Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute Properties Acquired By Gift During Marriage Remain Separate Property Of Spouse Under French Civil Code; Husband Entitled To Half Share Only In Community Assets: Madras High Court Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Closure Of Human Trafficking Complaint, Flags Lack Of Bona Fides Access To Justice Cannot Be Denied When Tribunal Is Not Functioning': Calcutta High Court Holds Writ Maintainable Under Article 226 Amid Stalled Conciliation Proceedings Violation Of Natural Justice Overrides Bar On Maintainability Under Section 18 MSMED Act: Orissa High Court Panic In A Train Does Not Mean Self-Destruction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants ₹8 Lakh Compensation For Passenger's Death In Stampede Section 101 JJ Act | Date Of Knowledge Of Order, Not Mere Knowledge Of Disposal, Commences Limitation Period: Delhi High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Order Declaring Inam Land As Govt Property Without Determining Occupancy Rights Proviso To Section 125(3) CrPC Does Not Limit Enforcement Of Monetary Relief Orders Under Section 20 DV Act: Telangana High Court Regularization Of Deviation Within Permissible Plot Envelope Governed By Uniform Fee Schedule, Arbitrary 5X Penalty Unsustainable: J&K&L High Court Man Who Blackmailed Woman With Her Own Nude Photos To Rape Her Repeatedly Can't Escape Conviction Merely Because His Voice Sample Wasn't Taken: Delhi High Court Arbitration Clause In Sale Agreement Cannot Be Invoked If Subject Matter Involves Third-Party Title Disputes: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Errs In Dismissing Amendment Plea If New Facts Emerge From Written Statement: Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Compensation For Own Wrong': Gujarat High Court Rules Tortfeasors & Legal Heirs Cannot Claim Motor Accident Damages Under Section 166 MV Act Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Police And Magistrates Over Illegal Remand Of Juvenile Accused Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) Hindu Marriage Act | Spouse Seeking Divorce On Grounds Of Cruelty And Desertion Must Prove Allegations With Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Cannot Let Land Become Banjar: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Appointment Of Receiver Under BNSS Amidst Pending Civil Title Disputes Section 8 Arbitration Act | Executing Court Must Refer Parties To Arbitration If Dispute Falls Within Scope Of Compromise Decree: Madhya Pradesh High Court Suit For Damages Arising Out Of Tortious Injury Barred By Limitation If Not Filed Within One Year: Punjab & Haryana High Court 72-Hour Gap Not Proximate: Calcutta High Court Quashes Murder Conviction, Holds 'Last Seen' Theory Inapplicable When Time Gap Is Wide Original Owner Cannot Create Trust Over Property Already Sold; Separate Relief For Title Declaration Not Required: Madras High Court

High Court Revises Charges in Poisoning Case - Attempt to Cause Death’ in Robbery

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling today, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, led by the Honourable Mr. Justice P.G. Ajithkumar, revisited and revised the charges in a high-profile criminal case. The case, involving the accused Girija in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1065 of 2023, saw a critical evaluation of the charges originally framed.

The petitioner, accused of administering poisonous substances to victims for the purpose of theft, had initially faced charges under Sections 448, 461, 392, and 397 of the IPC. However, in a turn of events, the court has now modified these charges to specifically include Sections 448, 461, 328, and 397 of the IPC.

 

In his order, Justice Ajithkumar observed, “From the said facts and circumstances, what prima facie can be found is that there was an attempt to cause death of the victims.” This observation played a pivotal role in the court’s decision to classify the offence under Section 397 of the IPC, an aggravated form of robbery.

The revision of charges stems from the allegation that the accused, on June 28, 2015, administered a poisonous concoction containing Alprazolam and Benzodiazepine to the victims, resulting in prolonged hospitalization. This act, according to the court, transcends beyond simple robbery, venturing into an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, thus warranting the inclusion of Section 397 of the IPC.

The legal discourse In the courtroom revolved around the nuances of the IPC, with the court providing clarity on the distinction between simple robbery and its more serious forms. The decision also highlighted the importance of specificity in charge framing, with the judge stating, “For clarity and specificity, the court below needs to frame a charge under Sections 448, 461, 328, and 397 of the IPC alone.”

Represented by advocate Lavaraj M.G., the revision petitioner’s case was contested by Smt Seena C., the Public Prosecutor. The judgment has set a precedent in the interpretation of robbery and related offences, underscoring the judiciary’s nuanced approach to criminal law.

Date of Decision: 8th November 2023

GIRIJA  Versus  STATE OF KERALA

Latest Legal News