The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '913132',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
			'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
			'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
			'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '913132',
		(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '913132',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
		'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
		'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
		'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '913132',
	(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/913132/state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '913132',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
			'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
			'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
			'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '913132',
		(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '913132',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
		'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
		'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
		'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '913132',
	(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/913132/state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ection 11 (2): [b.n. agrawal, g.s. singhvi & aftab alam, jj] contribution due from employer payment priority given by section 11(2) held, the priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. any doubt on the width and scope of section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. this would mean that the priority clause enshrined in section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the act for ensuring that the.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '913132',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
			'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
			'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
			'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '913132',
		(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '913132',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
		'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
		'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
		'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '913132',
	(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/913132/state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '913132',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
			'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
			'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
			'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '913132',
		(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '913132',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
		'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
		'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
		'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '913132',
	(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/913132/state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. this criminal appeal under section 378(1) of the code of criminal procedure has been preferred by the state of madhya pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the first additional sessions judge, waraseoni district balaghat in st no.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of section 307 read with section 34 of ipc and section 324 read with section 34 of ipc.2. prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant d.p.mishra and accused arman khan. on 24/9/2003 vilas, manish and amit sons of complainant d.p.mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. in front of the house of accused arman khan, arman khan stopped them and started.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '913132',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
			'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
			'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
			'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '913132',
		(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '913132',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
		'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
		'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
		'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '913132',
	(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/913132/state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '913132',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
			'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
			'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
			'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '913132',
		(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '913132',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
		'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
		'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
		'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '913132',
	(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/913132/state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '913132',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
			'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
			'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
			'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '913132',
		(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '913132',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
		'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
		'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
		'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '913132',
	(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/913132/state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '913132',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
			'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
			'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
			'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '913132',
		(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '913132',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
		'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
		'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
		'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '913132',
	(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/913132/state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '913132',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
			'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
			'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
			'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '913132',
		(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '913132',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
		'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
		'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
		'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '913132',
	(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/913132/state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '913132',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
			'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
			'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
			'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '913132',
		(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '913132',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
		'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
		'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
		'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '913132',
	(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/913132/state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '913132',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
			'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
			'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
			'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '913132',
		(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '913132',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
		'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
		'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
		'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '913132',
	(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/913132/state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '913132',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
			'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
			'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
			'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '913132',
		(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '913132',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
		'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
		'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
		'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '913132',
	(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/913132/state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '913132',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
			'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
			'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
			'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '913132',
		(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '913132',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
		'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
		'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
		'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '913132',
	(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/913132/state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '913132',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
			'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
			'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
			'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '913132',
		(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '913132',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
		'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
		'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
		'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '913132',
	(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/913132/state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '913132',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
			'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
			'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
			'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '913132',
		(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '913132',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
		'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
		'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
		'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '913132',
	(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/913132/state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '913132',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
			'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
			'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
			'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '913132',
		(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '913132',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
		'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
		'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
		'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '913132',
	(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/913132/state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '913132',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
			'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
			'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
			'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '913132',
		(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Arman Khan and Others - Citation 913132 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '913132',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Section 378(1) ; <a href="/act/134294/the-indian-penal-code-1860-complete-act">The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;',
		'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.',
		'appellant' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others.',
		'casenote' => 'ection 11 (2): [B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi & Aftab Alam, JJ] Contribution due from employer  Payment  Priority given by Section 11(2)  Held, The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc., in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression all other debts in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the Provident Fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reasons why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts.In the instant case the Sugar Mill had pledged sugar bags with Bank as security for repayment of loan. The attachment and sale of these sugar bags for realisation of P.F dues was challenged by the Bank on ground that by virtue of the deeds of pledge executed by the Sugar Mills, the Bank had become owner of the sugar bags and the same could not have been attached and sold for realisation of the amount due under the Act.Held, in the contract of pawn or pledges the Pawnee/pledge has only a special property in the pledge but the general property remains with the pawner/pledgor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of debts. The right to property vests in the pledge only so far as necessary to secure his debt. Therefore, the deeds of pledge executed by the management of the Sugar Mills as security for repayment of loan etc., did not have the effect of transferring of the ownership of the sugar bags to the Bank and the Recovery Officer did not commit any illegality by attaching the same and the High Courts was fully justified in directing payment of a portion of the sale price to the Assistant Commissioner for being appropriated towards the Provident Fund dues of the workers. 

