IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rohit Arya, J.
Gyanchand Jain v. State of M.P.
Criminal Revision No. 404 of 2017 (I); Decided on 18.6.2018
(2) Penal Code, 1860 --S. 120B -- criminal conspiracy -- is agreement between two or more persons to commit offence -- mere proof of such agreement is sufficient -- however, same has to be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence or by both. (2011) 5 SCC 480 followed. [Para 7
(3) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 307 -- not necessary that injury capable of causing death should be inflicted -- guilty intention or knowledge with which act was done is necessary -- intention and knowledge are matters of inference from totality of circumstances. [Para 7
(4) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 27 -- statement of co-accused about conversation with accused on mobile phone -- led to discovery of phone call details -- is statement prima facie admissible -- still, prosecution has to show that recoveries are connected with crime. AIR 1962 SC 1788, AIR 1976 SC 483 and AIR 2010 SC 1974 followed. [Para 11
¼1½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 228 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 307 lgifBr /kkjk 120[k & Hkknal dh /kkjk 307 lgifBr /kkjk 120[k ds v/khu vijk/k ds fy, fojfpr vkjksi ds vfHk[kaMu ds fy, ;kfpdk & vkjksi fojfpr djrs le;&fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks U;kf;d :i ls fopkj djuk gS fd mi/kkj.k djus ds fy, vk/kkj gS fd vfHk;qä us vijk/k fd;k gS & fopkj.k U;k;ky; vfHkys[k ij lkexzh-lk{; dk lekykspukRed :i ls ewY;kadu djus ds fy, visf{kr ugha & vkjksi fojfpr djus okys vkns'k esa gLr{ksi dk dksbZ dkj.k ughaA ¼iSjk 7 ,oa 12
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 120[k & vkijkf/kd "kM~;a= & vijk/k djus ds fy, nks ;k vf/kd O;fä;ksa ds e/; djkj gS & ,sls djkj dk lcwr ek= gh i;kZIr gS & rFkkfi] bls izR;{k ;k ikfjfLFkfrd lk{; ls] vFkok nksuksa ls lkfcr fd;k tkuk vko';d gSA ¼2011½ ,l lh lh 480 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 7
¼3½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 307 & vko';d ugha fd e`R;q dkfjr djus ds fy, l{ke {kfr igq¡pkbZ tk, & ftl nks"kh vk'k; vFkok Kku ds lkFk —R; fd;k x;k] og vko';d & vk'k; vkSj Kku] ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh lexzrk ls vuqekfur fd, tkus okys fo"k; gSA iSjk 7
¼4½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 27 & vfHk;qä ls eksckby Qksu ij okrkZyki djus dk lg-vfHk;qä dk dFku & bl ij ls Qksu dkWy ds C;kSjs dk izdVhdj.k gqvk & izFken`"V~;k xzkg~; dFku gS & fQj Hkh] vfHk;kstui{k dks n'kkZuk gksxk fd cjkenxh vijk/k ls lacaf/kr gSA , vkb vkj 1962 ,l lh 1788 , vkb vkj 1976 ,l lh 483 rFkk , vkb vkj 2010 ,l lh 1974 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 11
1. This revision petition under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC, by an accused is filed seeking quashment of charge framed for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 120B IPC, on 8.2.2017 in sessions Trial No. 100/2016 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Rajednra Jaroli in an injured condition on 28.5.2016 at about 21.30 hours gave information at the Community Hospital, Neemuch to the effect that two unknown persons armed with pistol and an iron rod reached Jaroli complex where his shop was situated and inflicted injuries with an iron rod on the knee portion of both the legs as a result he fell down, however, caught hold the pipe due to which he sustained injury on the finger of his left hand and intentionally threatened to kill by extortion uttering filthy abuses. On hearing his scream, nearby people; Manish Napavaliya, Shailendra, Porwal, Manoj Napavaliya intervened to save him. On this, the miscreants fired bullet shots outside the shop in the air and fled away on a motorcycle. Accordingly, dehati nalishi was recorded at Crime No. 0/16. Thereafter, the injured was sent to the hospital for medical examination and treatment.
Based on the aforesaid information, FIR No. 279/2016 at 23.52 hours was registered by the Police Station, Neemuch Cantt., Neemuch for the offence punishable under sections 323, 294, 506, 452, 336 and 34 IPC.
During investigation, the complainant and his witnesses have suspected that the attack was due to previous enmity over land dispute situated in Uday Vihar Colony between the complainant and Virendra pal and Maulana resident of Akhepur and his associates with an intention to kill the complainant.
After receiving secrete information during the course of investigation on 4.6.2016, Yusuf s/o Mohd. Firoz Khan resident of Neemuch was interrogated.
The accused Yusuf in his statement under section 27 of the Evidence Act (for short 'the Act') has stated to have had frequent conversation with Virendra Pal and Gyanchand Dosi (the applicant) on mobile phone. The mobile phone was seized. The CDR of Yusuf and CDR amongst Virendra Pal, Gyanchand Dosi, Karan Nema were also obtained through the Cyber Cell. Yusuf has stated that conspiracy was hatched by Virendra Pal and Gyanchand Dosi. Virendra Pal sent the shooters Rajat, Tinu alias Vajahat resident of Muzafarnagar, Pankaj Patwa resident of Pratapgarh and others. Accordingly, the accused persons were arrested.
On further investigation and information gathered from the aforesaid accused persons, the shooters, viz., Rajat son of Manoharlal Chabada resident of Gandhi Nagar, Muzafarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, Tinu alias Vajahat Khan son of Mohd. Aslam Khan Rangrej, resident of Muzafarnagar, U.P., and their associates leader Bittu alias Gauravpal alias Buldog son of Shaymveer Singh Gadariya, resident of Muzafarnagar, U.P., were arrested with the help of the local police of the State of U.P., on 10.6.2016.
The fire arm and the iron pipe used for commission of the offence were recovered from the house of Virendra Pal situated at Pratapgarh. A few more accused persons on being named by them have also been arrested.
On the statements of Karan Nema, a mobile of Nokia company No. 7400572711, Rajat - one pistol and two live cartridges, Pankaj Patwa - red colour pulsar with registration No. RJ35 SK 6440, Hero Honda Passion with registration No. RJ12 SA 5363; Tinu alias Vajahat - one iron pipe were also recovered having direct bearing on the basis of the statements referable to the persons named therein as detailed in the final report.
As such, the prosecution on the basis of statements of the accused, the evidence of cyber call details, CCTV footage and other incriminating material as well as circumstantial evidence, the following accused persons have been arrested.
(i) Yusuf on 4.6.2016
(ii) Karan Nema on 4.6.2016
(iii) Gyanchand Dosa on 5.6.2016
(iv) Bittu alias Gauravpal alias
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.