumar and Smt. Meenakshi.That vide Memorandum of Understanding dated 20th July, 2010 the company and its directors had committed to allot 2533350 equity shares to Shri Krishan Kumar and Smt. Meenakshi at a price INR 26 per share.That vide Share subscription agreement dated 3rd August, 2010, Shri Krishan Kumar and Smt. Meenakshi subscribed 1283350 and 1250000 shares respectively.That Shri Krishan Kumar and Smt. Meenakshi had made a payment of Rs.6,60,00,000/- as CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 40 of 93 consideration for the share subscription.The copies of share certificates are annexed herewith as Annexure Plaintiffs-3 (Colly).The copy of the order dated 17.08.2010 is annexed herewith as Annexure Plaintiffs-4."CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 40 of 93ix) In the same affidavit as it appears, admissions were made of execution of the Share Subscription Agreement dated 3rd August, 2010 by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and a copy of the said Share Subscription Agreement dated 3rd August, 2010 was enclosed as Annexure-P-2 with the said affidavit.As a matter of fact, the plaintiffs themselves also admitted that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were inducted to the Board of Directors of defendant No.1-Company on 21st July, 2010 and another nominee of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 Mr.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 41 of 93CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 43 of 93xiv) The plaintiff No.1 filed yet another affidavit sworn on 17th August, 2011 wherein it was admitted that the plaintiffs had sold "the 76% of the shareholding in the Company to Shri Krishan Kumar and Smt. Meenakshi defendant Nos. 2 and 3 herein for a sum of Rs.6,58,00,000/-.The plaintiffs also submitted before the Division Bench that it still had 24% shareholding and was entering into a deal to sell the hotel which was constructed on the property of the son of the plaintiffs which was sold unto defendant No.1-Company herein and that there was an amount due to Corporation Bank from where loan had been taken besides a personal loan of Rs. 9 crores from his daughter.The contents of the affidavit dated 17th August, 2011 are reproduced herein below:"I, H.S. Chopra, S/o Sh.Gurbax Singh Chopra, respondent no.2 herein aged about 83 years, R/o F-22, Ridge Wood Estate DLF, Gurgaon - 122002, Haryana, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-That the deponent craves the leave of this Hon'ble Court file the instant affidavit in view of the false and misleading affidavit filed by the Appellant.The deponent along with his wife had shifted to India, from U.K. in the year 2000 with a view to live their rest of the life in the motherland and invested all his saving of 55 years from England and built the Motel Claremont.The deponent being the Power of Attorney holder of his son Jitender Singh Chopra, purchased a land of CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 44 of 93 approx 2.75 acre from Smt. Krishna Kumari Bhanot vide sale deed dated 22,.0.2002 in his son's name.Rs.4/- Crores and a flat worth Rs.60/- Lacs it was a totally different situation for the deponent and his family and turn of events have made the deponent financially and emotionally so week that he is in no position to fight the battle of life any more.The following events profoundly changed the circumstances for the deponent :(i) Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) acquired 2032 square meter land of the Hotel Claremont for construction of Metro line and just paid Rs.8/- Lacs as compensation.(ii) One Devender Sharma and his wife Seema Sharma illegally and unlawfully claimed to have acquired majority share holding of the company and thus raised their claim on the Hotel.The deponent had to initiate very taxing litigation to regain the control of the Hotel which finally ended in a compromise in 2011 and paid of Rs.3.5/- Crores to Devender Sharma.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 45 of 93(iii) Another notorious criminal Baljeet forcibly grabbed the deponents Gurgaon property.(iv) The abovementioned incidents had a negative impact on the image of the Hotel and its business suffered adversely.In the wake of deceasing revenue, the deponent was about to shut down the Hotel.As a last resort, the deponent sold the 75% of the share, holding in the company to Shri Krishan Kumar.and Smt. Meenakshi for an amount of Rs.6.58/- Crores.It was from the above mentioned sale proceeds the deponent was able to pay Rs.3.5/- Crores to Devender Sharma and other amount to Baljeet and other vendors.(v) Devender Sharma and Seema Sharma despite entering into a settlement vide agreement dated 12.06.2010 again filed a suit no.1978 of 2010 before this Hon'ble Court.All the disputes and litigations were finally resolved vide settlement dated 28.03.2011 whereby the Hotel was agreed to be sold out to one Pradeep Rana for Rs.70/- crores.(vi) The Hotel Claremont was agreed to be sold 2010 by the Monitoring Committee appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was desealed only 28th April, 2011 but only after carrying out demolition of 9 rooms.(ix) The business of Hotel has touched a new low in as much as after desealing and till 16.08.2011, the total revenue generation was only Rs.6.55/.- Lacs.The deponent apart from having the shareholding in the company has no other source of income.It is in the abovestated facts and circumstances submitted by the deponent that the deponent and his wife are only having 24% shareholding and even If the Hotel is sold for Rs.70/- Crores, only an amount of Rs.17/- Crores (approx) would come to the deponent and his wife.Given the existing liability, the deponent would be having a small amount to themselves.Today, the deponent is 83 years old and his wife is 76 years' old.They do not have any residence in India or, abroad and presently living in a small rented fiat in Gurgaon.The deponent and his wife do not have any saving or even any investment in money market.Sadly, they have not been getting any support from children for last seven years.Neither the children visit the deponent nor the deponent and his wife have been able to go out of the country to meet children or grandchildren for last seven years.The deponent and his wife-are in highly difficult financial and emotional situation and the suffering they underwent over a period of last seven years has taken away the will to live any longer.That the deponent and his wife after starting business in India, became a soft target for the criminals and land grabbers.Their old age and lack of connection in the society has somehow given the impression to such people that their properties could easily be grabbed and that is how the deponent and his wife at this stage of CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 48 of 93 life had been running around in the Courts and different jails.The deponent submits, with respect that on being intimidated with this whole process of litigation, he decided to settle all the litigation even if they were not very suitable to them.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 48 of 93In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and keeping in mind the properties held by respondent nos. 2 and 3, and the allegation regarding the nature of those properties and the alleged share of respondent no.1 in the same, we had issued certain interim directions.The parties have now fortunately arrived at a compromise qua their disputes.We may notice that Mr. Krishan Kumar becomes essential to the settlement in view of certain obligations undertaken by him as set out in the compromise.Such obligations are undertaken by him to ensure due payment is made to the appellant arising from the claims against respondent nos. 2 and 3 as per the settlement.The application is supported by the affidavit of the appellant, respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. Krishan Kumar.These parties have given an undertaking to this court and the undertaking given is accepted making the parties conscious of the consequences which may arise in case of any breach of undertaking which would include Mr. Krishan Kumar, who has voluntarily agreed to be a party to this settlement though he was not an original party, to facilitate discharge of obligations by respondent nos.2 and CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 57 of 93 3 and to enable respondent nos. 2 and 3 to travel outside the country, which at present is prohibited.The application accordingly stands disposed of.A copy of this order along with the compromise application be placed before the competent Metropolitan Magistrate for seeking necessary directions for release of passports to respondent nos. 2 and 3 and withdrawal of Look-out Notice for these two parties.Needless to say the appellant will have liberty to approach this court in the present appeal in case there is any violation of the terms and conditions and undertakings given by respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. Krishan Kumar.The counsels and the parties have signed this order in token of acceptance.Dasti to learned counsels for the parties."On 19th September, 2011 an application was made on behalf of plaintiffs before Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket for releasing the CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 58 of 93 passports and withdrawal of lookout notice on behalf of plaintiffs.The passports are being released.To this argument, the defendants have specifically alleged in the written statement which are read as under :"The plaintiffs Mr.Harbhajan Singh Chopra and Mrs. Surjit Kaur Chopra had been moving freely, without any hindrance all over the country and have been presenting themselves before different courts, different statutory authorities and different Forums.During the months of March/April, 2011 after the Hotel Claremont was sealed by the High Powered Committee appointed by the Supreme Court of India, It was the plaintiffs who presented themselves not once but several times before the High Powered Committee and before the Dy.It was only then that the Claremont Hotel finally de-sealed vide orders dated 20.4.2011 passed by the Assistant Engineer (B) I/SZ, MCD, Green Park, South Zone, New Delhi.It was also admitted in the pleading as well as course of hearing that the daughter in law of the plaintiffs has received Rs.4 crore from the defendants in terms of the settlement arrived at before the Division Bench.The alleged agreement dated 15th CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 69 of 93 September, 2011 relied by the defendants was never executed and it was a fabricated document.The letter of resignation is also forged.The application filed before Metropolitan Magistrate about the admission having receipt of amount of remaining shareholding of 24% is not signed by the plaintiffs.The plaintiffs have no knowledge of the same.b) In pursuance of above order, Memorandum of Understanding dated 3rd September, 2011 came to be executed between the parties.In this Memorandum of Understanding, plaintiffs again admitted the execution of the earlier Agreements and the amount of Rs. 6.58 CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 70 of 93 crores having been paid by defendant Nos.2 and 3 and received at the plaintiff's end.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 70 of 93The plaintiffs themselves have confirmed that they had the liability to discharge the term loan of Corporation Bank of defendant No. 1 Company of Rs. 3 crores and also that they had given a personal guarantee for the payment of the said loan as is evident from the last recital of the said Memorandum of Understanding.The plaintiffs do not admit the execution of any agreement for transfer of 24% of the shareholding of defendant No.1 Company.The entire Agreement has been executed by the defendant No.2 behind the back of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have no CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 76 of 93 knowledge whatsoever about the said Agreement...It is denied that the Agreement dated 15th September, 2011 was ever executed.It is a fabricated and forged document..." [Emphasis supplied]The plaintiffs' affidavit dated 17th August, 2011 filed before the Division Bench had stated that even if the hotel is sold at Rs.70 Crores an amount of Rs. 17 Crores would come to the plaintiffs.In this background, if the Share Purchase Agreement dated 15th September, 2011 is examined, it is evident that the entire amount for acquisition of the 24% of the share holding is only Rs. 7 Crores.Out of this Rs. 7 Crores, a sum of Rs 3 Crores is the liability of the defendant No. 1 Company.The Share Purchase Agreement dated 15th September, 2011 clearly shows that the 'Third Party' had taken a secured term loan from Corporation Bank.On that date, a statement was made by the defendant No. 2 that they would like to sell the hotel and pay a sum of Rs. 4 crores to the Ms. Aarti Sabarwal.The amount has to be paid from the proceeds out of the sale of the hotel.They are as under:-CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 79 of 93a. A sum of Rs. 1.5 Crores transferred on 8th September, 2011 by the daughter of the plaintiffs.The plaintiffs, namely, Harbhajan Singh Chopra and Smt.Surjit Kaur Chopra (husband and wife) have filed the suit for cancelling the Share Subscription Agreement dated 3rd August, 2010 and the Memorandum of Understanding dated 20th July, 2010 executed between the plaintiffs and defendants No.2 and 3 and a decree of declaration declaring all documents/instruments (including blank signed papers) executed by plaintiffs under coercion, threat, gun point documenting transfer of 100% shares of defendant No.1- Company in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 as null and void and a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 1 of 93 the defendants restraining the defendants from issuing shares/transferring shares of the, defendant No.1-Company or selling/ transferring/alienating/conveying/disposing/dissipating the assets (including Hotel Claremont) of the defendant No.1-Company or creating any mortgage/charge/lien/encumbrance upon the defendant No.1-Company.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 1 of 93By this order I propose to decide the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC filed by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 being I.A. 8723/2014 prayer of which is strongly opposed by the plaintiffs.Many other applications are pending for disposal.Parties have made their submission only in the present application as they felt that the result of this application would have impact on other applications and in the main suit.11) in village Aya Nagar, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi.The total area prior to acquisition by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation vide award no.4/2009-10 was equivalent to 12,522 square meters or 3.093 acres.The total area of the CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 2 of 93 plot of land at present on which Hotel Claremont is constructed is equivalent to 2.594 acres approximately.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 2 of 93It is alleged in the plaint that defendants No.2 and 3 namely Krishan Kumar and Meenakshi are husband and wife who have illegally acquired 100 %shares of the defendant No.1's company without paying any consideration for the purchase of the shares of the company.The documents which were executed by the plaintiffs for the purpose of transferring 100% shares of the defendant No.1's company in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 were executed under gun point.b) In order to establish their case, it is stated by the plaintiffs that they are British Nationals who came to India in about 2001 who have invested-their savings into properties in Delhi and Gurgaon, Haryana.q) Plaintiffs were able to obtain their passports from the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket District Court in FIR No.6/2007 under Sections 498A/406 IPC where the passports had been impounded owing to a complaint preferred by the plaintiffs' daughter in law as the plaintiffs no longer desired to stay in India as they had been subjected to severe physical, mental and economic torture and hardship.They have no legal source of income which can account for payment of the consideration for the transfer of shares of the defendant No.1-Company in their favour.The defendants have filed the written statement wherein the following defences were raised:-(a) The suit has not been valued properly and correctly and the court fee paid by the plaintiff is less and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.The plaintiffs by way of the present suit are seeking to cancel the Share Subscriptions Agreement dated 3rd August, 2010 and Memorandum of Understanding dated 20th CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 12 of 93 July, 2010 executed between plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 12 of 93By way of the said Share Subscription Agreement and the MOU 76% shares of the defendant No.1-Company were purchased by the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 for a consideration of Rs.6,60,00,000/-.The said MOU dated 20th July, 2010, the Share Subscription Agreement dated 3rd August, 2010 as well as the share certificates have already been filed by the plaintiffs along with the suit.The plaintiffs are required to pay Court Fee on the consideration of the transaction.Further, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3 entered into another Share Purchase Agreement dated 14th September, 2011 for a consideration of Rs.7 crores in respect of remaining shares (24% share) of the defendant No.1-Company.