//
archives

Madurai

This tag is associated with 3 posts

Whether the offence falls under Section 304 Part II IPC and not Section 302 IPC = the manner in which the deceased was assaulted and the brutality of the assault shows that the accused formed an unlawful assembly with the object of killing the deceased. The blow landed on the deceased by Perumal had brought the deceased to the ground whereupon the accused continued brutalising the deceased with the help of stones, in the process crushing his head and squeezing his testicles. We have no manner of doubt that the nature of injuries caused to the deceased were clearly indicative of the accused having had the intention of killing him. The use of the words “with that he must go” by appellant No.2 is only a manifestation of that intention. 18. There is, therefore, no room for altering the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II, IPC as argued by the learned counsel. 19. In the result this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

published in   http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40749   REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1623 OF 2009 Shanmugam and Anr. …Appellants Versus State Rep. by Inspector of Police, T. Nadu …Respondent   J U D G M E N T T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated … Continue reading

Interpretation of a document whether it is will deed or settlement deed = Single Judge of Madras High Court in Second Appeal No. 1090/1983 and Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.8137/1983 whereby he reversed the judgments and decrees of the trial Court and the lower appellate Court and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant for partition of his 1/17th share in the suit property. = whether the trial Court and lower appellate Court rightly treated Ex. A-2 to be a Settlement Deed and the contrary finding recorded by the learned Single Judge of the High Court is legally unsustainable. A careful reading of Ex.A-2 shows that in the title itself the document has been described as Settlement Deed. = In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and those of the trial Court and the lower appellate Court are restored. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

 published in    http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=36122    REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6412 OF 2002 P.K. Mohan Ram ……Appellant Versus B.N. Ananthachary and others ……Respondents   JUDGMENT G.S. Singhvi, J. 1. This is an appeal for setting aside judgment dated 27.2.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge of Madras High … Continue reading

the plea of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’).= Another factor which goes against the appellant accused is that he himself was examined as a defence witness No.3. According to learned trial Judge, as a witness, he made his statement clearly and cogently and it was also observed that he was meticulously following the court proceedings, acting suitably when the records were furnished for perusal. The trial Judge has also pointed out that during the entire proceedings, the accused has nowhere stated that he was insane earlier to the date of incident. The trial Judge, after noting his answers in respect of the questions under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has concluded that the accused could not be termed as an “insane” person. – there is no evidence as to the unsoundness of mind of the appellant-accused at the time of the occurrence, namely, on 05.11.2001 and also taking note of the fact that the accused failed to discharge the burden as stated in Section 105 of the Evidence Act, we fully agree with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court.

Page 1     REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 926 OF 2009 Mariappan …. Appellant(s) Versus State of Tamil Nadu …. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T P.Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal has been filed against the final judgment and order dated 17.10.2006 passed by … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,884,472 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com