Section 11(2), 7-Q & 14-B: Provident Fund dues  Priority in payment over all other debts  Held, Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14-B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15 (2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17, Therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7-A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11 (2). It cannot be said that the amount of interest payable under Section 7-Q and damages leviable under Section 14-B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act, and cannot, therefore, be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment payable in priority to all other debts within the meaning of Section 11 (2). ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-09-28',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.</p><p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.</p><p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.</p><p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.</p><p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.</p><p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.</p><p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.</p><p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.</p><p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-</p><p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."</p><p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.</p><p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.</p><p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Arman Khan and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '913132',
	(int) 1 => 'state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/913132/state-madhya-pradesh-vs-arman-khan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '1. This criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19/12/2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat in ST No.30/2004, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. Prosecution case, in short, is that 3-4 days prior to 24/9/2003, some dispute took place between complainant D.P.Mishra and accused Arman Khan. On 24/9/2003 Vilas, Manish and Amit sons of complainant D.P.Mishra were going back to their house from a betel shop by motorcycle. In front of the house of accused Arman Khan, Arman Khan stopped them and started quarrelling. Accused Arman Khan, Salman Khan, Raju Chouhan and Samarjit Singh assaulted the victims Vilas, Manish and Amit with the help of sword, rod, sticks and kicks and fists. In the incident, Manish and Amit sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the hospital by one Anoop Choubey, neighbour of Arman Khan. Complainant D.P. Mishra, who received the information regarding the incident went to the spot and then lodged FIR at Police Station Waraseoni District Balaghat. Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) examined the injured Manish and Amit and prepared his report. He referred both persons to the District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) referred them to the Medical College, Nagpur.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The accused-respondents abjured the guilt, they took the plea that alleged victims Manish and Amit entered into the house of Arman Khan. They were armed with ballam and stick. Firstly, they assaulted the wife of Arman Khan and then started assaulting by ballam and stick to Arman Khan. In this incident, Arman Khan received grievous and dangerous injuries and the victims in order to save themselves got lodged a false FIR with the help of their father Shri D.P.Mishra.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that out of three victims, only Manish and Amit were beaten by the accused persons causing them simple injuries. However, it was held that assault caused on Manish and Amit was in furtherance of right of private defence. Injuries sustained by Arman Khan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant party was aggressor, hence the assault made on them was under the right of private defence and no offence against any of the accused persons was made out, therefore, all the accused persons were acquitted by the impugned judgment.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State in his submission tried to show that Manish and Amit sustained grievous injuries, whereas Manish sustained one incised wound over his left eye- brow caused by sharp cutting instrument and all remaining injuries to Manish were caused by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the State based his arguments on query report Ex.P-9 given by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5), in which he mentioned that injury No.2 was likely to cause death, because that injury was on scalp and had developed signs of head injury. There was profuse bleeding from superficial vessels of scalp. However, in cross examination Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his statement that he simply examined victim Manish at the time of primary treatment. He did not see any X-ray report of Manish and did not mention any symptoms of brain haemorrhage in MLC report Ex.P-5.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. Dr. Vijay Gandhi (PW-8) in his statement accepted that he discharged Manish and Amit from the District Hospital, Balaghat. The discharge tickets are Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13. According to him, at the time of their discharge, the condition of both the victims was normal. They were referred to the Medical College on their own request. No X-ray plate was submitted before the trial Court to show that Manish sustained any fracture on the skull. Under these circumstances Manish did not sustain any grievous injury and no symptoms of any brain haemorrhage were observed by any of the doctors, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot be accepted. The injuries sustained by Manish and Amit were simple in nature.