w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



D.Gattaiah @ Satish, Kadapa DT. v/s The State of Telangana, rep PP.


Company & Directors' Information:- DT INDIA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51101AS1988PTC002949

    Criminal Appeal No. 1099 of 2015

    Decided On, 13 August 2020

    At, High Court of Andhra Pradesh

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

    For the Petitioner: ----- For the Respondent: -------



Judgment Text


Krishna Mohan, J.

1. The present Criminal Appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) by the accused No.1 against the Judgment, dated 24.07.2015 in Sessions Case No.159 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, where under the accused No.1 was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, in default of payment of fine amount, shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month and further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, in default of payment of fine amount, shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. The learned Sessions Judge ordered both the sentences to run concurrently. However, accused No.2 was found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 109 of IPC and was acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 assailed the conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No.159 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool on various grounds.

2. The facts of the case as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are as follows:

(i) Accued No.l is the husband of deceased and Accused No.2 is the mother of Al. The deceased was the daughter of P.W.1. P.W.2 is the brother and P.W.3 is the sister-in-law of the deceased. Prior to marriage of the deceased with accused No.1, both of them fell in love with each other and their marriage was performed by the parents of the deceased against the wishes of parents of the accused No.1. Accused No.2, who is the mother of accused No.1, attended the marriage, but she did not allow the deceased into their house for want of dowry. Deceased and accused No.1 lead their marital life in a rented house in Budhawarpeta, Kurnool. Deceased used to visit the house of P.W.1 now and then and inform about the harassment of her husband/accused No.1 without any cause at the instigation of his mother. Unable to bear the harassment, at the request of the deceased, a panchayat was conducted by P.W.6/Pamanna to resolve the issues between the accused No.l and the deceased. In the panchayat, accused No.l agreed to pay Rs.35,000/- to the deceased to live separately away from him. The accused No.1 never obliged to the terms of the panchayat and deceased never received any amount from them. After the panchayat, the deceased started living separately. Later, P.Ws.1 to came to know that accused No.l was going to contact second marriage, so they tried to perform the marriage of the deceased. Having come to know of it, accused No.l came to the deceased and requested her to join him and that he will look after her properly. Believing the words of accused No.l, deceased joined him.

(ii) One week prior to the incident, P.Ws.1 to 3 were informed by the deceased that she was suffering from typhoid and that accused No.l took her gold ear studs and mortgaged them to provide treatment to her. Whenever she requested to get back the gold ear studs which were mortgaged, accused No.l used to pick up quarrel, beat her and also threaten to kill her.

(iii) Further, it is the case of the prosecution that on the date of incident i.e., on 08.07.2012, at about 5.00 p.m., a neighbour of the deceased informed P.Ws.1 to 3 that the deceased with burning injuries was shifted to Kurnool Government Hospital. Then, P.Ws.1 to 3 rushed to the hospital, and found the deceased with severe burn injuries. On enquiry by P.W.1, the deceased informed that on that day at 4.00 p.m., when the deceased asked accused No.l about her gold ear studs, he picked up a quarrel, and in that quarrel, deceased stated that it would be better for her to die, then accused No.1 poured kerosene saying that he himself would kill her and lit fire. When the flames engulfed, deceased caught hold of accused No.1 from his back. Then accused No.1 separated himself and left the scene. On hearing the cries of the deceased, P.Ws.4, 5 and 7 rushed to the spot, put off the flames on the deceased and then, accused No.1 and deceased were shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool for treatment.

(iv) On the requisition of duty doctor, on 09.07.2012 at about 12.55 a.m., under Ex.P7, P.W.10/Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Kurnool rushed to Government General Hospital, Kurnool and recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex.P8 dying declaration. On receipt of information from outpost police station, Kurnool under Ex.P10, P.W.12 Sub- Inspector of Police, Kurnool Ill Town Police station went to the hospital, recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex.P1, basing on which a case in Crime No.163 of 2012 came to be registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 of IPC under Ex.P12. During the course of investigation, P.W.12 examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses, observed the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P14 and seized the material objects under the cover of panchanama under Ex.P13.

(v) On 15.07.2012 at about 7.23 hours, the deceased died due to burn injuries while undergoing treatment in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. After receiving the death intimation of the deceased, P.W.13 altered the Section of law from Sections 498-A and 307 of IPC to Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators under Ex.P17 and sent the dead body of the deceased to the Government General Hospital, Kurnool for autopsy. P.W.11 the Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P9 Post mortem Certificate, opining that the approximate time of death of the deceased would be on 15.07.2012 at 7.23 a.m., and the cause of the death of the deceased was due to Septicemic shock due to ante-mortem mixed degree flame burns.