(b) The plaintiffs by way of the present suit are trying to raise a plea against the documents which are executed.About a dozen of FIRs have been registered against the plaintiffs for different offences in different police stations in different states.Even the documents filed by the plaintiffs in the present suit would show and prove their conduct as they along with their sons have been in the habit of cheating innocent persons, instigating them to invest money and or pay the same to them and thereafter, start frivolous cases against such persons.The defendant No.1 was arrested in this case and released on conditional bail subject to deposit of Rs.10 crores payable to the complainant therein.Defendant No.2 was also released on similar conditions.It may be relevant to mention that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 after cheating the said Shri Ashok Mittal, filed complaint against him to create false defence.Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate dated 31st May, 2010, in which Mr.Chopra alleged that Mr.Kanwal Chaudhary was in collusion with Mr.Devinder Sharma & Ors.and that his counsel had obtained his signatures on blank papers and that he misused those papers and also withdrew CS (OS) No.271/2009 without his consent.The said complaint filed with the Bar Council of Delhi was contested by Mr.Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate who filed his reply, denying each and every allegations made by Harbhajan Singh Chopra.The said complaint case No.51/2010 was dismissed by the Bar Council of Delhi.In the said suit the plaintiffs herein and the said Mr.Baljeeet Singh requested for mediation and their matter was referred to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.The matter was settled between the plaintiffs and Mr.Baljeet Singh and a Settlement Agreement dated 8th July, 2010 was executed in the presence of the Mediator before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 17 of 93(e) After execution of the Settlement Agreement dated 8th July, 2010 as mentioned herein above before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, the plaintiffs tried to wriggle out of the said settlement and did not abide by the terms of the said settlement agreement.Baljeet Singh then filed an execution petition being Execution Petition No.179/2011 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 26th July, 2011 was pleased to issue warrants of attachment in regards to the property of the judgment debtor's bearing the Claremont Hotel, Khasra No.559/1 Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Aaya Nagar, New Delhi.The plaintiffs herein again took a summersault and entered into a Memorandum of Settlement dated 1st August, 2011 with the said Mr.Baljeet Singh that Mr.It was only then that the matter could finally be settled between the plaintiffs herein (Harbhajan Singh Chopra and Mrs. Surjit Kaur Chopra) and Mr.Baljeet Singh.The Settlement Agreement dated 1st August, 2011 was brought to the knowledge of this Court in Execution Petition No.179/11 by filing a joint application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC.The said application was also supported with the affidavits of Mr.Harbhajan Singh Chopra and Mrs. Surjit Kaur Chopra.This Court vide order dated 10th August, 2011 was pleased to pass an order thereby dismissing the execution petition as withdrawn.(f) The plaintiffs and Mr.Baljeet Singh etc. also jointly filed an Crl.Application being Crl.(M) No.1396/11 pending before this Court seeking quashing of the FIR No.12/2008 against Mr.Baljeet Singh, Kuldeep Singh and ors.Another application seeking quashing of the same FIR against Mr.In both the matters the plaintiffs herein not only executed and filed their affidavits but also actively attended the court hearings for the said purposes.As per knowledge of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 the date was fixed in the matters for quashing of said FIR No.12/2008 before this Court.FIR No.12/2008 was lodged by Harbhajan Singh Chopra and Mrs. Surjit Kaur Chopra against Devinder Sharma, Baljeet Singh and Ors.(g) In another proceedings filed by one Mr.Devinder Sharma and another against Mr.Harbhajan Singh Chopra, Mrs. Surjit Kaur Chopra and Ors.being CS (OS) No.1978/2010 the plaintiffs filed an interim application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, which was again jointly signed by the said Mr.Devinder Sharma, Ms. Seema Sharma, Mr.Harbhajan Singh Chopra and Mrs. Surjit Kaur Chopra etc. Along with the said interim application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, the parties also filed Memorandum of Settlement dated 28th March, 2011 which was executed and registered before the Sub-Registrar, Mehrauli, New Delhi.The said Memorandum of Settlement has already been filed by the plaintiffs along with the present suit.This Court disposed of CS CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 19 of 93 (OS) No. 1978/10 vide order dated 4th April, 2011 on the basis of the said application.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 19 of 93(h) In a parallel proceedings filed by the said Mr.Davinder Sharma and Ors.After filing the additional affidavit by plaintiff No.1 and Devinder Sharma the said CP No.72 (ND)/2008 before the Company Law Board was dismissed as not pressed and the order dated 5th April, 2011 was passed.(i) The plaintiffs are unnecessarily trying to tarnish the image of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 by claiming that the defendant No.2 has got some connections with Punjab Police and some political persons.Neither the defendant No.2 nor the defendant No.3 belongs to the State of Punjab and they also do not have any relation, or any property in the state of Punjab.The defendant No.2 while belongs to District Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan and had been settled in Delhi for the last more than 20 years taking care of his ancestral Garment Business and his wife belongs to District Mirzapur, U.P. The plaintiff No.1 has sought an information under the RTI Act from the Govt. of Punjab and as per the reply to his RTI Application the defendant No.2 has never been appointed as P.A. or in any other capacity with Mr.Sukhbir Singh Badal, Deputy Chief Minister, Punjab.It has been reconfirmed recently by a letter dated 22nd February, 2011 written by the Director Prosecution to the Chief Vigilance Director in respect of a complaint filed by Sanjay Kriplani with the C.B.I. The suit contains false, frivolous, vague and scandalous averments.It is the other way round that brother in-law of plaintiff No.1 has been Additional Director General of Punjab Police and brother of Mr.H.S. Chopra was retired as a Joint Director, Department of Industries, Govt. of Punjab.The plaintiffs who belong to Punjab also have ancestral land in Jandla, District Nawanshahar Now Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Punjab.Plaintiff No.1 has also got deep social roots and contact in the state of Punjab.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 20 of 93The first alleged tranche is relating to 76% of shareholding and the second tranche is relating to 24% of the shareholding of the defendant No.1 company.The said affidavits were not executed out of the free will of the plaintiffs.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 21 of 93The execution of the documents of 2010 and 2011 have been expressly admitted by the plaintiffs in judicial proceedings.Invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court by litigants like the plaintiffs must be nipped in the bud.The present suit is therefore liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action being vexatious and an abuse of the process of law.Apart from Share Subscription Agreement dated 3rd August, 2010 and MOU dated 10th July, 2010, the other documents which are admittedly signed by the plaintiffs have not been challenged and no declaration of cancellation of said documents are sought.Only such defense as give rise to clear and bona fide dispute or triable issues should be put to trial and not illusory or unnecessary or mala fide based on false or un- tenable pleas to delay the suit.The issues will be framed in a suit only when pleadings raise material proposition of law and/or fact which need investigation and so could be decided after trial giving parties opportunities to adduce such relevant evidence as they may think necessary and proper.In the present case, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking a decree of cancellation of Memorandum of Understanding dated 20th July, 2010 and Share Subscription Agreement dated 3rd August, 2010 admittedly executed between the plaintiffs and the defendants.Jitender Singh Chopra and Ors.'s in which the plaintiffs were respondents No.2 and 3 the subject matter of the present suit namely the above said two impugned documents stand determined in judicial proceedings.The CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 28 of 93 case of the plaintiffs is that the documents were signed under pressure of threat and coercion of defendant No.2 and at gun-point.By these two agreements, the plaintiffs inter alia admit that 76% share holding of defendant No. 1 was allotted to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 against a consideration of Rs. 6.60 crores.Mr. Devender Sharma preferred a petition sbearing company petition No. 72 of 2008 before the Company Law Board under Sections 397/398/399/402/403 of the Companies Act in the said company petition.Both Devender Sharma and Seema Sharma continued as Directors of the Company.Interim order dated 23rd October, 2008 was passed by the Company Law Board in CP No. 72 of 2008, in which, respondents No. 2 and 3 (plaintiff herein) were restrained from transferring, selling alienating, or encumbering their shareholding in the defendant No. 1 Company.Subsequently, the matter was compromised and an additional affidavit along with MOU dated 28th March, 2011 was filed by plaintiff No.1 in CP No. 72/08 on 1st April, 2011 before the CLB.On the basis of above mentioned MOU, the matter was disposed of by order dated 5th April, 2011 and interim order dated 23rd October, 2008 was vacated.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 30 of 93Execution of these registered Wills has been admitted in the list of admission/denial.The plaintiffs also admit that four Relinquishment Deeds dated 16th July, 2010 and 19th July, 2010 were executed by the sons and daughters of the plaintiffs and it was categorically stated by them that they had no objection to the plaintiffs dealing with the shareholding in any manner of defendant No. 1 Company.The plaintiffs themselves admitted by affidavits affirmed on oath in judicial proceedings, that not only the consideration of Rs. 6.60 crores was received but also 76% shares of defendant No. 1 Company were allotted to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and out of the money received from defendant No. 2 and 3, the plaintiffs paid Rs.3.50 crores to Mr. Devinder Sharma and other amounts to Mr.Baljeet and other vendors.There is no allegation in the appeal proceedings that these affidavits filed by the plaintiff on affirmation in judicial proceedings way back on 2nd May, 2011, 30th June, 2011 and 17th August, 2011 were under coercion and executed at gun point.But in the present suit, it is asserted that the said documents were executed under some coercion or threat or that the consideration of Rs. 6.60 crores was a sham.The two documents, of which cancellation is being CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 31 of 93 sought by the plaintiffs in the present suit, namely, MOU dated 20th July, 2010 and the Share Subscription Agreement dated 3rd August, 2010 besides receipt, copies of the share certificate(s) in the name of defendant No. 2 and 3 and payment of the stamp duty for allocation of the said shares, form part of the judicial record filed by the plaintiffs.There is no challenge to the same nor any cancellation thereof was even sought by the plaintiffs in the present suit.He is stated to have obtained a decree of divorce in the Courts of United Kingdom and then got remarried.ii) Mrs. Aarti Sabharwal initiated proceedings under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and a complaint was also preferred by her before the Magistrate.iii) A Civil Suit was also filed by Mrs. Aarti Sabharwal before this Court against Mr.Jitender Singh Chopra-her husband, the plaintiffs herein, being her in-laws and Mr.Gurinder Pal Singh @ David Chopra-brother of Mr.Jitender Singh Chopra, from which the FAO (OS) No.402 of 2009 arose.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 32 of 93The said order was passed in the presence of plaintiff No.1 (respondent No.2 in the said appeal), where the plaintiff No.1 made a statement before the Division Bench of this Court that the property of the son known as Claremont Hotel, the land of which is transferred to an Incorporated Company which was controlled by him but his shareholding stands diluted to 3%, and "now his shareholding stand diluted only to 2-3%".The said order reads as under :-"FAO(OS) 402/2009 and CM 12863/2009 (stay) The learned counsel for respondent nos 2 and 3, on instructions from respondent no.2 who is present in Court, states that the respondent no.2 has no means to settle the dispute with the appellant as was earlier proposed in terms of Page 135 and 138 of the paper book.But, it is submitted that respondent no.2 was in touch with his son and the settlement proposal was backed by son at the relevant time though it was not recorded as such.In these circumstances, we are constrained to restrain respondent nos 2 and 3 from leaving the territory of India till further orders.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 33 of 93A copy of this order be sent to the Regional Passport Officer, for necessary action forthwith.A copy of this order be given also dasti to learned counsel for the appellant, to be served on the Regional Passport Officer; apart from a copy of the order being sent through the normal process.A copy of this order be also served dasti on the Trial Court by learned counsel for the appellant, in which passport of respondent nos 2 and 3 are stated to have been deposited, pursuant to orders of the Court.Respondent no.2 also seeks time to obtain instructions from his son/respondent no.1 whether the said respondent is willing to arrive at a settlement with the appellant as per the earlier proposal.List for directions on 21.04.2011."v) The plaintiffs were therefore called upon by the Division Bench to file an affidavit setting out the shareholding pattern of the defendant No.1 from its inception till date and as to in what manner and for what consideration and to which parties the shareholding had to be transferred.The plaintiffs were also directed to file the details of the present Directors of the defendant No.1-Company besides directing to file all supporting documents and details of the assets of CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 34 of 93 the son of the plaintiffs in India when he went to UK and their status in 2011 when the order was passed.The plaintiffs were restrained by the same order from leaving India till further orders.