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

142
0
Share:
bail evidence custody matrimonial law fails advocates Abkari Act Evidence Document Divorce marriage 304a deed pregnancy Lawyer's tax Juvenile Bail sentence managing Water culpable engineering Robbery maintainability order childrenpermanent acquittal compounding cheque judgment 323 313 recovery divorce

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

Download Judgment

Share: