Search Judgments

Partition and Succession under Hindu Law – Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 15 – The plaintiff, Rakkammal, mother of the deceased Madasamy, filed a suit for partition claiming a 1/3rd share in her son’s self-acquired properties, asserting her right as a Class I legal heir. The defendants, Madasamy’s wife (1st appellant) and son (2nd appellant, Sekar), resisted the suit, contending Rakkammal had no right.

Trial Court Decision:
The Trial Court granted a preliminary decree, declaring Rakkammal’s 1/3rd share in the suit properties.

First Appellate Court Decision:
After the trial court’s decree, Rakkammal passed away.

(Criminal Revision - Limitation for Filing Final Report)

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): Sections 468, 468(2)(b), 468(2)(c), 473 - The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Sections 294(b), 323, 324 - This Criminal Revision challenged the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, which dismissed the petitioner's (A4) application under Section 468 Cr.P.C. The petitioner sought to reject the Final Report on the grounds that it was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

The prosecution had alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323, and 324 IPC. The FIR was registered on 11.03.2020.

(Criminal Appeal against Acquittal for Murder and Assault)

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 341, 323, and 302 read with 34 - The prosecution alleged that on August 29, 2016, the deceased Gopinath and his father (PW1, the injured complainant) were waylaid and attacked by the accused (A1-A3) using wooden logs (MO1) and stones (MO2). PW1 sustained injuries, while A1 allegedly threw a large stone at the deceased's head, leading to his death on August 31, 2016, due to severe head injuries.

The prosecution presented multiple eyewitnesses (PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW7) who consistently described the assault and the specific roles of the accused. Medical evidence from PW17 (treating doctor), PW19 (neurologist), and PW18 (autopsy doctor), along with Accident Registers (Ex.P6, Ex.P7), Postmortem Report (Ex.P8), and Death Report (Ex.P10), corroborated the injuries sustained by PW1 and the deceased, confirming the cause of death.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 304 Part II, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C) – Section 428 – This appeal challenges the conviction of an accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for murder. The deceased and accused, who were friends, had a verbal quarrel after the deceased teased the accused about buying food. Later the same day, during another altercation, the accused struck the deceased’s head with a granite stone, leading to immediate death. The Trial Court had convicted the accused for murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 52; Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 8 – The case involves two second appeals arising from judgments related to property disputes. The first suit (O.S.No.1216 of 2010) was filed for possession, damages, and a permanent injunction, while the second suit (O.S.No.1217 of 2010) sought partition, maintenance, and rendition of accounts. The core issue revolves around the nature of the suit properties, specifically whether they are ancestral or separate property of one Selvaraj, the husband of the appellant in S.A.No.512 of 2019 and the vendor of the respondent in S.A.No.507 of 2019.

The appellant contends that the properties are ancestral and that Selvaraj had no right to sell them, especially given a pending partition suit.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) Section 313; The Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 84 and 302 –  This judgment concerned an appeal against the conviction of Chunni Bai under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of her two minor daughters, upheld by the High Court. The prosecution proved the appellant caused the deaths, supported by eyewitness accounts, medical evidence, and weapon seizure. The appellant, in her statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), claimed being influenced by an “invisible power,” implying a defence of unsound mind under Section 84 IPC.

The Supreme Court observed a complete lack of motive, with all witnesses confirming the appellant’s loving nature towards her children and normal family life.

Criminal Law – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 (Murder) – Circumstantial Evidence – Five Golden Principles: In cases based purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that conclusively points to the guilt of the accused, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, and excludes every other possible hypothesis consistent with innocence. The circumstances must be fully established and of a conclusive nature, leaving no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.

Evidence Act, 1872 – Motive: While motive is a relevant circumstance in a case of circumstantial evidence, a trivial motive like non-payment or untimely payment of wages, without further concrete evidence of intense discord, may not be sufficient to establish a strong motive for a grave crime like murder.

Evidence Act, 1872 – Last Seen Theory: The “last seen” circumstance, though important, must be conclusively established and corroborated by independent evidence.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Section 302; The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Sections 25, 26, 106 – The Supreme Court addressed an appeal challenging the conviction and death sentence of Deen Dayal Tiwari, upheld by the Allahabad High Court, for the brutal murders of his wife and four minor daughters in 2011.

The case, prosecuted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), rested on circumstantial evidence. The Appellant argued inconsistencies in witness testimonies, an ante-timed FIR, inadmissible confessional statements (Sections 25, 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), unreliable weapon recovery, and an alibi.

The Court upheld the conviction, finding the chain of circumstances complete.

(Murder Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 (Murder) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 161, 207, 313 - This appeal challenged a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for murder, where the accused was sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution alleged the accused murdered the deceased due to enmity over money owed for a chit, as the deceased had prevented her husband from further payments. The accused allegedly dragged the deceased into her house and fatally stabbed her.

The trial court convicted the accused based on circumstantial evidence, including motive, the last seen theory, arrest and recovery, and an extra-judicial confession.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 341, 302, and 294(b) – This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint) and 302 (murder) of IPC by the Principal Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, in S.C.No.16 of 2019. The prosecution alleged that on April 17, 2018, arising from a property dispute, the accused wrongfully restrained and assaulted the deceased with a wooden log, causing his death. The deceased was on his way to lodge a complaint against the accused for prior threats and abuse.

The appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove the complaint and relied on interested witnesses (close relatives).