Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

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

Similar News