Search Judgments

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 498A and 302 – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Suspension of sentence pending appeal – Grant of bail.

The petitioner was convicted under Sections 498A (cruelty to a married woman) and 302 (murder) of the IPC and sentenced to imprisonment. The petitioner filed an appeal challenging the conviction and sentence, along with a petition to suspend the sentence and grant bail pending the appeal.

The court noted that a key eyewitness (PW9) turned hostile and the evidence of another witness (PW2) raised significant questions that require further examination during the appeal process.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 29(1) and 37 – Bail Application – Commercial Quantity of Ganja.

The petitioner, A3, sought bail in connection with C.C.No. 187 of 2023, pending before the Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the NDPS Act. The case originated from FIR No.

Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Section 374(1) – Appeal against conviction; Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 420 & 406; Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (TNPID) Act – Section 5 – Compounding of offenses. The appellant was convicted under Sections 420 & 406 of the IPC and Section 5 of the TNPID Act for defaulting on repayments to depositors. During the appeal, the appellant agreed to settle the principal amount due to the remaining 13 unsettled depositors. The appellant deposited the entire sum, and the depositors received their respective amounts.

The depositors and the appellant sought to compound the offenses.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Regarding the conviction based on the dying declaration. The case involves an appeal against the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC, based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, primarily focusing on eyewitness accounts and multiple dying declarations of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with her husband (Accused 1, who died during the trial), poured kerosene on the deceased and set him ablaze due to a financial dispute.

The defense argued that the prosecution’s case suffered from factual and legal errors, particularly concerning the inconsistencies in the dying declarations.

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) – Sections 5(m), 6, and Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 506(i) – Conviction and Sentence Appeal.

The appellant was charged with sexually assaulting a 4½ year old child (Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act) and threatening the child’s mother (Section 506(i) IPC). The Special Court convicted him and sentenced him to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life under the POCSO Act and two years rigorous imprisonment under the IPC. The accused filed appeal against the judgement of trial court.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 156(3), 195 and 340 – Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 191, 192, 193, 196 and 420 – Petition filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C – seeking registration of a case based on allegations of false evidence given in a civil suit and other offences.

The petitioner alleged that the first respondent filed a civil suit with the intention to grab property and gave false evidence, further claiming offences of cheating, impersonation, and fabrication of documents, punishable under Sections 191, 192, 193 and 420 of IPC. However, the complaint lacked specific details regarding impersonation and fabrication.

The Court noted that the offence under Section 193 IPC (punishment for false evidence) is non-cognizable and Section 195 Cr.P.C.

Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Sections 397, 401 and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) – Quashing of charges – Discharge Application.

The petitioner, A2 in Special Case No.5 of 2022, filed a revision petition challenging the order of the Special Judge dismissing his discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The accusation was that A2, while working as a District Registrar, directed A1 (Sub Registrar) to register a sale deed for a property that was allegedly a water body, thereby abusing his official position.

The prosecution alleged that A2 conspired with the purchaser (A3) to make a false statement in the sale deed, leading to criminal misconduct.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 and Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) – Quashing of charge-sheet under Section 482 CrPC – Settlement between bank and borrowers.

The case involves allegations of fraud, forgery, and criminal conspiracy against the accused, including the appellants (wives of the principal accused), related to loan facilities obtained from Indian Bank. The bank filed a complaint with the CBI, leading to a charge-sheet under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A One Time Settlement (OTS) was reached between the bank and the borrowers, and the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) disposed of the bank’s Original Application (OA) as settled.

Constitution of India – Article 142(1) and Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) – Section 13(1)(ia) & 13B(1) – Exercise of power to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage – The Supreme Court addressed a transfer petition filed by a wife seeking the transfer of divorce proceedings. A key issue was whether the Court could use its powers under Article 142(1) of the Constitution to grant a divorce based on irretrievable breakdown of marriage, even if one party objected.

The judgment extensively reviewed precedents, including Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) – Section 13 – Dissolution of Marriage – Ground of Cruelty and Irretrievable Breakdown – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Exercise of Powers – Grant of Divorce – The Appellant-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, citing the Respondent-wife’s failure to fulfill marital obligations and misbehavior with family members. The Family Court granted the divorce, but the High Court reversed the decision. The couple had lived together for a short period, and multiple legal battles, including criminal cases, were initiated against each other.

The Supreme Court noted the long separation of 22 years, the lack of cohabitation, and the sour relationship between the parties and their families.