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 34 of 93vi) The matter came up before the Division Bench in FAO (OS) No.402/2009 on 21st April, 2010 wherein the following orders were passed:-We, thus, grant further time to respondents 2 and 3 to comply with our directions within two (2) weeks and impose costs of Rs.10,000.00 on respondents 2 and 3 to be paid to the appellant towards legal expenses.Respondent No.2 also states that he has discussed the matter with his son-respondent No.1, and that respondent No.1 is not in a position to settle any claim of the appellant.Interim directions passed on 7.3.2011 will continue till varied.We further direct that status quo will be maintained qua the properties and shareholdings of respondents 2 and 3 till further orders.Dasti to learned counsels for the parties."While granting time to the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.1 (respondent No.2 in the said appeal) also made a statement before the Division Bench that he had discussed this matter with his son Mr.Jitender Singh CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 35 of 93 Chopra and that he was not in a position to settle any claim of Mrs. Aarti Sabharwal.The Division Bench while continuing the interim order passed earlier, also passed a status quo orders qua the properties and shareholdings of the plaintiffs in defendant No.1- Company.The contents of the affidavit are reproduced herein below:-CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 35 of 93"I, H.S. Chopra Respondent No. 2 herein S/o Sh, Gurbax Chopra, ages about 83 years R/o Hotel The Claremont, Aya Nagar, Mehrauli, New Delhi, do hereby solemnly state that I am swearing this compliance affidavit.That this Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 07.03.2011 has called upon the Respondents .No.2 &3 to file an affidavit setting out the shareholding pattern of Fountain Motels Pvt. Ltd. (FMPL) ("the Company") from its inception till the date of the order.That the company was incorporated in 2006 with the Respondent No. 2 & 3 as the only directors and shareholders of the Company.That subsequently in 2008 Devinder Sharma and his wife Seema Sharma by forging and fabricating documents each of them claimed themselves to be the shareholders to the extent of 37,500/- shares.That the Respondent No. 2 & 3 apart from Initiating Criminal Proceedings filed the Suit being CS (OS).No. 271 of 2009 seeking a declaration that Sh, Devinder Sharma and Smt Seema Sharma are not the shareholders of the Company (FMPL) apart from seeking other relief.That Sh.Devinder Sharma and Smt Seema Sharma had filed a Petition.That vide a settlement dated 12.06.2010, the Respondent No. 2 & 3 and the Company on the one hand and Sh.That on 21.07.2010 Sh.Krishan Kumar and Smt Meenakshi Devi were allotted shares against payment.As on 31st March, 2011 the shareholding pattern of the Company is as under:-CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 37 of 93Krishan Kumar Yes 21-Jul-10 1,250.000 37%Meenakshi Yes 21-Jul-10 1,283.350 39%Devinder Sharma and Smt Seema Sharma however challenged the settlement dated 12.06.2010 by filing CS (OS) No. 1978 of 2010, which was later disposed of vide order dated 04.04.2011 in terms of fresh settlement.The deponent unconditionally apologizes for his error and mistake and seeks pardon of the Hon'ble Court.The Respondent No. 2 due to ongoing litigation with Sh.Devinder Sharma and Smt Seema Sharma could not effect the transfer of shares to the daughter and he would be doing hereafter, CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 38 of 93That in so far as offer for the settlement between my son Jitender Singh Chopra and the appellant recorded in the order dated 29.03.2007 (page 135 & 138) passed by in FIR No. 06/07 passed by the Ld.ASJ is concerned the same was not accepted by the appellant herein and that has been recorded in the order dated 28.05.2007 passed by Ld.The plaintiffs themselves placed on record copies of the share certificates and the Government order dated 17th August, 2010 in this regard.A copy of additional affidavit dated 30th June, 2011 along with the documents was placed before the Division Bench.xi) The document namely Share Subscription Agreement dated 3rd August, 2010 duly records the resolution of the Board of Directors held on 24th July, 2010, where the proposal to allot the shares to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 herein was accepted and a proposal was made to convene an extraordinary general body meeting of the Company to carry out amendments to the Articles of the Company which was held on 26th July, 2010 and 20 resolutions were passed in terms of Section 81(1-A) of the Companies Act, 1956 approving the allotment of shares to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 besides the amendment to the Memorandum and Articles of Association.xii) The plaintiffs admitted in the said document that defendant No.2 owned 39% of the equity shares in defendant No.1-Company while his wife/defendant No.3 Smt. Meenakshi owned 37% shareholding of the defendants, namely 76% shares of defendant CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 42 of 93 No.1-Company stood transferred to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 leaving a residue of only 24% with the plaintiffs.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 42 of 93xiii) The FAO (OS) No.402 of 2009 came up before this Court again on 12th July, 2011, whereupon, the Division Bench examined the affidavits filed by the plaintiffs and it was of the view that the affidavit filed by plaintiff No.1 does not bear the complete disclosure in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench.The Bench also noticed in the said order that the subject matter of the proceedings was a property which was owned by the son of the plaintiffs and the husband of Mrs.Aarti Sabharwal which was sold by plaintiff No.1 as his attorney and consequently, at the request of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs herein, who sought the indulgence of this Court that they would try to resolve the issue with Mrs. Aarti Sabharwal.The order passed on 12th July, 2011 is reproduced herein below:"FAO(OS) No. 402/2009 and CM No. 12863/2009 (Stay) We have heard the learned senior counsels for the parties at length.We find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the affidavits filed by respondent no. 2 do not bear the complete disclosure in terms of our direction.We say no more at this stage because senior counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 assures that he will look into the matter dispassionately and endeavour to work out an amicable resolution to the disputes.This is specifically so in view of the fact that the property, which is subject matter of the dispute, was owned by the son of respondent nos. 2 and 3 and husband of the appellant and was sold by respondent no. 2 as attorney of his son.List on 18.08.2011."CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 44 of 93The deponent along with his wife in 2005 incorporated a company by the name Fountainhead Motels Pvt. Ltd. the deponent and his wife Smt. Surjeet Kaur Chopra were the only shareholder and directors of the company.That when the offer of settlement was made in March, 2007 by the deponent's son David for an amount of.(vii) The proposed buyers of the Hotel, Shri Pradeep Rana, in view of the demolition backed out from the deal and conveyed his intention of not purchasing the Hotel.(viii) One Sanjay Kriplani on the basis of forged documents, filed a frivolous Suit No. C.S. (OS) No;.1219 of, 2011 before this Hon'ble Court CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 46 of 93 against the company deponent and his wife including other defendants seeking recovery of Rs.4/- Crores among other reliefs.This Hon'ble Court vide ex-parte order dated 18.05.2011 had directed for deposit for deposit of Rs.4/- Crore from the sale of the Hotel with the Registrar General.The copy of the order.It is, relevant-to mention that Pradeep Rana was also arrayed as the defendant and he has filed his written statement.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 46 of 93The deponents submits with great respect, that on one hand his income has reduced considerably while his existing liabilities are as under :(i) A Bank loan of Rs.3.10/- Crores (balance amount) from Corporation Bank, Sector-14, Gurgaon was obtained against the mortgage of the Hotel and personal guarantee of the deponent.There is a tax liability of Rs.80/- Lacs to be paid by the company,(ii) Personal loan of Rs.9/- Crores from the deponent's daughter which was to be repaid by allotment of Shares in the company.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 47 of 93The deponent in the abovestated facts and circumstances leaves himself entirety in your lordships hands."xv) The plaintiff No.2 who was respondent No.3 in the said appeal FAO (OS) No.402/2009, affirmed on oath that contents of the affidavit filed by plaintiff No.1 dated 2nd May, 2011, 30th June, 2011 and 17th August, 2011 are adopted by her and all such averments made therein may be treated as "my own averments and the same may be read as my own solemn affirmation".xvi) On 18th August, 2011, the appeal being FAO (OS) No.402 of 2009 was listed before the Division Bench.The plaintiffs were present before the Division Bench along with defendant No.2 wherein the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs admitted that 25,33,350 shares stood sold and allotted and were held by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 herein and the plaintiffs still held 8,00,000 shares in defendant No.1-Company.The plaintiffs and defendant No.2 jointly requested the Division Bench that they would like to resolve the matter with the appellants in the said appeal and also with Mrs. Aarti Sabharwal and in fact, defendants No.2 and 3 took upon themselves as their personal liability to pay to Mrs. Aarti Sabharwal a sum of Rs.4,00,00,000/-.The plaintiffs and defendant No.2 sought a period CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 49 of 93 of six months to sell the Motel to liquidate the liabilities.The order dated 18th August, 2011 reads as under:CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 49 of 93"FAO (OS) No.402/2009 and CM No.12863/2009 (Stay) It is stated by learned senior counsel for respondents 2 and 3, on instructions and as per Annexure-1 to the additional affidavit filed by these respondents, that at present the said respondents hold eight lakh shares in the hotel while Mr. Krishan Kumar and his wife Mrs. Meenakshi hold 25,33,350 shares.Mr. Krishan Kumar is also present in Court along with respondents 2 and 3 and they state that they would like to sell the hotel to clear their liabilities and are agreeable to paying a sum of Rs.4.00 crore to the appellant in full and final settlement of the claim of the appellant.It is stated that this money will be paid out of the sale proceeds of the hotel and that it may take up to six (6) months to arrange for the sale.Mr. Krishan Kumar further states that he and his wife are also willing to accept the personal liability of this amount against their shareholding in the said hotel.It is suggested that the appellant can also make efforts to locate a customer for the said property for which on the last occasion respondents 2 and 3 and Mr. Krishan Kumar had got an offer of about Rs.70.00 crore.It is further stated before us by respondents 2 and 3 and Mr. Krishan Kumar that there is no lien or charge on this property except the bank loan which at present is about Rs.3.10 crore and thus there would be sufficient amount available from the sale proceeds to satisfy the claim of the appellant.Learned senior counsel for the appellant also states that in case the sum of Rs.4.00 crore is paid within six (6) months, they would be willing to settle the disputes and not raise any further claim.Mr. Krishan Kumar further states that in case the sale is not arranged within six (6) months, he accepts the personal liability to pay Rs.4.00 crore within six (6) months so as to absolve respondents 2 CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 50 of 93 and 3 of their liability for which he will give solvent security.Learned counsels for the parties state that they will need some time to work out the modalities so that an application can be filed in this court duly supported by affidavits/undertakings.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 50 of 93List for directions on 8.9.2011."On the next date i.e. 8th September, 2011 before the Division Bench, the following order was passed:-"FAO(OS) No.402/2009 and CM No.12863/2009(Stay) Learned senior counsel for the appellant states that they have not been able to get any better offer than Rs.70 crores.The parties to file an appropriate compromise application duly supported by affidavits as well as undertakings on behalf of R-2 and R-3 as well as Mr.Krishan Kumar.Learned counsel for the parties assure us that this application will be filed within a maximum period of 2 days.List for directions on 14.09.2011."xvii) On 13th September, 2011, a compromise application was filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC in FAO (OS) No.409 of 2009 for recording the settlement between Mrs. Aarti Sabharwal, the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 wherein Rs.4,00,00,000/- payable to Mrs. Aarti Sabharwal was taken in as liability and in the said compromise application, it was stated by the parties including the plaintiffs as under:CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 51 of 93That Mr. Krishan Kumar has given a personal guarantee irrespective of the fact that he is not a party, in view of the fact that he and his wife Ms. Meenakshi, are majority shareholders of Fountainhead Motels Pvt. Ltd. (FMPL), which as on date is the Owner of Hotel Claremont, which is sought to be sold."Thus not only the plaintiffs herein admitted that the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were the majority shareholders of defendant No.1 but even the appellant in the said appeal, Mrs. Aarti Sabharwal accepted the said position.Defendant No.2 also handed over as part of the settlement post dated cheques drawn on Bank of India, Gurgaon dated 14th March, 2012 and undertook that the same shall be cleared on presentation unless the sale of the hotel brings about requisite funds to settle the claim of the appellant, Mrs. Aarti Sabharwal.A Copy of the application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC being C.M. No.17141/2011 wherein the transfer of the 76% shares covered by the Memorandum of Understanding dated 20th July, 2010 and the Share Subscription Agreement dated 3rd August, 2010 was annexed.The extract of the terms and conditions of settlement application are reproduced herein below:-That the Appellant has filed the present appeal against the Order of the Ld.Single Judge dated 18.08.2009 in C.S. (OS) No. 276 / 2007, vide which the Ld.Single Judge was pleased to reject the Plaint of the Appellant herein for maintenance, declaration and permanent injunction, inter alia, qua the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 herein.That the contents of the accompanying appeal are not being repeated herein, and the Applicants herein crave CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 52 of 93 leave of this Court to read the same as a part of the present application.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 52 of 93That by Order dated 18.08.2011, the broad terms of settlement of dispute between the Appellant and the Respondent were arrived at and recorded before this Court, to the effect that Mr. Krishan Kumar as .also Respondent Nos. 2 &3 had undertaken to pay to the Appellant a sum of Rs.4.00 crore towards full and final settlement of her claim from the sale proceeds of Hotel Claremont, which was stated may take upto six(6) months.It was further stated by Mr. Krishan Kumar that even, if the sale was not arranged within six'.(6): months, he undertook the personal liability to pay Rs.4.00 crore to the Appellant within a period of six (6) months, irrespective of the sale, for which he would give solvent security.That time was granted to the parties to file; an appropriate application alongwith affidavits/ undertakings, for settlement of all disputes as per the terms recorded.3 That Mr. Krishan Kumar has given a personal guarantee irrespective of the fact that he is not a party, in view of the fact that he and his wife, Ms. Meenakshi, are majority shareholders of Fountain Motels Pvt. Ltd. (FMPL),.which as on date is the owner of Motels Claremont, which is sought to be sold.That as such, in terms of the settlement arrived at on 18.08.2011 before this Court, the.That the present application is filed bonafide and in the interests of justice."The undertaking given by defendant No.2 was accepted by the Division Bench besides the parties and the Division Bench recorded that though defendant No.2 was not a party to the original suit but he took upon himself to be a party to this settlement to facilitate discharge of obligations by plaintiffs and to enable them to travel outside the country.The above compromise was accepted and the appeal was disposed of with directions being issued to the competent Metropolitan Magistrate for release of the passports of the plaintiffs herein and to withdraw the lookout notice for the plaintiffs.The order passed on 14th September, 2011 is reproduced here as under:CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 57 of 93On the same day, an order was passed accordingly and passports were released.Copy of the applications and orders passed thereon are extracted as under :-That the complainant and the respondents have already settled their disputes and to this effect both the parties have filed a compromise deed before the Hon'ble High Court and further both the parties have made there statements before the Hon'ble High Court.That the Hon'ble High Court have passed order to release the passports and withdrawal of look-out notice of respondent 2 and 3 in FAO(OS) 402 of 2009 titled as Aarti Sabhawal versus Jitender Singh Chopra and Ors.vide order dated 14.09.2011 with the direction to file a copy of the order along with the compromise application before this Hon'ble Court.Copy of the same order, compromise application and passports are enclosed herewith.H.N. Din.File taken up on application for release of passport of accused Harbhan Singh Chopra and Surjeet Kaur Chopra as per the directions of Hon'ble High Court.Now to come up on the date already fixed.