Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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