(vi) On 29.01.2013 at about 12.00 hours, on receipt of intimation about the discharge of accused No.1 from the hospital, P.W.14 arrested accused No.l and sent him to judicial custody. On 12.02.2013 at about 11.45 hours, P. W.14 arrested accused No.2 and sent to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, P.W.14 filed charge sheet against both the accused.

3. The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC against both the accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool and registered the same as PRC No.50 of 2013. The learned Judicial Magistrate of 1 Class, Kurnool committed the case to the Sessions Division, Kurnool, as the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool registered the same as Sessions Case No.159 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

4. Upon hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel, the Sessions Court framed charges against the accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC and framed charge under Section 498-A read with 109 of IPC against the accused No.1, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.Pl to P17 and M.Os.1 to 8 to substantiate the case of the prosecution. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, explained the incriminating material that appeared against them in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and they denied the same. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

6. Upon hearing the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel, the learned Sessions Judge believed the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the dying declaration recorded by P.W.10 Magistrate coupled with medical evidence and convicted accused No.l for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC, while acquitting accused No.2 for the offence punishable under section 498-A read with 109 of IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, accused No.1 preferred the present appeal on various grounds.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 mainly contended that the trail court placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, who are related and interested witnesses and that they are having grouse on accused No.l, who did not look after the deceased well and used to harass her. It is further contended by the learned counsel for appellant/accused No.l that the deceased was tutored to give statement against the appellant and there is no convincing evidence to show that the deceased was mentally conscious and capable of giving statement. Hence, pleaded that it is not safe to rely on the evidence of P.W.15, as he was not the duty doctor attending on the deceased, when P.W.10 came to the hospital to record the statement of the deceased. It is further contended that the dying declaration suffers from infirmities and it is highly unsafe to act on the dying declaration, more so when there is no corroboration to the contents of the dying declaration.

8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the appellant/accused No.l beyond all reasonable doubt. He further contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 would establish involvement of appellant/accused No.l in litting fire to the deceased. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is that the deceased informed them that it was the accused No.l, who poured kerosene on her and set her to fire. Further, he would contend that the evidence of doctor/P.W.15 also corroborates the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the dying declaration before P.W.10/Judicial Magistrate of I Class can form the basis to convict accused No.l. The learned Public Prosecutor further contends that P.W.12, the investigating officer, after receipt of the intimation from Government General Hospital, Kurnool went to the Hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex.P11 which formed the basis for First Information Report. It is thus contended that the statements of the deceased recorded by the Investigating Officer, vide Ex.P15, statements before P.Ws.1 to 3, P.W.10 and P.W.12 being consistent to the effect that accused No.l poured kerosene and set her on fire and that accused No.1 sustained injuries when deceased caught hold of him, can be made the basis to convict accused No.1.

9. Considering the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC and whether the learned trial judge was right in convicting the appellant/accused No.1 for the said offences?

POINT:- 10. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 that P.Ws.1 to 3 are interested and related witnesses and hence, it is unsafe to rely upon their evidence. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant/accused No.1 committed the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.

11. As seen from the evidence on record, the entire case rests on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, P.W.10 and P.W.12 and the oral statements of the deceased made before P.Ws.1 to 3, dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate and also the statement of the deceased recorded by the police officer which found the basis of the First Information Report. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is consistent with regard to the cruelty meted out to the deceased.

12. P.W.1, who is the mother of the deceased in her evidence deposed that the marriage between the appellant/accused No.1 and the deceased took place against the wishes of parents of appellant/accused No.1 and the mother of accused No.1 did not allow her daughter into their house for want of dowry. The deceased used to visit her house quite often and complain about the harassment of the appellant/accused No.1 towards her. Unable to bear the same, at the request of the deceased, a panchayat was conducted at the instance of the village elders and in that panchayat, it was settled by P.W.6 that appellant/accused No.1 shall pay Rs.35,000/- to the deceased and the deceased was asked to live separately. Accordingly, the deceased was living separately, but the appellant/accused No.1 did not pay any amount. P.W.1 further deposed that as the appellant/accused No.1 was going to contact second marriage, they also decided to get the deceased married of second time. Having come to know of it, appellant/accused No.1 requested the deceased to join him and assured that he will look after properly, for which the deceased joined him again. But the appellant/accused No.1 continued his harassment and one week prior to the incident, deceased informed P.W.1 that appellant/accused No.1 pledged her ear studs for getting her treated for typhoid and whenever she requests her husband to get back the ear studs, he used to pick up a quarrel and beat her. The said version of P.W.1 is corroborated by the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are brother and sister-in-law of the deceased and nothing much was elicited to contradict in the cross examination.

"12. The evidence of P.W.6 corroborates the version of P.Ws.1 to 3 with regard to conducting the panchayat and settling the mater between the Appellant/accused No.1 and the deceased. Basing on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W.6, it is clear that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in the hands of Appellant/accused No.1. Hence, the finding of the trial court in convicting the appellant/accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, warrants no interference."

13. It is to be seen whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

14. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant/accused No.1 that the dying declaration suffers from infirmities and it is highly unsafe to act on dying declarations, as there is no convincing evidence that the deceased was mentally conscious and capable of giving statement, as she sustained 90% burn injuries.

15. As seen from the evidence on record, the prosecution is relying upon three sets of dying declaration to connect the accused with the crime. The first set of dying declaration is the oral dying declaration made by the deceased to P.Ws. 1 to 3, the second set of dying declaration is the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate, who was examined as P.W.10 and the third set of dying declaration is the statement of the deceased recorded by the Sub- Inspector of Police, who was examined as P.W.12.

16. In so far as the first set of dying declaration is concerned, P.Ws.1 to 3, being mother, brother and sister-in-law deposed in their evidence deposed that at about two years back prior to their evidence on Sunday between 5.00 to 6.00 p.m., they came to know through the neighbours of the deceased that the deceased was admitted in the hospital with burn injuries, proceeded to the hospital to see the deceased. When enquired about the cause for injuries, the deceased expressed in clear terms that accused No.1 poured kerosene and set her on fire. This was the immediate version coming from the mouth of the deceased as soon as she was taken to hospital. P.Ws.1 to 3, being close family members of the deceased, after having come to know that deceased was shifted to hospital with burn injuries, rushed to the hospital which is quiet but natural. The statement of the deceased to P.Ws.1 to 3 is quite consistent with the dying declaration recorded by P.W.10/Magistrate, which we will discuss now.

17. As seen from the evidence of P.W.10/Magistrate, it is evident that on 09.07.2012 at about 12.55 a.m., on receipt of intimation from the hospital under Ex.P7, she proceeded to the hospital and after being satisfied with the mental condition of the injured and after obtaining the opinion of the doctor and having satisfied with the mental condition of the injured, P.W.10 recorded the statement of the injured under Ex.P8, read over in Telugu and took the left thumb impression, as patient expressed her inability to sign. The deceased stated before P.W.10 that there was quarrel between the deceased and her husband in the evening, for which she told her husband that she would die, then her husband said that what was the necessity to die by herself and that he would kill her and by saying so, her husband poured kerosene and lit fire. In the end, P.W.10 requested the duty doctor/P.W.15 to certify about her state of mind during the period of recording the statement, for which the duty doctor certified that she was conscious, coherent and in fit state of mind throughout the recording of the statement.

18. The contention of the counsel for the Appellant/accused No.1 that the deceased was tutored to give statement against the Appellant is negatived by the version of P.W.10, wherein she specifically deposed that except herself, duty doctor/P.W.15 and duty attendant, nobody were present at the time of recording her statement. Further, nothing has come on record to show that any relative of the deceased was present at the time, when P.W.10/Magistrate recorded the statement of the deceased.

19. Further, P.W.12 Sub-Inspector of Police deposed in his evidence that on 09.07.2012 at about 15.30 hours, he received information about the incident under Ex.P10 from Government General Hospital, Kurnool to the outpost police station, Kurnool, and as such, he reached the Government General Hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex.P11 in burns ward at 3.40 p.m., wherein the injured/deceased stated that her husband poured kerosene and lit her on fire and that her husband is responsible for her death. P.W.12 took the left thumb impressions of the deceased and reached the police station and registered the case under Ex.P12.

20. As per the evidence on record, it stands established that the statements of victim were not an outcome of threatening or on a figment of imagination. The statements of the deceased made before P.Ws.1 to 3, statement recorded by Magistrate/P.W.10 and the statement recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police/P.W.12 appear to be voluntary and consistent, given in a fit state of mind.

