Appeal against conviction under section 302 IPC – Killing husband by strangulation resulted in section 302 IPC – Registration of FIR – Appellant’s Side Submission – Respondent’s Side Submission – Confession Statement given to the VAO – Post-mortem Report – Conclusion And Order of this Court – Party.
Prayer – Crux of the case – Trial court’s order – Petitioner’s Side Submission -Respondent’s Side Submission – Criminal Revision Case – Criminal Original Petition – Observation of this Court – Section 44 PMLA is exception to section 190 Cr.P.C – Since there is no committal proceedings and hence section 202 (2) Cr.P.C does not arise – Procedure: Since there is no committal proceedings and hence section 202 (2) Cr.P.C does not arise.
Praying to register fir under section 302 IPC, change of investigation agency to CBI and further prayer for direction of appropriate compensation – Crux of the prosecution – Deceased was brought dead to government hospital and injuries found as antemortem in nature 3 to 4 days prior to the death – Second opined from Professor of forensic department as cause of impact over the head – Responsibility of the police while the citizen in the custody – State is responsible if the person in custody of police is deprived of his life – As per the Hon’ble Supreme court’s direction if the death takes place inside the police station the accused persons should be punished for the offence under section 302 IPC – Hon’ble Madras High court finds that the accused shall be punished under section 302 IPC and dependents of deceased are entitled for interim compensation as per section 357A Cr.P.C on the conclusion of trial – Directions.
Prayer – Crux of the case – Successive firs on the same incident not being a counter case cannot be sustained and not permissible under law – Complaint by second respondent.
Madras High Court after considering the facts has held that non-disclosure of impotency during marriage is an offence under sections 417 & 420 IPC and further directed the investigation agency to add offences in the fir.
Prayer Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. for setting aside a judgment. Accused acquitted of dowry death charges. The accused was prosecuted for dowry harassment upon his wife. she has committed suicide and thereby caused dowry death. Fact of the case is after a year of their marriage the appellant started constructing a house for which he demanded the jewels of his wife but the deceased refused to act upon the appellant’s wish. When P.W.1 (deceased mother) went to a private hospital the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. P.W’1 has heard the loud cry of the appellant/accused calling the name of the deceased. P.w.1 has preferred a complaint. Trial court after considering the prosecution witnesses and the documents convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him under sections 498A and 304B IPC but acquitted him from the offence u/s 306 IPC. Appeal court (Hon’ble Madras High Court) convinced that requesting his wife to give her jewels is for construction house that too after some years of marriage which is not in connection with the marriage. Further Madras High Court has held that the demand is only for advancing their life and such demand cannot be termed as dowry and set aside the order of conviction. MHC when acquitting the accused/appellant has further held that a moral conviction regarding the guilt of an individual has no place in criminal jurisprudence.
The Aadhaar Act allows for the disclosure of information in the interest of national security. This petition seeks details to verify the genuineness of Aadhaar cards for a criminal investigation which is allowed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court (principal bench)
Against the order passed by the Hisgh Court in a Writ Petition- No system of adoption of child in Mohammaden law. It is only Kafalah, in terms of which only custody can be given to another person, however, the child does not sever relations with biological parents – custody of a minor child in parens patriae jurisdiction – Time gap shows that the respondent No. 2 is not interested in custody of the child – Custody of the child cannot be given to the stranger- the custody of children is the welfare of children and not the right of their parents- when custody of the child was handed over to her, was un-married and is now married having two children will also not be a deterrent – the conclusion that best interest of the child still remains with the appellant No. 2 – Stability of the child is also of paramount consideration- appeal is accordingly allowed.
Head note: There is no infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court, The accused was convicted as per the evidence of the injured witness and the appeal is dismissed..
Head note: Prayer – Following Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd case – Conclusion: Crl.O.P dismissed.
Head note: Prayer – Fact – Trial Court order – Petitioner side Argument – Respondent Side Argument – Findings – Impact of fails to comply with the maintenance order of court – Attachment of salary is very much valid – Party.
Head note: Non-bailable warrant issued against absconding, accused police officials – accused aided in kidnapping and extortion and Seeking to issue an Non Bailable warrant for the investigation of the police officials under section 73 of crpc.
Head notes: Prayer – Fact – Petitioner’s side Argument – Respondent’s Side Argument – Reference with Supreme Court &High Court Cases – Finding & Conclusion – Madras High Court’s directions – All online final reports will be in compliance of rule.25 Cr.R.P 2019 – Magistrates shall not return the final report on the ground that reports are not enclosed – Direction to the registry to circulate to all criminal courts.
An article by Thiru. M.Karunanithi., Advocate, Madruai., (Special Public Prosecutor., CBI) & Member, Law Commission of India.
Head note: On the petition filed under section 482 crpc, the Hon’ble Madras High court has directed to run two sentences in two different cases concurrently. Hon’ble Madras High court has directed based on the previous judgment of the Madras High court Selvakumar Vs. The Inspector of Police, Seidhunganallur Police Station reported in 2018-2-LW(Crl)773.
Head note: Appeal & Prayer – Trial & Acquittal – Victim is the appellant – Case of the prosecution – Trial court judgment – Appellant Side contention – Respondent Side contention – Analysis by the High court – Application of law – Application of law in the present case: Attack made by the accused did not instigate the deceased – Law regarding setting aside the acquittal – Conclusion: Appeal dismissed.
Appeal – Appellant side submission – State submission – Hon’ble Supreme Court principles followed – Subsequent insertion in the complaint was not cross-examined – How to appreciate child witness? – Victim girl clearly identified the appellant – Prosecution proved the offence – Accused did not rebut the evidence.
POCSO Act and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act – re cross examination on victim – victim attained majority does not come under the definition of child.
Head note: Madras High Court – Sec. 482 petition – To conduct investigation and file final report – Madras High Court order on returning final reports – Direction
Sec. 482 petition – To conduct investigation and file final report.
Head note: Apex court: Appeal – Facts – Chargesheet does not contain necessary ingredients for the offence informed – High court must have exercised power under section 482 cr.p.c against the bald accusation – Bald statement against the accused that ‘they beat me up’ without supporting material does not cover section 323 ipc – Section 384 ipc ingredients not found in the charge sheet – Section 406 ipc ingredients not found in the charge sheet – Case quashed. Appeal allowed.
Disclaimer:
Contents of this Web Site are for general information or use only. They do not constitute any advice and should not be relied upon in making (or refraining from making) any personal or public decision. We hereby exclude any warranty, express or implied, as to the quality, accuracy, timeliness, completeness, performance, fitness for a particular page of the Site or any of its contents, including (but not limited) to any financial contents within the Site. We will not be liable for any damages (including, without limitation, damages for loss of business projects, or loss of profits) arising in contract, tort or otherwise from the use of or inability to use the site or any of its contents, or from any action taken (or refrained from being taken) as a result of using the Site or any of its contents. We shall give no warranty that the contents of the Site are free from infection by viruses or anything else which has contaminating or destructive user’s properties though we care to maintain the site virus/malware-free.
For further reading visit our ‘About‘ page.
© 2023 Developed and maintained by PAPERPAGE INTERNET SERVICES
Questions explained agreeable preferred strangers too him beautiful her son.