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. The accused-respondents were present at the time of incident, though it was tried to show that Salman was not present at the spot and he was out of station, but by the document Ex.D-9 (counter FIR) it is clear that Salman was present at the time of incident. Complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) has claimed himself to be an eye- witness, but looking to his entire evidence, it is clear that when he reached to the spot, Manish and Amit were already taken to the hospital. However, the testimony of eye-witnesses i.e. Manish Mishra (PW-11) and Amit Mishra (PW-15) can be accepted, which was corroborated by the evidence of Girdhari (PW-12) and Anoop Choubey (PW-13). Their statements are also supported by the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant D.P.Mishra and injury reports Ex.P-5 and P-21, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-State can be accepted that the respondents have assaulted the victims Manish and Amit by various weapons.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the victims Manish and Amit were being assaulted by the accused persons (respondents herein), but the respondents are acquitted, because they were given the advantage of exercise of right of private defence. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the respondents were aggressor in the matter, and therefore, no such benefit could be given to them. However, he admits that no explanation was given to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 Arman Khan. Arman Khan sustained various fractures in jaw and face. He was brutally beaten and no explanation has been given to his injuries. In such situation, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Onkarnath Singh and others v. State of UP" (AIR 1974 SC 1550) is to be considered in the case. The relevant portion i.e. para 35 of the said judgment reads as under:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>"35. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinize their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused. But it cannot, be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self- defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises."',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not sufficient to say that since the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Arman Khan, and therefore, the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of right of private defence. However, the facts of the case may be examined in the light of above dictum. If it is accepted that the prosecution story is true, then it is clear that Vilas, Manish and Amit were unarmed and four accused persons were waiting to assault them, then how Arman Khan received injuries? If Manish and Amit assaulted the accused persons to save themselves, then there should be some injury to other accused persons viz. Samarjeet, Raju and Salman Khan. The complainant D.P. Mishra (PW-1) in para 24 of his statement accepted that accused Raju lost his one hand prior to this incident, and therefore, Raju was the easy target in the incident and he could have been over powered by Manish and Amit easily, but surprisingly he did not receive any injury. If we consider the story as mentioned in the FIR Ex.D-9 lodged by Usman Khan, then the injuries sustained by Arman Khan are clearly explained. Such grievous injuries caused to Arman Khan shows that Manish and Amit went inside the house of Arman Khan and assaulted him and in the meantime other accused persons came in the scene of crime and to save Arman, they started assaulting Manish and Amit. In this connection, the statement of Amit (PW-15) is to be considered, in which he in para 2 and 11, has deposed that no initial assault had been made on him. He laid over his brother Manish to save him and therefore he sustained few injuries.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The statement of this witness makes the situation clear that Manish and Amit went inside the courtyard of Arman's house and started assaulting Arman, then other accused persons entered into the scene of crime and they assaulted Manish to save Arman and thereafter assaulted Amit when he laid over Manish to save him. Amit sustained only three injuries, which are simple in nature by which it is clear that accused persons stopped further assaulting when Amit laid over Manish, which shows that the accused persons did not exceed the right of private defence. Under these circumstances, the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be correct. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

12. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged.

Subject	Criminal
Court	Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur High Court
Decided On	Sep-28-2010
Case Number	CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2008.
Judge	Rakesh Saksena ; N.K.Gupta, JJ.
Acts	Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Section 378(1) ; The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 324, 307 Read with Section 34 ;
Appellant	The State of Madhya Pradesh.
Respondent	Arman Khan and Others.
Appellant Advocate	Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.
Respondent Advocate	Shri Amit Dubey, Adv.

The State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Arman Khan and Others. - Court Judgment