Search Judgments

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA) – Sections 166, 173 | Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 279, 304A – This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenged an order by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerning a fatal accident. On July 14, 2017, the deceased, Saleem, was riding his two-wheeler when it was struck by a car. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 35,49,000 in compensation, attributing full negligence to the car driver.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 and 168 – This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenges the award passed by the II Additional District Court at Tiruppur in M.C.O.P.No.1608 of 2015, which granted compensation to the parents of the deceased, Rajavignesh, who died in a road accident. The accident occurred when the two-wheeler he was riding pillion on, driven by his friend, crashed due to rash and negligent driving. The parents filed a claim petition seeking Rs.50,00,000/-, and the tribunal awarded Rs.30,06,000/-. The insurance company appealed, arguing that negligence wasn’t adequately proven, and the compensation was excessive.

(Criminal Appeal - POCSO Act and IPC Conviction Challenged)

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences 2012 (POCSO) Act Sections 10 and 12 and The Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 323. The appellant, the victim's father, was accused of sexually assaulting his daughter from ages 4 to 13, involving inappropriate touching, making her touch his private part, making her read pornographic material, and peeping while she changed clothes.

The prosecution's case relied on the complaint filed by the victim's mother (PW1) and the testimonies of the victim (PW2) and grandmother (PW3). The trial court had found the appellant guilty, sentencing him to five years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 10 POCSO Act, one year under Section 12 POCSO Act, and two months under Section 323 IPC. The appellant contended that the complaint was lodged with mala fide intentions, significantly delayed, and only after he had filed for divorce, attributing the allegations to matrimonial differences and property disputes. He highlighted the lack of medical examination, the 'parrot-like' nature of the witnesses' testimonies, and the absence of these serious allegations in PW1's earlier legal actions.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 302 – This case involves an appeal against the High Court’s decision to convict three appellants (father, son, and son-in-law) under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of Pushpendra Singh, overturning the Trial Court’s acquittal.

The prosecution’s case rested on the testimonies of witnesses, particularly the lady of the house (PW-7) where the murder occurred, and the recovery of weapons allegedly used in the crime. The appellants argued false implication, questioning the reliability of eyewitness accounts and the validity of weapon recovery as evidence.

The Supreme Court scrutinized the testimonies of key witnesses, noting contradictions and inconsistencies.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – The appellant and her husband were convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of the deceased, allegedly committed by beating him with sticks. The prosecution’s case hinged on eyewitness accounts, a purported dying declaration, and the recovery of a blood-stained danda from the appellant.

The medical evidence indicated that the death was homicidal, caused by head injury and asphyxia. However, there were inconsistencies regarding the time of death and the location where the body was found.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – Section 61 – This appeal concerns the condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The appellant challenged an order by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that condoned a 15-day delay by Respondent No. 1 in filing an appeal against the approval of the appellant’s resolution plan for Rohit Ferro-Tech Limited.

The appellant argued that the appeal was filed beyond the statutorily permissible period of 30 days and the additional condonable period of 15 days as provided under Section 61(2) IBC.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 21, Rule 98 and Section 151 – This Civil Revision Petition was filed seeking a direction to the Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, to expedite the disposal of E.P.No.70 of 2024, an execution petition arising from O.S.No.135 of 2013. The petitioner, the plaintiff in the original suit, had obtained a decree in 2017, which was partly affirmed by the High Court in 2023. Despite filing the execution petition in January 2024, there had been no significant progress due to repeated adjournments.

The petitioner argued that they were unable to realize the benefits of the decree even after a prolonged period.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 109 – This case involves an appeal against a High Court judgment affirming the conviction of Siba Nial @ Trilochan under Sections 302 (murder) and 109 (abetment) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for the murder of Dhaneswar Kata and Nirupama Kata. The prosecution’s case relied on eyewitness testimonies, the recovery of a pistol based on the appellant’s disclosure statement, and a purported motive related to a property dispute and the inter-caste marriage of the deceased.

However, significant discrepancies and deficiencies were observed in the prosecution’s case. Key witnesses remained silent for days after the incident, the ballistic report was inconclusive, and the postmortem report suggested the use of a rifle firearm fired from a distance, contradicting the eyewitness accounts of a close-range pistol shot.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 319(1) – This Criminal Revision Petition challenges the order of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Ramanathapuram, which allowed Crl.M.P.No.305 of 2021 in C.C.No.54 of 2011 under Section 319(1) Cr.P.C., adding the petitioner as an accused (A2).

The petitioner’s brother-in-law (de facto complainant) alleged that the petitioner and her husband (A1) attacked him. The police initially filed a report excluding the petitioner due to an exaggerated version from the complainant unsupported by eyewitnesses.

The petitioner contended that no notice was served before being added as an accused and that the lower court acted mechanically based solely on the de facto complainant’s reiteration of his initial statement, which the Investigation Officer deemed exaggerated.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 302 – This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC, where the accused, Mohammed Syed, was sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly instigating his second wife, Sultana, to commit suicide by setting her on fire due to suspicion of infidelity. The prosecution’s case heavily relied on multiple dying declarations made by the deceased.

The defense argued inconsistencies among the dying declarations, suggesting the possibility of tutoring by relatives, especially since the earliest records indicated suicide. The prosecution countered that witnesses testified the accused set the deceased on fire, corroborated by a dying declaration recorded by a Judicial Magistrate.