Search Judgments

Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) – Section 482, Indian Evidence Act – Sections 141, 142, 143, 165 and 311 – Objection petition against leading questions during trial – Maintainability.

The High Court addressed the maintainability of an objection petition filed by the accused during trial, alleging leading questions were posed to a witness (PW45) by the Public Prosecutor, specifically regarding the month and year of an alleged occurrence. The accused claimed prejudice due to the absence of these details in the witness’s Section 161(3) statement. The Public Prosecutor argued the permissibility of showing photographs or using electronic devices to elicit truth from witnesses and that the questions were not leading.

Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Sections 397 and 401; Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 354; Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 – Section 4. – The case involves an accused, a father, charged with sexual assault on his 14-year-old daughter. The trial court convicted him under Section 354 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998. The appellate court upheld the conviction and enhanced the sentence.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 304(ii), 302, 294(b), and 352 – Criminal Appeal against conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The case involves an incident where the appellant allegedly pushed the deceased, resulting in fatal head injuries. The prosecution’s case relied on eyewitness accounts, but significant contradictions emerged during the trial.

Key witnesses provided inconsistent versions of the event, particularly regarding whether the appellant used a stick and how the deceased fell.

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.

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 – Sections 3, 5(m), 6, 9(m), and 10; Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 363 and 366; Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Section 428 – The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC and Section 5(m) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act for allegedly committing penetrative sexual assault on a minor victim. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of the victim (PW2) and her mother (PW1), along with medical evidence from the doctor (PW11).

The victim’s initial statement to the doctor suggested an attempted sexual contact, and the medical report indicated no definitive evidence of sexual intercourse. The victim’s father (PW3) testified that the case was falsely implicated.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Sections 52A, 60, 61, 62, 63 and Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Sections 451, 457 & 497 and 503 BNSS – Regarding the release of a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act.

The petitioner, owner of a Maruti WagonR, sought the vehicle’s return after it was seized in connection with a NDPS Act case involving the petitioner’s son and brother. The lower court dismissed the plea, citing the ongoing confiscation proceedings. The petitioner argued that he was unaware of the illegal activities and needed the vehicle due to financial constraints.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Section 36A(4) – Extension of time for investigation – Report of Public Prosecutor – Requirements.

The report of the Public Prosecutor seeking extension of time for investigation under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act must satisfy twin requirements. The report must indicate the progress of the investigation and specify the reasons for the further detention of the accused.

The Public Prosecutor’s role is not merely that of a post office; they must independently apply their mind to the investigating agency’s request.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Sections 52A, 60, 61, 62, 63 and Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Sections 451, 457, 497, 503 – Regarding the return of property seized under the NDPS Act, specifically a vehicle, and the applicability of Cr.P.C. provisions.

The petitioner, a vehicle financier, sought the return of a lorry seized for transporting Ganja, arguing that the lower court erred in dismissing their petition based on the premise that return of property in NDPS cases is not permissible.

The prosecution contended that Sections 457 and 451 of Cr.P.C.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Sections 406, 420, 120B of IPC – The petitioners (A3 and A4) sought to quash proceedings in C.C.No.1089 of 2022, pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Trichy, where they were accused of offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case arose from a complaint by the second respondent regarding a failed property purchase.

The complainant alleged that he paid a substantial amount to A1 (a Pastor) and others, including A3 and A4 (officials of a Church Trust), towards the purchase of a property. The complainant alleged that the accused persons conspired together and received a huge amount from the second respondent with the intention of cheating him.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 482 – Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 143, 447, 448, 453, 454, 427, 506(i), 406, 420 r/w 120(B) – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Petitioners sought quashing of proceedings initiated based on a private complaint alleging various offences including cheating, trespass, and criminal intimidation.

The complainant alleged that the accused, after entering a lease agreement and receiving an advance, illegally sold the property, dispossessed him, and damaged the property. The accused claimed the lease was terminated and they were bona fide purchasers.

The court found that there were allegations of deception and forcible eviction, which constituted elements of criminality.