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 59 of 93(POOJA TALWAR) MM/MAHILA COURT SED/19.9.2011"In pursuance of the orders passed by the Division Bench and Metropolitan Magistrate the passports were released to the plaintiffs who thereafter traveled back to United Kingdom.The affidavits sworn by the plaintiffs on oath and benefits having utilized by them have not been revoked or resiled either before the Division Bench or anywhere else including this Court.The plaintiffs have thus not only made unequivocal express admissions without any reservations whatsoever that the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were allotted and were holding 76% shareholding in defendant No. 1 Company and consideration paid was adequate and utilized by the plaintiffs.A conjunctive reading of the three affidavits filed before the Division Bench in F.A.O. (OS) No. 402/2009 coupled with the admission made in para 1.23 of the plaint in the present suit it is clear that neither there was any coercion for execution of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 20th July, 2010 nor in the execution of the Share Subscription Agreement dated 3rd August, 2010, and the sale consideration of Rs. 6.60 crores was not sham or inadequate.It was mentioned in the suit that the plaintiffs intended to move an application before the Division Bench that they have made the statement/admissions and filed the documents under gun-point CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 60 of 93 and similarly the documents namely the Memorandum of Understanding dated 20th July, 2010 and Share Subscription Agreement dated August, 2010 also executed at gun point.But no such application was filed by the plaintiffs in the said appeal or before the Metropolitan Magistrate referred to above, withdrawing any of the admissions made therein or revision of any order(s) even as of today i.e. after the expiry of about 3 years and nine months.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 60 of 93In the present suit, the plaintiffs have not disclosed the admissions made by them before the Division Bench, affidavits filed by them and subsequent events occurred after the settlement arrived between the parties.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs have not denied the facts that all the affidavits filed by his clients bear their signatures so as the joint application for recording the settlement as well as the presence of plaintiffs before the Division Bench when those referred orders were passed.Surely, a statement made before a Court of law has sanctity attached to it.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 64 of 93They have been paid consideration thereof.The claim of the plaintiffs is false and frivolous.The plaintiffs have not denied the fact in the plaint that they have not received a sum of Rs.6,60,00,000/- rather their case is that by virtue of Share Subscription Agreement dated 3rd August, 2010 by which 76% share holding of defendant No.1 company was transferred in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 for a nominal sum and the documents were executed by them under pressure, threat, coercion and under gun point.BY way of this letter dated 20.4.11 the Assistant Engineer MCD requested Mr.Harbhajan Singh Chorpa and Mr.Krishan Kumar (the Defendant No.2 herein) were jointly operating the bank accounts of Defendant No.1-Company and the hotel and were issuing cheques etc. to different vendors and were also making various representations etc. to various authorities jointly and have run the Hotel jointly for more than 11/2 years.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 65 of 93The conduct of the plaintiffs would also be clear from the fact that in another suit pending before this Court being CS (OS) No.1219/11 filed by one Mr.Sanjay Kriplani against the plaintiffs and others herein, the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 herein (who are Defendant No.2 & 3 in the said suit) had filed their written statement and also filed replies to various interim applications.Sanjay Kriplani, the Plaintiff in C.S.(OS) No.1219/2011 has filed a complaint case under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against Mr.Harbhajan Singh Chopra, Mrs. Surjit Kaur Chopra and Mr.Krishan Kumar which is still pending.In the said suit the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 herein have taken the similar kind of defence by portraying that Mr.Sanjay Kriplani, the plaintiff in the said other suit has made the plaintiffs in the present suit to sign several documents under threat and coercion and at gun point.An purported agreement allegedly executed at England between Mr.Sanjay Kriplani and Mr.Harbhajan Singh Chopra and Mrs. Surjit Kaur Chopra was also filed alongwith the said I.A. By way of the said alleged agreement the Plaintiffs herein tried to accept the liability of the said Mr.Kriplani to be paid off by Defendant No.1-Company without being authorised to do so.The Court when felt something foul and was about to dismiss the said I.A. No.1979 of 2012 by imposing huge cost of Rs. 1 lac, the counsel for the plaintiff in the said CS (OS) No.1219/11 withdrew the said interim application which was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 6.2.2012."CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 66 of 93From the above, the question of any pressure or threat or coercion does not arise for the period of more than one year.The plaintiffs appeared before Division Bench on many dates.They had the best platform to disclose the threat, if any.Further they are not laymen rather chronic litigants against whom various criminal and civil matters were/are pending.They are trying to mislead the Court.The plaintiffs have filed the affidavits, documents, signed the settlement application.The orders were passed in their presence.The settlement was not recorded on one date.The terms of settlement were discussed from time to time for more than six months.Similarly affidavits have not been filed by the plaintiffs in one CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 67 of 93 go, actually these were filed on various dates.The plaintiffs had many opportunities to inform the Division Bench in case of any threat or coercion that they have settled the matter under gun-point.The said court was the safest place for them.The most important fact is that more than several years have lapsed and the plaintiffs have not taken any steps for review of any order passed by the Division Bench.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 67 of 93There is not a whisper in the plaint or any documents to even rebut the presumption.As such, the said facts and execution of these documents and transfer of shareholding must be taken to be established.The said admissions are unequivocal admissions of facts including the factum of execution of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 20th July, 2010 and the Share Subscription Agreement dated 3rd August, 2010 and the receipt of the consideration being adequate and also having been utilized by the plaintiffs for their benefit.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 68 of 93There are clear admissions made in the affidavits and documents filed as well as in the settlement application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC.The terms of settlement were acted upon between the parties.The plaintiffs herein executed a receipt wherein they admitted that a sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- was paid to Corporation Bank by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 by two separate cheques, details whereof were given in the said receipt.The execution of this receipt is admitted by the plaintiffs in the reply to the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.c) A Share Purchase Agreement dated 15th September, 2011 was executed between the parties and the two recitals read as under:"C. That the Second party has requested the First party to purchase all the equity shares, i.e. 8,00,000, held by the Second party of Third party (Fountainhead Motels Pvt. Ltd.) as on agreement date.D. that the First party shall pay the consideration of INR 7 crore against 8,00,000 equity shares held by Second party.In the note at the said page, below the column 'completion', reference is made to the appeal F.A.O. (OS) No. 402/2009 wherein the settlement amount is affirmed to be paid by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 herein to Mrs. Aarti Sabharwal by giving a post dated cheque and the plaintiffs admit that total consideration of Rs.7,00,00,000/- being discharged by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the manner mentioned in the said documents, the plaintiffs would transfer 8 lac equity shares of defendant No. 1 Company (24% shareholding) to defendant Nos. 2 & 3 herein against the said consideration.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 71 of 93Admission was also made with respect to defendant No.2 having taken over the liability of paying Mrs. Aarti Sabharwal and in fact confirmed that the said post dated cheques given before the Division Bench stood encashed by Mrs. Aarti Sabharwal on 13th March, 2012 and a certificate from Bank of India was filed along with the said application.The plaintiffs further CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 72 of 93 admitted that apart from the payment of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- to Mrs. Aarti Sabharwal by defendant Nos. 2 and 3, the defendant No.2 and 3 had also paid up the liability of a loan of Rs. 3 Crore with the Corporation Bank, Gurgaon obtained by plaintiff No.1 herein in his personal capacity and signed a receipt of Rs.3 Crore which was attached.Defendant No.2 had already paid a sum of Rs. 4 Crore to Mrs. Aarti Sabharwal, daughter-in-law of plaintiffs as mentioned above.Further, the Rs. 3 crores had obtain from H.S. Chopra from Corporation Bank, Gurgaon as a Personal Guarantee which liability had also been taken over by Shri Krishan Kumar.In consideration of the total financial liability of Rs. 7 crores taken over by Shri Krishan Kumar and Meenakshi Devi, the applicant/accused had transferred their remaining 24% share to Shri Krishan Kumar and Smt. Meenakshi vide share transfer agreement dated 15.09.2011 and MOU dated 03.09.2011."CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 73 of 93It is stated by the defendants that the plaintiffs have wrongly contended that the defendants have not denied the liability of the defendants to pay Rs.5,40,90,000/-.No court fee has been paid.Cause of action is just in one line.In any event, out of the said amounts, a sum of Rs. 2 crores is claimed due from M/s Priyanka Garments who is not even a party to the present suit.A Joint Crl.MC 1396/2011 CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 74 of 93 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 12/08 was filed by Baljeet Singh and plaintiff No.1 through Mr. Gautam Awasthi on 12th September, 2011 in this Court.The cheque which was handed over to Arti Sabharwal at the time of settlement before the Division Bench was encashed by Arti Sabharwal in March, 2012 i.e. after the present suit was filed.The documents filed by the defendants i.e. Memorandum of Understanding dated 3rd September, 2011, Share Purchase Agreement dated 15th September, 2011, Share Transfer Form, Share Certificates and resignation letter have also been denied by the plaintiffs.iii) By way of an order dated 14th March, 2012, this Court had directed the plaintiffs to appear in person before this Court.The Supreme Court by order dated 16th July, 2012 had given liberty to the plaintiffs to move an application for recall of the said order.The said application was moved.On 23rd November, 2012, the said application was listed before this Court.The defendant had insisted on a meeting with the plaintiff No. 1 and had barged in the residential house of the plaintiffs at London.In these circumstances, the plaintiffs' daughter (Lakhbir Gurtata) who was residing with the plaintiffs had filed a police CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 77 of 93 complaint.The defendant No. 2 thereafter sought for a meeting to settle all disputes between the parties.This meeting was attended by this Lakhbir Gurtata, Mr. Bitu Bhalla [Queens Counsel], the defendant No. 2, Mr. Dhillon and Mr. Paul Lloyd.The instructions for attestation states that the signature has to be attested by a Magistrate, notary public etc. The share transfer forms do not have any attestation as required.v) In the statements of the defendant No. 2 recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in FAO [OS] No. 402 of 2009 in the order dated 18th August, 2011, the Division Bench had specifically recorded that defendant No.2 has an offer of Rs. 70 Crores for the said property.Therefore, the amount allegedly paid by the defendant No. 2 was essentially to themselves.On 17th August, 2011, an affidavit was filed by the plaintiffs.This undertaking was given much prior to the execution of these documents.This undertaking was on the basis of the fact that he was a majority share holder of the defendant No. 1 Company.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 78 of 93vi) In the suit, the plaintiffs had specifically asserted that said money allegedly paid to the plaintiffs has been taken over from the plaintiffs in various manners.The account statement showing the transfer of the said amount by the plaintiffs has been annexed.Further, the following amounts had been taken over by the defendant No. 2 by coercion etc. These amounts have been specifically reflected and details given in the suit.This amount along with another amount of Rs. 50 Lacs [totaling Rs. 2 Crores] was sent to Priyanka Garments.b. Defendant No. 2 took over 1 silver colour Mercedes Benz Car and 1 Honda Accord c. The defendant No. 2 had forced the plaintiffs to sell a plot of land in Nawabshehar, Punjab for a sum or Rs. 50.90 Lacs.This fact had been admitted by the defendant No. 2 in the transcript.d. The defendant No. 2 forced the plaintiffs to sell their Bentley Arnage car which had a market price of Rs. 1.25 Crores at a normal price of Rs. 50 Lacs.e. Apart from the aforesaid, a sum of Rs. 80 Lacs was transferred to the company account of the defendant No. 1 by the plaintiffs.vii) The application dated 13th March, 2012 stated to be filed by Mr. Gautam Awasthi, Advocate in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate is manipulated by the defendant No.2 as per statement.Thereafter, the said application has been filed with the application under consideration [i.e. Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC i.e. IA CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 80 of 93 No. 8723 of 2014 filed on 5th May, 2014].CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 80 of 93He was the lawyer engaged by defendant No.2 and was representing the plaintiffs in some cases when the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 were together.After the dispute between the plaintiffs and defendant No.2, Mr. Gautam Awasthi who was acting on the instructions of defendant No.2 instead of the plaintiffs.He was discharged as a lawyer by the plaintiffs.ix) In the complaint No 264 of 2008 before the Metropolitan Magistrate Gautam Awasthi was not the lawyer of the plaintiffs.From 8th September, 2010 Mr. Raj Kamal was the lawyer of the plaintiff.The cheque issued by defendant No.2 was dated 12th March, 2012 and only defendant No.2 was privy to the information about his account from the bank.xi) Prior to the application by Gautam Awasthi, in the suit as well as the criminal complaint, the plaintiffs had specifically challenged the execution of the said documents Memorandum of CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 81 of 93 Understanding dated 20th July, 2010 of first tranche.Therefore, the plaintiffs could not have instructed Mr. Gautam Awasthi to make such an application.Even Mr. Gautam Awasthi did not obtain any permission or instruction s from the Plaintiffs in this regard as the plaintiffs left India on 3rd October, 2011 and thereafter, the plaintiffs never had any interaction with Mr. Gautam Awasthi.Therefore, the application has been entirely engineered by the defendants.Both these documents had been issued only to defendant No. 2 Krishan Kumar and could not have been in the possession of a lawyer on the same date [i.e. 13th March, 2012] who is representing the plaintiffs.xii) The case before the Metropolitan Magistrate was listed on 27th September, 2011, when the following order was passed:-"Present: Counsel for the parties.Matter is stated to be settled before the Hon'ble High Court.Time is sought for quashing the same.Renotify on 08.03.2012"Thereafter, on 8th March, 2012, the matter could not be taken up and the matter was taken up on 12th March, 2012, when the following order was passed:-"File taken up today as 8/3/2012 was holiday.