Search Judgments

Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 2(h); Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 – Section 3; Hindu Succession Act – Section 8 – This case involves a dispute over the partition of property originally belonging to Navaneetham, the mother of the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff sought a 1/3rd share, claiming the property belonged to his deceased mother. The first defendant, the appellant, contested this, asserting that she purchased the property in her mother’s name and that her mother had bequeathed the property to her via a Will.

The Trial Court rejected the first defendant’s claims regarding the purchase and disbelieved the authenticity of the Will.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 324 and 302 – Appeal against acquittal – The appeal arises from a case involving a property dispute that escalated, leading to an assault on the deceased and his wife. The prosecution presented eyewitness accounts and circumstantial evidence, while the defense highlighted inconsistencies, delays, and the suppression of key evidence like the Uthiramerur Hospital accident register. The Trial Court acquitted the accused, citing reasonable doubt.

The High Court examined the evidence and considered the principles governing appeals against acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for compelling reasons to overturn the Trial Court’s decision.

Waqf Act, 1995 – Sections 46, 47, 48 and 65 – A Civil Revision Petition was filed challenging the order of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Tribunal, which had dismissed a petition challenging a resolution passed by the first respondent to bring Masjid-E-Farkundha under the direct management of the Waqf Board. The applicant/ Mutawalli , was appointed after an election. The Waqf Board alleged non-submission of accounts, non-payment of contributions, and unauthorized construction. The applicant contended that the resolution was passed without proper inquiry and violation of natural justice.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 34 – The case concerns an appeal against a Madras High Court judgment affirming the conviction and life sentence of two accused, Pitchu Mani (A1) and Esakkimuthu (A2), under Sections 302 and 302 r/w 34 of the IPC for the murder of Edison Suvisedha Muthu. The prosecution’s case hinged on the eyewitness accounts of the deceased’s son (PW-1) and wife (PW-2), who claimed to have witnessed A1 attack the deceased with a weapon, incited by A2.

The Trial Court convicted A1 under Section 302 and A2 under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC, relying primarily on the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, despite other witnesses turning hostile. The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Sections 8, 15, 35, 54 – “Conscious Possession” – Burden of Proof: To secure a conviction under the NDPS Act, the prosecution must first establish conscious possession of the contraband by the accused. Once physical possession is proven, the burden shifts to the accused under Section 54 to satisfactorily account for such possession. Section 35 presumes culpable mental state unless the accused proves otherwise.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 313 – Examination of Accused: The object of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – These writ petitions concern land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, specifically regarding land in Chennathur Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. The petitioners sought a declaration that these proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, citing non-compliance with its provisions.

The petitioners argued that despite the 4(1) notification in 1991 and Section 6 declaration in 1992, they remained in possession, and compensation had not been paid. The respondents, however, claimed that possession had been taken in 1994 and 2002, and the compensation was deposited in a treasury account in 1995.

Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) Section 482 / Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 528 and Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 477A, 380, 406 and 420 – The petitioner challenged an order dismissing his revision petition against the trial court’s rejection of his discharge application. The petitioner was accused of offences under Sections 477A, 380, 406 and 420 of the IPC, alleging that he misappropriated funds and falsified accounts while working as a Project Director for Varsha Constructions. The core accusation involves manipulating accounts, receiving advances from suppliers under the guise of being the owner, and misappropriating approximately Rs. 21,00,000.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 409, 420, 477-A, 506(i) – K. Rajasekar, sought anticipatory bail, apprehending arrest for offences including criminal breach of trust, cheating, falsification of accounts, and criminal intimidation. He was accused of misappropriating over Rs. 15 Crores as Chief Operating Officer (COO) of M/s.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 300, 299, 304 Part I; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Sections 313(2), 428 – The Criminal Appeal challenged a conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder, initially sentencing the appellant (Suman) to life imprisonment. The prosecution’s case was that the deceased, Periyasamy, suspected Suman of stealing his money and spread this accusation in a refugee camp. Provoked by these allegations, Suman, on May 9, 2017, strangled Periyasamy, leading to his death. Eyewitness accounts (P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3) confirmed seeing the accused strangling the deceased, supported by medical evidence.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 304(II), 300 Exception 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Sections 207, 313 – This appeal sought to overturn the conviction of the appellant (A1) for the murder of Karthikeyan, initially under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution’s case detailed an incident on February 8, 2015, where a verbal quarrel escalated between the deceased and A1 after the deceased, while intoxicated, hurled abuses degrading A1’s mother. A1, severely provoked, then fatally stabbed Karthikeyan with a knife (MO1).

The trial court found A1 guilty under Section 302 IPC.