Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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