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 82 of 93Present None For purpose fixed on 6/6/2012"There was no occasion or no necessity for the plaintiffs to file any application.The sequence of events leading to the application clearly shows that application was filed on the behest of defendant No.2 who obtained a certificate from his Bank on the 13th March, 2012 and on the same date got the application filed from Gautam Awasthi.The said application was adjourned to 6th June, 2012 and no orders were passed on the said application by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the application was not even considered by the Court.In fact, Gautam Awasthi was not present.The order dated 6th June, 2012 is as follows:-"Present: Counsel for the complainant.Matter is stated to be compromised.Adjournment sought.Allowed for today only.At request, adjourned to 06.09.2012"xiii) Mr. Gautam Awasthi did not appear in the Court ultimately an application was filed by the lawyer of the complainant Ms. Aarti Sabharwal for withdrawal of the complaint.Thereafter, on 6th September, 2012, the statement of the complainant was recorded by the Court.The said statement is as under:-"Statement of Ms. Aarti Sabharwal complainant.CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 83 of 93WA This matter has been settled down in Hon'ble High Court.I want to withdraw the present complaint.The matter may kindly be dismissed as withdrawn."On the basis of the said statement, the Magistrate passed the following order on 6th September, 2012:-"Present: Complainant in person with counsel.Matter is stated to be compromised as stated by the complainant.Statement of the complainant to this effect recorded separately.In view of the statement so made today, the matter is dismissed as withdrawn as settled.File be consigned to record room."There was absolutely no occasion for Mr. Gautam Awasthi to mention the transfer of 24% of the shares in defendant No.1 Company.The Court as well as the complainant was only interested in the encashment of the cheque and that averment was enough.The application is neither supported by an affidavit nor the same was signed by the plaintiffs.xiv) The defendants had placed documents which are manipulated, forged, fabricated etc. One such instance is that the defendant had asserted that there was a board meeting held on 15th September, 2011 and in the said board meeting, the plaintiffs had resigned.The minutes of the Board Meeting were allegedly CS(OS) No.299/2012 Page 84 of 93 held on 15th September, 2011 and the resignation letter dated 16th September, 2011 was placed by the defendants.In view of the above said submission Mr. Phoolka submits that trial is imperative under these circumstances, the arguments of the defendants have no force.The prayer is made for cancellation of documents.The defendant No.2 had manipulated the said documents on blank papers and got them signed from the plaintiffs under coercion.The payment made by them have been returned to the defendants as per details.There is no specific denial by the defendants except vague denial.In any case issues in this regards have been framed.The statement about the Memorandum of Understanding has been mentioned in the application.It is apparent that the defendants have pleaded their defence on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding dated 3rd September, 2011 in the written statement.The subsequent agreements were allegedly executed on the basis of MOU.I have also considered the arguments of the learned Senior counsel for the parties as well as the pleadings and documents with regard to the second abovementioned trench.At this stage, I have to consider the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC filed by defendants No.2 and 3 as to whether the claim raised by the plaintiffs with respect to the shareholding of 24% with defendant No.1 is the admission on the part of the plaintiffs, in order to allow the prayer made in the application and consequently dismiss the suit of second trench.The plea raised by the plaintiffs requires trial.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The third appellant, namely, Om Prakash @ Bengali brother of the other two appellants Sunil Kumar and Om Babu @ Pappu expired during the pendency of the present appeal.The present appeal, therefore, has been pressed on behalf of Sunil Kumar and Om Babu @ Pappu.PW- 10/A. In the said complaint, name of the two appellants is mentioned.PW-10 and PW-12 in their Court deposition have clearly named the two appellants and that they along with Om Babu @ Pappu and a fourth person were present at Nehar Pul, 100 feet Road at a meat/kharora shop.PWs-10, 12 and the deceased had also gone to the said shop to eat kharoras.Altercation took place between them as appellant Sunil Kumar had asked kharorewala to serve him kharora first, which was objected to by Sunil.PW-10 and PW-12 have deposed that this led to scuffle between Sunil and deceased Tejpal.Om Prakash also joined and held the deceased by his neck (Gireban).The third appellant Om Babu, who had expired, caught hold of Tejpal by his right hand.SI Murari Lal (PW-14), the first Investigating Officer in the cross-examination was asked whether he had met Kharorewala on return to the spot, but he denied the said suggestion.He claimed that he did not come to know the name of Kharorewala even thereafter till 4th October, 1992, when investigation was taken over by the SHO.However, he has accepted as correct that some hawkers and rickshawalas used to stand around and in the near vicinity of the spot, but not always.Kharorewala used to reside somewhere in Maujpur, but he had not seen his house.PW-10 accepted that he came to know about Kharorewalas address during conversation on their earlier visits.He also accepted that they were two persons in the Kharorewalas Crl.A. 413/1998 Page 10 of 14 shop.One of them was the Kharorewala himself and other person was his helper, who used to wash utensils.For the said small cause/dispute, scuffle took place between Sunil and Tejpal.PWs-10 and 12 have deposed that Om Babu had joined in and caught Tejpal by his neck.By order of sentence dated Crl.A. 413/1998 Page 1 of 14 19th September, 1998, the two appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and fine of Rs.5,000/- each.In default of payment of fine, the appellants have to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.A. 413/1998 Page 1 of 14On the question of involvement of the appellants, we have testimonies of two eye witnesses Sukhbir Singh (PW-10) and Ved Prakash (PW-12).FIR was also registered on the basis of statement made by PW-10, which has been marked Ex.Thereupon, as per PW-10 and PW-12, Crl.A. 413/1998 Page 2 of 14 Sunil took out a knife from his right side pant pocket and gave 5-6 knife blows to Tejpal.These blows were given on the left shoulder, right shoulder and the chest.PW-10 remained at the spot and PW-12 went to call Arvind, who has appeared as PW-A. 413/1998 Page 2 of 14Three of them took Tejpal to GTB Hospital where doctor declared the injured as brought dead.Police came to the hospital and statement of PW-10 i.e., the complaint Ex.PW10/A was recorded, which is signed by PW-10. PW-10 has deposed that on 3rd October, 1992, he was summoned by the police.He along with Ved Prakash (PW-12) and police had gone to the house of Sunil.The two appellants Sunil and Om Babu @ Pappu along with Om Prakash were arrested while standing at the corner of the street.It may be noted that no recovery pursuant to the alleged disclosure statements was made.Two more persons, namely, Sanjay and Rajjan were also arrested and charge sheeted.Recovery of the alleged knife used is attributed to the disclosure statement made by Sanjay.Trial court has acquitted Sanjay and Rajjan by granting them a benefit of doubt.Trial court disbelieved recovery of the knife at the behest and pursuant to the alleged disclosure statement of Sanjay and has also doubted the use of the said knife in the offence.At this stage, we only record that the State has not Crl.A. 413/1998 Page 3 of 14 preferred any appeal against acquittal of Sanjay and Rajjan.Findings recorded by the trial court regarding the to knife will be examined subsequently.A. 413/1998 Page 3 of 14Arvind (PW-5) has deposed that on 2nd October, 1992 at about 8 p.m. he was present near Babarpur Terminal, when Ved Prakash (PW-12) told him that some persons were beating Tejpal.Thereupon, he went to Nehar Pul, 100 Feet Road and found Tejpal in an injured condition.They i.e. Arvind (PW-5), Sukhbir Singh (PW-10) and Ved Prakash (PW-12) took Tejpal to GTB Hospital, where the doctors declared him as brought dead.In the cross-examination, PW-5 has stated that Ved Prakash (PW-12) and Sukhbir Singh (PW-10) did not tell him the names of the persons, who were beating Tejpal.We do not think that the said assertion made by PW-5 in the cross- examination in any way negates the version given by PW-10 and PW-12 as to the involvement of the appellants as perpetrators.The reason is obvious as the name of the appellants are mentioned in the complaint Ex.PW10/A, which was recorded at 11.15 p.m. Statements made by PW-10 and PW-12 in framing the two appellants as perpetrators are credible and reliable.Our attention is drawn to the cross-examination of the first Investigating Officer SI Murari Lal (PW-14), who had deposed Crl.A. 413/1998 Page 4 of 14 in the cross-examination that he did not seize clothes worn by the witnesses because they were not blood stained.It is highlighted that the deceased was taken to the hospital as per the version of PWs-5, 10 and 12 in a three-wheeler scooter and, therefore, in normal course there should have been blood stains on the clothes worn by them.It is accordingly submitted that PWs-5, 10 and 12 had not taken the deceased to the hospital.We are not inclined to accept the said submission, though there appears to be some lapse on the part of the first Investigating Officer in not seizing the clothes.DD No.18A was recorded at 9.25 p.m. and the aforesaid three witnesses met PW-14, SI Murari.There are several reasons and grounds why we should accept presence of PW-10 and PW-12 at the spot and that they along with PW-5 had taken the deceased to the hospital.PWs-5, 10 and 12 have deposed that they met the police officers in the hospital.Similar statement was made by PW-14, who has stated he met three of them in the hospital and thereafter they went to the spot in question.Thereupon, PW-14 recorded statement of Sukhbir (PW-10) at about 9.50/9.55 p.m. and the rukka was completed by 10.50/10.55 p.m. The ocular statements made by the said witnesses to the said effect, inspires confidence and does not deserve rejection for the aforesaid lapse by the Crl.A. 413/1998 Page 5 of 14 Investigating Officer in collecting their clothes in collecting their clothes.The version given by PWs-10 and 12 does not reveal any past history of enmity or prior history.As already noted above, name of the two appellants finds mention in the complaint Ex.As far as the injuries suffered by the deceased are concerned, his MLC has not been exhibited or proved.However, we have on record the post mortem report, Ex.PW8/A, which was proved by Dr. S.K. Verma (PW-8).He has referred to seven wounds on the body of the deceased including abrasions.There is also reference to five incised wounds and it Crl.A. 413/1998 Page 6 of 14 is indicated that cause of death was shock due to antemortem injury No.5 caused by a sharp edged weapon.The said injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature collectively and independently.Wound or injury No.5 was on the right side of the chest, above the right nipple and was about 9 cm deep.The exact details of the said wound, as per the deposition of PW-8, are as under:-A. 413/1998 Page 6 of 14"5. 1 stab wound places upside down of size 2.5 1.1" cms cavity deep placed in midclomicular line on right side chest enteriroly 6 cms above the right nipple and 8 cms lateral to midline going ertically backwards in the 2nd intercostals space cutting skin, intercostals muscles pkura and then entering into the anterior surface of upper lobe of right lung and coming out of posterior surface.Lung was collapsed.The wound was spindle shaped with an angle more acute then other.Total length of the wound was appr.9 cms.Blood was present in and around the wound.Both angles of the wound were acute."10. PW-10 and PW-12 have both deposed that the knife was taken out by appellant Sunil.However, as noticed above, the trial court in the impugned judgment has disbelieved the recovery of knife pursuant to the alleged disclosure statement of accused Sanjay, who was acquitted giving the following reasons:-It was next argued by the ld.I do not think it can be said to be any safe place for someone to hide or dispose of the knife, particularly when its handle is visible- being above the ground and the grass.It was a fact which could be known to any person, recovery point being freely accessible and a place which was frequently visited by nearby residents and other persons.A. 413/1998 Page 8 of 14 importance to this recovery as this knife does not connect, in any particular and specific way, its having been used in the crime as the CFSL report failed to analyse the blood group seen thereon.The opinion given by the Doctor, who conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased and also examined this knife and the cuts mark found on the clothes of the deceased, would also not be anyway material as far any links between knife Ex.P1 and the occurrence or any accused is concerned, since the opinion only reads that such cuts could be caused by a knife of the given type, and, we can take a general note that knife Ex.P1 cannot be the only knife of its kind and therefore I do not see that prosecution can got any benefit out of the recovery of this knife at the alleged instance of accused Sanjay.I may also add here that even in case there had been no recovery of the weapon of offence then also a benefit, otherwise, could not have gone to any of the accused as non-recovery of the weapon of offence, other evidence remaining acceptable, cannot be considered fatal for the prosecution.A. 413/1998 Page 7 of 14A. 413/1998 Page 8 of 14The Kharoewala had a fixed and permanent place where he used to station his rehri on the patri.PW-12 too accepted that Kharorewala was present at the shop at the time of incident.A. 413/1998 Page 10 of 14He has not deposed and referred to any inquiries or attempt made by him to locate the Kharorewala and record his statement.The aforesaid aspect becomes relevant as knives are normally kept and used at meat shops.It is apparent from the testimonies of PW-10 and PW-12 that there was no pre meditation and the appellants did not have any earlier history of quarrel with Tejapal.The appellants and Tejpal happened to be at Kharorewalas shop to eat cooked meat/kharoras.Tejpal had demanded that he should be served first, which was objected to by Sunil.Sunil had taken out a knife from his pocket and stabbed Tejpal.PW-10 and PW-12 averred and stated that they remained spectators and did Crl.A. 413/1998 Page 11 of 14 not participate or prevent injuries being inflicted to Tejpal.A. 413/1998 Page 11 of 14We are not inclined to accept the contention of the appellants that the aforesaid version given by PW-10 and PW-12 appears to be an exaggeration and may not reveal the exact and true nature of the actual occurrence.We have some doubts whether we should accept the testimonies of PW-10 and PW-12 regarding the fact whether Sunil was carrying a knife in his pocket.As per the police version, length of knife in question was about 9.5 inches including blade of 3.9 inches as mentioned in Ex.PW-10/K. It is possible, as pleaded and submitted, that knife may have been picked up from the spot itself.It may be noted that no recovery pursuant to the alleged disclosure of the two appellants was effected.As noted above, the trial court has disbelieved recovery of knife pursuant to the disclosure statement made by Sanjay, who has been acquitted.The witnesses PW-10 and PW-12 remained unhurt and were not touched.Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, we are inclined to accept the contention of the appellants that the occurrence in question was result of a sudden fight or quarrel and not due to pre meditation and prior planning.In the heat of passion, while grappling was going on, injuries were caused.There was only one major injury which had resulted in death of Tejpal.In these Crl.A. 413/1998 Page 12 of 14 circumstances, we apply Exception 4 to Section 300 and convert the conviction of appellants from Section 302 IPC to Section 304, Part-I.A. 413/1998 Page 12 of 14The last question relates to quantum of sentence.Tejpal had died as a result of the injuries caused.Appellants Om Babu and Om Prakash were also released subsequently, pursuant to the order of suspension of sentence dated 12th May, 2003, wherein it is recorded that they had undergone imprisonment of almost 5 years in jail.This order was followed by another order dated 27th May, 2003, by which the amount of surety, which was required to be furnished for bail, was reduced.This shows that the appellant Om Babu had remained in jail at least till 27th May, 2003, though it appears that he was granted bail during trial.A. 413/1998 Page 13 of 14The appeal is accordingly disposed of.SANJIV KHANNA, J.

