Criminal Law

Criminal Law – III 1998
Time : Three hours
Maximum Marks : 200

Answer any FIVE questions but at least ONE questions from each part must be attempted.  All questions carry equal marks.

PART-A

Q.1.  The Forest Department had information about the operations of the Forest Mafia.  On the day of the occurrence Ram, a conscientious forest guard, caught X, Y and Z felling sal tress without permit.  Failing to escape, they confronted Ram and tied him with ropes.  After immobilizing Ram, X, Y and Z inflicted grave injuries on his legs and arms from the blunt side of a heavy wood cutting axe.  They used the blunt side of the axe for inflicting two injuries on the head as well.  Ram was found dead the next day.  the post-mortem report revealed that the death resulted on account of shock and brain concussion brought about by the head and limb injuries.
Discuss the offenice for which X, Y and Z can be prosecuted.
Q.2.  D, a girl of 16 years, was married to X by her father, F.  according to M, the maternal uncle of D, X was a poor match for the girl. Within the first three months of the marriage X started ill-treating and beating his wife.  Being fed up with X, D left his house saying that she would never return.  Two days later D reached the house of M and insisted that she would stay with him till X reconciles to her getting married to some other suitable boy.  M informed D's mother and brothers about the developments, but did not inform X nor told D to leave his house.  The police recovered D from the house of M.
Can M be prosecuted under Section 363?
Q.3.  A,B,C,D,E, F and G armed with lathis and spears go to K's field with the common object of taking its possession.  K and party resist and in the process A falls down unconscious because of a lathi blow on his head.  Finding stiff resistance, B runs away for good.  C leaves temporarily to fetch a gun from his nearby house.  But before C's return D had given a lathi blow with considerable force on the head of K causing his instantaneous death.  A is arrested on the spot after regaining consciousness along with C, D, E, F and G are arrested a week after the incident.
Can all the seven accused be prosecuted under Sections 302/149?  Can A and B held jointly liable for death caused by D under Section 302/34?
Q.4.  Kakkaji, a self-styled leader, was in league with a gang that was regularly smuggling sliver and other contraband goods out of the country.  On the fateful day, two vans left Kakkaji's residence at midnight, followed by Kakkaji in his car.  The vans had a consignment of silver bars and were destined for a creek on the seashore.  Customs officials followed the convoy of cars that stopped near the creek.  Just when half of the silver consignment had been unloaded from the vans and a mechanized sea-craft could be seen approaching the creek, the customs officials seized the vans and the silver consignment.  The accused was prosecuted for attempting to smuggle out goods in violation of the provisions of the FERA, 1947, Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1962, read with Section 511 of the Penal Code.
Can the accused be successfully prosecuted on the above facts?

PART-B

Q.5.  S, a shop owner, was murdered in his shop.  N, a salesman in the shop, was arrested after a fortnight of the incident.  N desired to make a confession in the course of the investigation.  A Judicial Magistrate took N to the murder spot and asked him a number of questions relating to the crime.  He recorded the substance of N's replies and subsequently at home recorded and signed the statement.
Is this confession admissible as a piece of material evidence in terms of Section 164?  Can the Judicial magistrate be permitted to prove the confession through his oral testimony?
Q.6.  G, a beautiful girl of 20 years, B, her brother aged 15, F, her father aged 70, U, her uncle aged 40, and N, her sister aged 25, are arrested for having committed kidnapping, extortion and murder (all nonbailable offences).  the apply for bail before a Metropolitan Magistrate.  F, being a cancer patient, makes a confession implicating all, including himself.
What principles are to be kept in mind by the court while considering the bail applications of the aforesaid accused?  Can bail be granted to all of them?  What is the power of the High Court and the Sessions Court regarding bail if the Magistrate refuses to grant one?
Q.7.  What do you understand by the doctrine of "autrefois acquit" and "autrefois convict"?  How does if ensure a fair trial?
X strikes B on the head with a lathi, causing a fracture.  X is tried on the charge under Section 325 Penal code before a metropolitan Magistrate.  The Court allows a composition under Section 320 Cr. P.C. and X is acquitted.  B subsequently dies and X is placed on trial before the Court of Sessions under Section 304 Penal code.
Can the trial validly proceed in terms of Section 300 Cr. P.C.?

PART-C

Q.8.  Under what provision of the Evidence Act are the following facts relevant.
(a)  The cries for help heard by the people residing around the place where the girl was raped.
(b)  A tape recorded conversation between the police officer and a party involved in a crime, concerning hushing up of the case.
(c)  The fact that A was absconding soon after the alleged crime.
(d)   A was in possession of many other stolen cycles at the time of the raid in his house for the theft.
Q.9.  A, B and C had entered into a conspiracy and committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the properties entrusted to them in their first term of the two years.  A, who managed to get an extension for a second term of two years, made certain alterations in the records with a view to screening the first term transactions of criminal breach of trust.
If the evidence of alterations made by A during the second term relevant for showing the involvement of B and C in the conspiracy?  What would you answer be if these alterations were made by A in the course of the first term, but before A, B and C had entertained the idea of the conspiracy?
Q.10.  A, B and C are alleged to have committed the murder of A's political opponent.  C, who did the killing, was arrested on the spot and detained separately from A and B.  In the course of the trial C turns an approver and gives detailed oral evidence regarding the planning, preparation and execution of the crime.  B has also made a confession more or less on the lines of C's testimony.
What are the legal rules relating to the evidentiary value of approver evidence?  Is there sufficient corroboration for the approver evidence in the present case?