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

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

Respondent No.1 herein are the original complainants who havefiled separate complaints against the Petitioners in the Court of Chief JudicialMagistrate, Nashik.It is submitted across the bar that the facts involved in allthe above Writ Petitions are similar.Therefore the Petitioners who are seeking discharge have to point out beforethe Court that there is no ground to frame charge against them and thematerial produced by the complainants is not sufficient to rope the Petitionersinto the case.Therefore the Petitioners have filed application before thelearned Magistrate for discharge on the ground that Accused No.5 has givenundertaking to the complainants that he has accepted the money from thecomplainants and utilized the same for his personal use, and therefore, in viewof the said undertaking given by Accused No.5, Petitioner No.1 Company andits office bearers need to be absolved from the responsibility of the amount ofcomplainants.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:09 :::12 A question that is posed by way of the above Writ Petitions beforethis Court is, whether the Petitioners are entitled for discharge, firstly on theground that at the time of alleged incident Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were notoffice bearers of Petitioner No.1 Company and therefore they cannot be heldresponsible for the activity of the company, and secondly, whether AccusedNos.1 to 4 can be held equally liable for the alleged offence oflgc 13 of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:09 ::: wp-845.04&ors.odtmisappropriation of amount and cheating committed by Accused No.5.13 In the context of the aforesaid question, it is necessary to revisitthe facts of the case.It appears that Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 werethe chairman and director of Petitioner No.1 company when the process ofdepositing the money under the said Scheme run by Petitioner No.1, wasstarted.As indicated herein above, the fact that Accused No.5 was appointedby Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 as the Branch Manager of Petitioner No.1, and thework assigned to Accused No.5 was to solicit and promote the deposits schemeconducted by Petitioner No.1 Company, was not disputed by the Petitioners.ALONG WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.846 OF 20041] Manipal Soubhagya Nidhi Ltd. ] Manipal House, Manipal-576 119, ] State of Karnataka. ] ]2] Shri K. K. Pai, aged about 83 years ] Manipal House, Manipal, ] Karnataka ] ]3] Mr. T. Narayan Pai, ] aged about 64 years, ] Manipal House, Manipal ] Karnataka. ]..... Petitioners.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:09 :::Mr. M K Kocharekar for the Petitioners in all the Petitions.A R Patil, APP for the Respondent/State.Reserved on : 18th June 2019 Pronounced on : 10th October 2019COMMON JUDGMENT :1 The above group of Petitions have been filed by the Petitioners,who are original Accused Nos.1 to 3, challenging the order of issuance ofprocess dated 17/12/1999, order dated 11/09/2001 rejecting their dischargeapplications and, the order dated 17/01/2003 dismissing their RevisionApplications.In all the Writ Petitions the Petitioners aresame and, Respondent No.1 - original complainants are different who havefiled separate Criminal Complaints against the Petitioners.Respondent No.1 -original complainants have filed separate Criminal Complaints against thePetitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 405, 406, 419, 420,425, 426 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Therefore, by consent of thelearned counsel for the parties, all the Writ Petitions are heard together andbeing disposed of by this common judgment, and Writ Petition No.845 of 2004is treated a s a lead matter.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:09 :::2 This Court (Coram : A S Aguiar, J) by order dated 03/09/2004 hasalready issued Rule in all the Writ Petitions.3 All the Writ Petitions take an exception to the order of issuance ofprocess dated 17/12/1999 passed by the learned Magistrate, 3 rd Court, Nashikin the aforesaid criminal cases and, the order dated 17/12/2003 passed by thelearned IInd Ad-hoc Addl.District Judge, Nashik in the Revision Applicationsfiled by the Petitioners against the order dated 11/09/2001 passed by 5 th Jt.Civil Judge, Junior Division & JMFC Nashik rejecting their dischargeapplications.4 The facts giving rise to filing of Writ Petitions, can in brief, bestated as under :-The Complainants are employed with M/s. Polymer Products,Satpur, Nashik.The Petitioners are arraigned as Accused Nos. 1 to 3 alonglgc 5 of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:09 ::: wp-845.04&ors.odtwith other accused in the Criminal Cases filed by the Complainants.Petitioner No.1 is a public limitedcompany.Petitioner No.1 Company is conducting and running various types ofdeposit schemes while Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were the Chairman andManaging Director of Petitioner No.1 Company respectively.It is alleged in theComplaints that the whole affairs of Petitioner No.1 company are controlled,supervised and regulated by Petitioner Nos.2, as also the appointments,terminations, settlements and other police decisions are taken by the PetitionerNos.2 and 3 for and on behalf of Petitioner No.1 company.Original AccusedNo.4 is the present Branch Manager who is looking after the business activitiesand all other financial activities of Nashik Branch of Petitioner No.1 Company.Thecomplainants learnt that the proprietor of M/s. Polymer Products have alsoinvested and deposited huge amount with Accused No.1 Company.It is allegedby the complainants that original accused No.5 used to visit their premises forsoliciting and promoting deposit scheme of Accused No.1 Company.Thecomplainants deposited an amount of Rs.19,000/- each by cash with accusedNo.5 for fixed deposit in Sowbhagya Nidhi Cash Certificate Scheme.AccusedNo.5 after receiving the cash issued acknowledgment receipt of Rs.19,000/-,lgc 6 of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:09 ::: wp-845.04&ors.odtand assured that the original certificates will be issued after receipt of the samefrom the Head Office.The complainants thereafter continuously followed upthe matter with Accused No.5, however, on every occasion Accused No.5 hasgiven some excuses.In the month of March 1998, Accused No.5 in thecapacity of Branch Manager of Accused No.1 Company, has given in writingthat he has received Rs.95,000/- in total from the complainants, however, hehas failed to deposit the said amount in the books of account of the Company.Thereafter on 16/03/1998 the Complainants issued letter to Accused No.1Company.In spite of the said letter, Accused No.1 Company neither initiatedaction against Accused No.5 nor did it issued certificates to the complainants.Even Accused No.1 Company did not reply the letters, reminders, fax,messages sent by the complainants.Thereafter on 02/04/1999 thecomplainants issued legal notice to all the Accused.According to thecomplainants, it was the duty of Accused Nos.1 to 4 to verify the records of theCompany and issue certificates to the complainants and to recover the amountfrom Accused No.5 who has falsely misappropriated the amounts and cheatedthe complainants.Therefore the Complainants have filed theCriminal Complaints against all the accused for the offences punishable underSections 403, 405, 406, 419, 420, 425 and 426 r/w 34 of the Indian PenalCode.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:09 :::5 It appears that on the basis of the allegations made in theaforesaid complaints and after recording statements of complainants, thelearned Magistrate by order dated 17/12/1999 issued a process against thePetitioners and other Accused.The Revision Applications filed against the saidorder came to be dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Nashik, by order dated14/09/2000 and confirmed the order of issuance of process against theAccused.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:09 :::Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking discharge before thelearned Magistrate.Accused No.5, by letter dated 07/02/2001 addressed to the Complainants,admitted that Accused No.5 utilized the said amount for his personal purposeand requested time to refund the amounts.According to the Petitioners, by thesaid letter Accused No.5 has admitted his guilt.It is stated that thecomplainant did not make out a prima facie case against the Petitioners.Therefore Petitioners prayed for their discharge from the offences.7 The learned Magistrate after hearing the learned counsel for theparties and perusing the material on record, found that all the Accused areliable for the affairs of the Company, and prima facie case is made out againstAccused Nos. 1 to 3 i.e. the Petitioners herein.The learned Magistrate,therefore, by order dated 11/09/2001 rejected the discharge applications ofthe Petitioners.8 The Petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 11/09/2001passed by the learned Magistrate, preferred Revision Applications before theCourt of 2nd Ad-hoc Additional District & Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:09 :::The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by order dated 17/01/2003 dismissedthe Revision Applications of the Petitioners.Hence these Petitions.9 Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned APPfor the Respondent/State.The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits thatthe charge against the Petitioner is groundless and the material produced bythe complainants discloses that the Petitioners are unnecessarily roped into thecase.He submits that, Accused No.5, by letter dated 07/02/2001 addressed tothe complainants, has admitted to have accepted the money from thecomplainants and utilized the said amount for his personal use, and he hasgiven undertaking to that effect.It is submitted that the said undertakinggiven by Accused No.5 absolves Accused No.1 Company and its office bearersfrom any responsibility about the money of the complainants.It is furthersubmitted that Petitioner Nos.2 and 3, being the office bearers of Accused No.1Company, cannot be held responsible for the activity when they were not theoffice bearers of the company at the relevant time.It is also submitted that thePetitioners nowhere connected for the alleged offences and no role isattributed to them.Petitioner No.2 has resigned on 25/06/1998 from theChairmanship of Accused No.1 Company and, in the year 1999 thecomplainants have filed the complaints.The reply sent to the legal notice dated03/04/1999, the Petitioners informed the complainants that Petitioner Nos.2and 3 are no more chairman or director of Accused No.1 company, and,lgc 10 of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:09 ::: wp-845.04&ors.odtAccused No.5 has not deposited any amount collected from the complainantswith the Accused No.1 company.He therefore prays that the writ petitionsmay be rejected.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:09 :::(2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.When accused shall be discharged.(1) If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him.Considering the aforesaid provision, the stage of discharge comes after theprosecution leads evidence on the complaint filed against the accused.Itis also not in dispute that Accused No.5 in the capacity of Branch Managercollected amount of Rs.19,000/- from each of the five Complainants i.e. totalamount of Rs.95,000/- as and by way of fixed deposit in Sowbhagya NidhiCash Certificate Scheme.Accused No.5 also passed and acknowledge thereceipt of Rs.19,000/- in favour of the complainants.However, Accused No.5did not issue the certificates on the pretext that the said certificates will beissued after receipt of the same from the Head Office of Petitioner No.1Company.Accused No.5 gave in writing that in the capacity of the BranchManager of Petitioner No.1 Company he has received Rs.95,000/- from theComplainants and he has failed to deposit the said amount in the cash book oflgc 14 of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:09 ::: wp-845.04&ors.odtthe Petitioner No.1 Company.Thereafter complainants sent reminders andlegal notice to all the Accused.The complainants also requested Accused Nos.1to 4 to verify the records of the company and issue certificates.Accused No.5being an employee of Petitioner No.1, the complainants also requested thePetitioners to take action against him for his wrongful acts done during thecourse of his employment.It is clear from theaverments of the complaints that the amount handed over to Accused No.5 bythe complainants not in his personal capacity but as an employee of PetitionerNo.1 Company.It can be said that the undertaking given by Accused No.5 hasbeen given on behalf of Petitioner No.1 and its office bearers in the capacity ofits employee, and not in his personal capacity, and therefore, Petitioner No.1and its officer bearers cannot be absolved from penal liability because AccusedNo.5 collected the amount in the name of Company.The learned Additional Sessions Judge hasrightly come to a conclusion that the allegations against the accused companyand its office bearers cannot be said to be groundless, and therefore, theundertaking given by Accused No.5 is required to be tested on basis ofevidence that has to be produced during trial to find out its evidentiary value.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly recorded the finding that atthis stage it cannot be said that Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are not concerned with theactivity of Accused No.1 in view of the said undertaking.14 Now coming to the next submission of the learned counsel for thePetitioners that Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were not the office bearers of PetitionerNo.1 Company and therefore they cannot be held responsible for the activity ofthe company.The complainants have specifically alleged that Petitioner Nos.2and 3 i.e. original Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were made party to the complaints inthe capacity of Chairman and Managing Director of the company respectively.Accused Nos.4 and 5 were made party in the capacity of Branch Manager andEx-Branch manager respectively of Manipal Finance corporation Limited.The learned AdditionalSessions Judge therefore did not deem it appropriate to interfere with theorder passed by the learned JMFC and accordingly dismissed the Revision filedby the Petitioners.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:09 :::15 A useful reference could be made to the recent judgment of theSupreme Court in the matter of Sau Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar 2 wherein theSupreme Court has taken a view that quashing the criminal proceedings iscalled for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, oris frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive.Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the said2 AIR 2019 SC 847lgc 18 of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:09 ::: wp-845.04&ors.odtJudgment are relevant and the same are reproduced herein under for the sakeof ready reference :-::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 02:31:09 :::

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This is an appeal directed against the judgment dated 21 st October 2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.2/2013 arising out of FIR No. 212/2012 registered at Police Station (PS) Chhawla convicting the Appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.This appeal is also against the order on sentence dated 30th October 2013 whereby the Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for six Crl.A. 123/2014 Page 1 of 12 months for the offence under Section 302 IPC; and to undergo RI for three years with a fine of Rs.3,000/-, and in default to undergo SI for two months for the offence under Section 201 IPC.The sentences were directed to run concurrently.The case of the prosecutionA call was received at the Police Control Room (PCR) at 5:18 am on 20th September 2012 from Suresh Kumar (PW-1), brother of the Appellant, regarding a theft having taken place in their residence.The PCR form (Ex.PW16/A) records that the PCR team reached the place at 5:38 am where they found the dead body of the deceased and household articles lying scattered around.At 6:36 am there is an entry in the right column of the PCR form to the effect that the brother of the husband of the deceased informed the police that they found his sister-in-law dead on the bed.There is another noting to the effect that the husband of the deceased, the Appellant herein, did not saying anything.The brother of the Appellant however told the police that chilli powder was thrown into the eyes of both the deceased and Appellant.It appears that the Appellant himself was also taken for medical examination, apart from the deceased.His MLC (Ex. PW-6/B) reveals that he was brought to the Rao Tula Ram Memorial Hospital, Jaffar Pur, New Delhi at 7:34 am at 20th September 2012, where he was examined by Dr. Satish Chandra Yadav (PW-6).He did not find any external injury on the body of the Appellant.He however called the eye specialist since chilli powder was mentioned in the case but no injury was found in the eyes of the Appellant by the eye specialist.The eye specialist Dr. Rahul Shah (PW-7) also found chilli powder present in the face but no congestion/redness in the eyes.He found as many as 10 external injuries.He purportedly gave a disclosure statement (Ex.PW- 20/F) admitting to having murdered the deceased and also disclosed that he could get the tape used by him recovered.The Appellant purportedly got one roll of brown colour adhesive tape from under the construction area of the same plot where the house was located.A. 123/2014 Page 1 of 12It must be noted at the outset that the Appellant was charged with the offences under Sections 498 A IPC and 304 B IPC but acquitted of those offences by the trial Court.The charge against him under Section 302 IPC for having committed the murder of his wife Shama (the deceased) by smothering on 20th September 2012 at an unknown time in their house at House No. 217, near Harijan Chaupal, Deen Pur Village, New Delhi was an alternative charge.The Appellant was also charged with causing the evidence of the commission of the offence to disappear thereby attracting the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.The occupants of the house feigned ignorance of what had happened.An ambulance was called there to take away the deceased.A. 123/2014 Page 2 of 12The family members informed the police that they were asleep when they found the Appellant with his hands and feet tied with tape and a lady was found dead and blood was coming out from her mouth.In his opinion the cause of death was "due to Crl.A. 123/2014 Page 3 of 12 asphyxia following ante mortem smothering".There was no cross examination of this doctor.Consequently, the prosecution was able to prove that the death of the deceased was homicidal.A. 123/2014 Page 3 of 12According to the Investigating Officer (IO) Insp.Harender Singh (PW-26), when he reached the spot, the initial version given by the Appellant was that during the night, someone had tied his hands and when he tried to get up, that person had poured chilly powder into his eyes and therefore he was unable to see anything.According to the Appellant, the intruder also tied up his hands and legs and closed his mouth and eyes with the packing tape and as a result, the Appellant was not aware of what had happened in the house.When the IO made inquiries from the child Ayan (PW-22), he disclosed that the accused/Appellant himself had put the tape on the mouth of the deceased.This led to the Appellant being interrogated and arrested.A. 123/2014 Page 4 of 12The parents of the deceased also reached the spot and spoke to the IO and told him that the deceased was also being harassed for dowry.Since the death had occurred within seven years of the marriage of the Appellant and the deceased, the parents of the deceased were sent to the office of the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Najafgarh where their statements were recorded.The brown tape itself was sent to the Forensic Sciences Laboratory (FSL).Chance prints were recovered from the pieces of the tape found on the body of the deceased and these were compared with the specimen prints of the Appellant.The report of the FSL (Ex.PW-23/A) stated that the chance prints Q1 and Q2 were identical with the right middle and right index fingers marked S2 and S1 respectively on the finger impression slip of Latif @ Dallu s/o Neki Ram (accused).Evidence of the childPW-22, the child of the Appellant and the deceased was examined in the Court on 17th August 2013, where the trial Judge first satisfied himself that he had sufficient maturity to understand the questions that were going to be put to him.He was however not administered an oath as he was only four years old.The transcript of this evidence reads as under:"Q Where are you residing now a days?I am residing with my maternal uncle.Q What happened with your mother?A. 123/2014 Page 5 of 12(witness kept mum).Q What was happened when you were present without mother and father in the house?Papa had placed tape on the neck of my mother, Q What was the colour of the tape?After seeing brown colour file child is stated tape was like the colour of file.Q. What was happened thereafter?I do not know.Q Had police met you after the incident? Ans.XXX By Sh.Umesh Kumar, Ld. counsel for the accused Q Do you know whether any thief had come to your house? Ans.No. Q Whether someone had beaten your father? Ans.Witness kept mum but shook his head in negative.Q Do you know the tape?It becomes of brown colour.It is wrong to suggest that one thief had come in the house and he had tide my mother and father and had robbed some articles from the house.Further, the attempt to suggest to the child that someone had come into the house, tied up Crl.A. 123/2014 Page 6 of 12 his mother and father and robbed articles from the house was clearly refuted by the child.The suggestion to him that he was not present in the house but was with his paternal uncle (which according to learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant should read as maternal uncle) was also denied by the child.Mr. Tamta referred to the depositions of both PW-1 and PW-2 who appeared to support the alternative theories submitted on behalf of the Appellant that on the intervening night of 19th/20th September 2012 someone had entered into their house, tied up the deceased as well as the Appellant, threw chilli powder in their eyes and then robbed the valuable articles before leaving.A. 123/2014 Page 10 of 12There were two defence witnesses examined, one was Mohan Lal (DW-1) who was a neighbour and is supposed to have been present when the police reached the spot.

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

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

Sri Mohammad Belal Advocate filed vakalatanama on behalf of the informant is taken on record.In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored.Order Date :- 6.8.2020 Akbar

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

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

as per rules.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicants have filed this first application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicants have been arrested on 24.03.2017 by Police Station Kampoo, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No. 78/2013 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss 419, 420 IPC and 3 /4 of M.P. Recognized Examinations Act, 1937 and further added sections 467, 468, 471 IPC.The applicants were granted bail by order dated 04.04.2013 passed by the trial Court but on account of enhancement of Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC applicant has yet again been arrested.The applicants have no criminal antecedents.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.

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

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

Shri Veer Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.D.K. Shukla, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.(ORDER) .07.2017 This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred to "the Code", has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 08.11.2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No.100/2001 by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, arising out of judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewa dated 11.05.2001 in Criminal Case No.190/1996, whereby the petitioner was convicted for offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs.400/-, with default stipulation.2: The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 03.05.1993 at about 07:30 a.m., when the deceased Duasiya Bai, aged about 60 years, was going from Village Gahira to Govindgarh, at that time petitioner-Surendra Kumar, who was driving his vehicle (jeep), bearing registration No.WB-40-A/2559, rashly and negligently, hit the deceased from behind, due to that, she succumbed to the injuries on the spot.On complaint of Bhaiyalal (PW/1), FIR (Ex.P/1) was 2 registered by the police against the petitioner and after completing the investigation, police has filed charge sheet against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC before the concerned Magistrate.3: During course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the petitioner.After examining the petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., opportunity was also given to him to lead defence evidence for which he denied.While examining the petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he stated that he is innocent.In defence, two witnesses, namely, Dharmendra Tamrakar (DW/1) and Janki Prasad Vishwakarma (DW/2) were examined.4: After considering the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, the petitioner was found guilty for causing death of deceased Duasiya, by driving of said Jeep bearing registration No. WB-40-A/2559 rashly and negligently and he was sentenced to undergo one year's R.I. with fine of Rs.400/-, in default whereof, to further undergo 2 months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of the Act.5: Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 8.11.2002, passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Rewa, by which the appeal preferred against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewa, was dismissed, this revision petition has been filed praying for setting aside the judgment and order of sentence dated 11.5.2001, passed by learned Magistrate, Rewa and judgment dated 8.11.2002 passed by the Addl.Sessions Judge, Rewa, and acquittal of the petitioner for the aforesaid offence.The prosecution witnesses inter alia stated that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, but failed to prove the decree of rashness and negligence by strong evidence.10 : I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.11 : In the present case, the important witnesses are Bhaiyalal (PW/1), Indralesh Tripathi (PW/5) and Babadeen (PW/6), who are the eye witnesses of the incident and they have stated accident took place before them.They have further stated that petitioner was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and due to which accident occurred, deceased was hit by the said offending Jeep.They further stated that petitioner did not take any care or caution, and due to which accident occurred.Deceased was hit by the said offending Jeep from back side.Petitioner did not stop the jeep, therefore, deceased succumbed to the injuries.12 : Dilip Kumar Nigam (PW/4) has stated that he reached on the spot after occurrence of the accident and saw that dead body of deceased was lying there and persons gathered there told that accident was caused by petitioner-Surendra Kumar.Thereafter, he went to police station Bhaiyalal (PW/1) for lodging report.ASI Y.S. Dwivedi (PW/8) has stated that during investigation, after reaching at spot, he prepared inquest memo of the dead body of Duasiya vide Ex.P/2 and sent the dead body for postmortem vide Ex.P/7 duly signed by him.He also stated that he had prepared the spot map and seized the said offending vehicle bearing registration No. WB-40-A/2559 from the petitioner vide Ex.Raghunandan Prasad (PW/3) has supported the version of ASI, Y.S. Dwivedi (PW/8), and stated that inquest memo of the dead body of the deceased Ex.P/2 was prepared by him and he had signed the 5 same.On some points, some witnesses have been declared hostile and have been cross-examined at length, but nothing have come out in support of defence.13 : From perusal of statements of aforesaid prosecution witnesses, it stands proved that the said jeep driven by the petitioner had hit the deceased and due to that deceased succumed to the injuries on the spot and further that the petitioner was driving it in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased Duasiya.At the stage of revision, meticulous examination of the material on record need not be undertaken.The submissions made before this Court were also made before the Courts below and have been duly considered in the impugned judgment.

['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.

This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with the order passed in J1/PR/59/99 dt.15.11.99 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the applicant into service with all consequential service and monetary benefits.After appointment, the petitioner was serving as Driver Police Constable in the District Armed Reserve, Coimbatore District.There was also two days holiday permission.He was to report duty on 26.11.98 but he did not report to duty on that date.Though he states that he did not report to duty since he fell ill, the real reason was that a criminal case was registered on 19.09.98 against him in Crime No.227 of 1998 on the file of the Karamadai Police Station for the offences under Section 392 of IPC.The petitioner avoided arrest and therefore he did not report to duty.He was later granted bail by this Court on 20.08.1999 with a condition that he should reside at Salem and report before the Salem Town Police Station every Monday and Wednesday.In the meantime, the petitioner was issued with charge memo dated 01.05.1999 under Rule 3 (b) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service (D&A) Rules, 1955 alleging two charges.(a) The first charge was that, on 19.09.1998 at 8.00 p.m. the petitioner alongwith three others came in an Ambassador car and intercepted a Jeep and committed robbery of Rs.1,31,000/- from one A.Venkatachalam who travelled in the jeep.It was also alleged that the petitioner and others pushed the said Venkatachalam from the car and took away the cash of Rs.1,31,000/-.It was further alleged that a criminal case was registered in Crime No.227 of 1998 on the file of Karamadai Police Station for offences u/s 392 IPC against the petitioner.The crux of the allegation was that he involved in the criminal case and caused disrespect to the department.(b) The second charge was that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from 26.11.1998 without intimation for more than twenty one days.The 2nd respondent was the enquiry officer.While the petitioner was confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore, the enquiry officer conducted enquiry at the Central Prison, Coimbatore on 12.07.1999 and nine witnesses were examined on the side of the department.The petitioner did not cross examine the witnesses and requested the enquiry officer that he could be allowed to cross examine the witnesses after he was released on bail but the enquiry officer did not give him opportunity to cross examine the witnesses.The petitioner was not able to produce his witnesses also since he was in custody.In these circumstances, the enquiry officer gave a report dated 20.09.1999 holding that the charges were established.The said report of the enquiry officer was furnished to the petitioner by the 1st respondent by enclosing the same alongwith his letter dated 27.09.1999 and his comments thereon was sought for.Ultimately, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the impugned order dated 15.11.1999 passed by the 1st respondent.The petitioner filed this writ petition (O.A.No.7724 of 1999) to quash the said order dated 15.11.1999 and for a direction to reinstate the petitioner in service with all monetary benefits.The respondents filed reply affidavit repudiating the allegations.It is alleged that on the basis of complaint of one Venkatachalam, a case in Karamadai Police Station in Crime No.227 of 1998 was registered under Section 392 of IPC against the petitioner and three others.The complaint was that, on 19.09.1998, the petitioner alongwith three others committed the offence of robbery of Rs.1,31,000/- from the said Venkatachalam who travelled in a jeep near Mettupalayam  Annur Road.The petitioner was dealt with under Rule 3 (b) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules in PR No.59/1998 for two count of charges.It is stated that since the petitioner surrendered before the Court and was remanded on 29.06.1999, communications regarding conduct of enquiry in PR No.59/1999 was served on the petitioner through Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore and the petitioner was given all opportunities to defend his case and he was allowed to cross examine the witnesses but he did not avail the opportunities.It is further stated that there is no bar to proceed departmental enquiry while there is a criminal case pending against him in Crime No.227 of 1998 on the file of Karamadai Police Station.7. Heard both sides.He had no objection to have a simultaneous departmental action alongwith the criminal case and his objection was to wait till he was released on bail.But the enquiry was completed while the petitioner was in jail.The venue of the enquiry was Central Prision, Coimbatore.Hence, the petitioner was not given real opportunity to defend the case.It was not his intention to remain absent.Since a false case was registered against him, he had no option but to remain absent as he was in jail and ultimately released on bail later.On 12.07.1999, eight witnesses were examined.Thereafter, a notice dated 04.08.1999 was given to the petitioner that the enquiry would be held on 04.08.1999 and two more witnesses would be examined.Accordingly, the enquiry was conducted at the Central Prison, Coimbatore on 04.08.1999 and two more witnesses were examined.Both on 12.07.1999 and 04.08.1999, the petitioner requested time for cross examination of witnesses after he was released on bail.While so, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 20.09.1999 holding that the charges were established.In the enquiry report, enquiry officer has stated that the petitioner came out of jail on 20.08.1999 and that he did not send any letter until 20.09.1999 giving his list of witnesses or any other information.That was the reason given for rendering his finding.Further more, even on 20.08.1999 the enquiry officer did not send notice to the petitioner asking him to avail him opportunity to cross examine the witnesses.On the other hand, the enquiry officer has stated in his report that the petitioner did not send any letter giving the list of witnesses to be examined on his side.The Enquiry Officer held the charge against the appellant as proved.In view of the finding of the Enquiry Officer, as also the fact that the appellant had earlier deserted the force on three occasions and absented himself from duty on two occasions, the disciplinary authority, viz. the second respondent herein, passed an order of dismissal from service against the appellant.

['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Case diary perused.This is second anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant.First application M.Cr.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.603/2017, registered at Police Station Dindori, District Dindori, for the offences punishable under Sections 456, 354, 354-A(1), 354-A(2), 506 of IPC The allegation of the prosecution is that on 31.8.2017 at about 8:30 pm at village Padariya Chanta under the jurisdiction of Police Station Dindori, when prosecutrix aged about 40 years was in her house and talking with some other person on her mobile phone, then the applicant who is her brother-in-law (Dewar) had entered her house and had taken hold of her from the back side and pressed her breast with bad intention.When the prosecutrix made hue and cry, he had threatened her regarding her life.Afterwards the applicant had fled from there.Lateron the prosecutrix had narrated the incident to her sister-in-law (Jethani) Krishna Bai and other family members and also to her husband, who had reached there in the late night.In the next morning she had lodged report against the applicant.On that basis, the aforesaid offences have been registered against the applicant.The High Court of Madhya Pradesh M.Cr.C.No.2036/2019 (Dhruv Dhar Vs.State of M.P. ) 2 Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case.There is previous animosity of applicant with the prosecutrix and her family members.The applicant is a permanent resident of the address shown in the application and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be released on anticipatory bail.Learned Government Advocate for State has vehemently opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.The offence is of serious nature.Though the learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant had argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated on account of old animosity with prosecutrix and her family members, but no documentary evidence has been filed in support of the aforesaid submission.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the role of applicant and the gravity of offence, in the opinion of this Court this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.Consequently, this second M.Cr.C., for grant of anticipatory bail is dismissed.C.C., as per rules.

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

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

Item No. 48And In the matter of: Uttam Das & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Arnab Saha For the Petitioners Mr.Debajyoti Deb For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Falakata Police Station Case No.759 of 2013 dated 01.10.2013 under sections 363/365/354D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material.The allegation is that the Petitioner No.1, Uttam Das, kidnapped a 13 year old girl whom he used to stalk.Hence, his application for anticipatory bail is rejected.As regards the Petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4, Norottam Das, Anil Das, Kanchan Das, in our opinion, there is no need for their custodial interrogation in this case.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J.)

['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Respondent is the State of Maharashtra.::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2018 02:26:26 :::2. Facts leading to institution of this appeal are that - complainant Bhimabai Narayan Gode (PW-2) filed Criminal Complaint against original accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Contention of the complainant, in brief, is that her husband Narayan Raghu Gode used to live at Mauje Keli Kotul, Taluka Akola with his wife Bhimabai (PW-2).All accused are also residents of the same village.On 19.11.1997 at about 9.00 p.m. when Narayan Gode was returning to his home, that time on way accused Nos.1 to 5 intercepted him near Pemdara Percolation Tank which is near the house of complainant and started assaulting him by sticks.Hearing shouts of her husband, complainant Bhimabai (PW-2) rushed on the spot.However, accused Nos.1 to 3 also assaulted her.Thereafter accused left the spot while abusing and threatening the complainant.During this incident complainant and her husband sustained injuries.This appeal is directed by original accused Nos.1 to 3 in Sessions Case No.112/2000 against the order of conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (For short "I.P.C."), passed by Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge,::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2018 02:26:26 ::: (2) Cri.As no conveyance was available at night hours, on next day on 20.11.1997 complainant went to Police Outpost, Kotul with her husband.Narayan Gode lodged report to Police Outpost, Kotul against the accused persons.Complainant and her husband were referred to P.H.C. Kotul for medical::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2018 02:26:26 ::: (3) Cri.Appeal No. 701/2002 examination.Doctor examined them and issued Medico Legal Certificates (Exhs.25 and 26).However, police did not take any action against the accused persons.Police Outpost, Kotul was informed by brother-in-law of complainant namely Raghu Gode and Village Police Patil.However, police advised them to have last rites of the deceased, and therefore, on 29.11.1997 funeral of the deceased was done.However, thereafter police did not take any action against the accused persons.Therefore, on 09.12.1997 complainant filed private criminal complaint before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akole.::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2018 02:26:26 :::Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akole held inquiry and issued process against accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.Offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, this case was committed initially to the Sessions Court, Shrirampur and subsequently to Sessions Court, Sangamner.The then Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner franed::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2018 02:26:26 ::: (4) Cri.Appeal No. 701/2002 charge (Exh.14) against accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Contents of the charge were read over to the accused.They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2018 02:26:26 :::Complainant examined total five witnesses.However, accused Nos.1 to 3 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default rigorous imprisonment for two months.Therefore, this appeal arises.Heard Shri S.S. Wagh, Advocate holding for Shri S.T. Shelke, Advocate for the appellants and learned A.P.P. for the State.Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the testimony of Bhimabai Gode (PW-2) is not corroborated by evidence of independent witness.The learned trial Court erroneously convicted the accused persons.His next limb of the argument is that delay of one day in lodging F.I.R. is not properly explained by the complainant.::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2018 02:26:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2018 02:26:26 :::(5) Cri.Appeal No. 701/2002He points out that otherwise also at night hours independent eye witness would not be available.Therefore, non-examination of independent witness cannot be a ground to acquit the appellants.In the alternate, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that if conviction under Section 323 of the I.P.C. is confirmed, in that event, benefit of the provisions under Probation of Offenders Act may kindly be extended in favour of the appellants.Learned A.P.P. fairly conceded that no criminal history of previous conviction is on record against the appellants.In the case at hand, Bhimabai Gode (PW-2) is the sole eye witness as well as she is the witness who also sustained injuries due to assault by accused.Bhimabai (PW-2) being injured witness,::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2018 02:26:26 ::: (6) Cri.Appeal No. 701/2002 as per trite law, the testimony of injured witness cannot be discarded unless clinching circumstances have been brought on record by the defence.::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2018 02:26:26 :::After going through testimony of Bhimabai (PW-2) it emerges that she consistently deposed that in her presence accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulted her husband by sticks and when she tried to intervene, that time accused Deoram also assaulted her by stick.This witness has made it clear that her husband sustained injury on his head and limbs and she herself sustained injury on the left side of her cheek.From her testimony it emerges that on next day morning alongwith her husband she visited Police Outpost, Kotul and report was lodged.Police referred them to Primary Health Centre, Kotul for medical examination.However, thereafter police did not take any action.It is to be noted that in her cross-examination Bhimabai (PW-2) stood constant and only she has admitted that the spot of the incident is the rocky area and stones were lying there.Nothing could be elicited in her cross-examination to doubt her testimony.Even Medical Officer Dr. Gambhire (PW-1) corroborated the version of complainant, by deposing that on 20.11.1997::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2018 02:26:26 ::: (7) Cri.Appeal No. 701/2002 complainant Bhimabai and her husband Narayan Gode were referred to Primary Health Centre, Kotul for medical examination and on examination of Narayan Gode, he found (1) contused lacerated wound on forehead above right eyebrow of size 1/4th x 1/4th x 1/4th and (2) tenderness and limited movements around right shoulder.This witness has proved one contused lacerated wound on left maxillary region of size ½ x 1/4th x 1/4th of complainant Bhimabai (PW-2).According to this witness, these all injuries were sustained by Narayan Gode and Bhimabai Gode within 24 hours from the time of their examination and these injuries were simple in nature.He has duly proved injury certificates (Exhs.25 and 26) which corroborate the oral testimony of Dr. Gambhire (PW-1).::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2018 02:26:26 :::Thus, it is evident that the evidence of Bhimabai (PW-2) is fully corroborated by medical evidence.Dr. Gambhire (PW-1) has specifically denied that injuries found on the body of Bhimabai (PW-2) and her husband are possible due to fall on stone.Therefore, admission of Bhimabai (PW-2) that the incident occurred on rocky surface has become redundant.Therefore, I am fully satisfied that testimony of Bhimabai (PW-2) which is fully corroborated by medical evidence of::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2018 02:26:26 ::: (8) Cri.Appeal No. 701/2002 Dr. Gambhire (PW-1) and injury certificates (Exhs.25 and 26) as well as N.C. report (Exh.33) proved by A.S.I. Pandurang Dhamale (PW-::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2018 02:26:26 :::4), is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on above- said date, time and place accused Nos.1 to 3 in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused simple hurt to Narayan Gode and Bhimabai Gode (PW-2).As the incident occurred at night hours at small village like Keli Kotul, the delay of few hours for lodging report to Police Outpost, Kotul cannot be termed as "unreasonable inordinate delay".In the complaint itself, complainant has properly explained the delay.Accordingly my conclusion is that the learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.However, after going through the judgment of the learned trial Court, it emerges that rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each to the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. is certainly harsher punishment, because for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. this is the maximum punishment prescribed under law.At the relevant time of the occurrence the appellants were in young age and since last 16 years they are on bail and now they::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2018 02:26:26 ::: (9) Cri.Appeal No. 701/2002 would have attained middle age of their life.Therefore, I find no reason to send them in jail for commission of such simple hurt to the complainant and her husband.Therefore, by allowing this appeal partly, only the sentence imposed by trial Court deserves to be modified as under.::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2018 02:26:26 :::Hence, the following order.Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 2002 is partly allowed.Bail bonds and surety bonds of the appellants shall stand cancelled.( SUNIL K. KOTWAL) JUDGE vdd/::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2018 02:26:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2018 02:26:26 :::

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']

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