21. The next aspect is with regard to the possibility of the deceased making a statement with 90% burn injuries. As seen from the record, P.W.11/doctor, who conducted autopsy also opined the cause of death to be septicemic shock due to antimortem mixed degree flame burns of 90%.

22. It is apt to rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay Pal v. State (Govt of NTC) of Delhi (2015) 4 SCC 749), wherein one of the points for consideration was ‘Can a person with 92% burn injuries be in a condition to give dying declaration?’

At para 23 of the above judgment, it was held as follows:

“23. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that when the deceased sustained 100% burn injuries, she could not have made any statement to her brother. In this regard, we may profitably refer to the decision in Mafabhai Nagarbhai Raval v. State of Gujarat [(1992) 4 SCC 69 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 810] wherein it has been held that a person suffering 99% burn injuries could be deemed capable enough for the purpose of making a dying declaration. The Court in the said case opined that unless there existed some inherent and apparent defect, the trial court should not have substituted its opinion for that of the doctor. In the light of the facts of the case, the dying declaration was found to be worthy of reliance.

24. In State of M.P. v. Dal Singh [(2013) 14 SCC 159 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 141] , a two-Judge Bench placed reliance on the dying declaration of the deceased who had suffered 100% burn injuries on the ground that the dying declaration was found to be credible.”

23. As seen from the dying declaration/Ex.P8 recorded by P.W.10/Magistrate, it is recorded on 09.07.2012 at 12.55 a.m. It is seen from the remarks of the doctor that the declarant namely the deceased is conscious, coherent and in fit state of mind throughout recording the statement. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased was not in a position to make the dying declaration. Nothing has been elicited from the doctor to show that she was not in a position to make the statement.

24. Further the dying declaration before Magistrate and oral dying declarations also strengthen the evidentiary value of section 161 Cr.P.C statement of the deceased before P.W.12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahadeo Narayan More v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 16 SCC 573), held that oral reporting of dying declaration is quite consistent with subsequent dying declaration recorded by Magistrate and the duty doctor certified that patient is in conscious state, no infirmity in the assessment of trial court, therefore, dying declaration inspires confidence. Thus, it could be seen that there is no legal impediment to convict the offender on the basis of dying declaration even without corroboration. Special sanctity is attached to dying declaration. The reason is that truth sits on the lips of dying man. However, the deceased has not deviated in her statement made to P.Ws. 1 to 3, P.W.10 and P.W.12 as to how she was set fire and by whom.

25. The deceased in her statement before P.W.12 stated that she was set fire by accused No.1 by pouring kerosene on her. P.W.12 the investigating officer stated that he went to the scene of offence on 09.07.2012 at 7.30 p.m., and found kerosene oil smell coming from the clothes and floor of the house was stained with kerosene, he seized M.O.3/kerosene stove, M.O.4/stove cap, M.O.5/match box, M.O.6/burnt match stick, M.O.7/broken pieces of bottle and M.O.8/burnt shirt. The presence of kerosene stove, match box, match sticks including burnt wearing clothes would lend support to the statement of the deceas

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ed that kerosene oil from the stove was poured on deceased and set her on fire. Thus, the statement of deceased inspires confidence and it is free from infirmities. 26. P.W.13 stated that he could not arrest the Appellant/accused No.1, as he was hospitalized due to burns, hence there was delay in arresting accused No.1, as he too sustained burns in the incident. Appellant/accused No.1 was arrested after he was discharged from the hospital. 27. The learned counsel for the Appellant/accused No.1 relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Paparambaka Rosamma and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1999 (2) ALT (Crl)345(SC) wherein the Apex Court held that when the dying declaration cannot be accepted by Court to form sole basis of conviction since certificate of doctor was not to the effect that patient was in fit state of mind to make the statement. The said judgment does not apply to the case on hand, as the evidence of P.W.15/duty doctor indicates that deceased was fully conscious, in fit state of mind and capable of making statement. Further it could be seen from the Section 313 Cr.P.C statement of the Appellant/accused No.1 wherein he categorically stated that he went to rescue the deceased and that in the said process, he sustained burns. So, it is not at all in dispute that accused No.1 was very much present in the house of the deceased at the time of incident on 08.07.2012 and sustained burns. The defence of accused No.1 that he went to rescue the deceased, who was burning and at that time he was attending masonry work at public toilets near his home is not supported by any substantial evidence. The same runs contra to the contents of the dying declaration. 28. Having regard to the findings arrived at, we feel that the defence set up by the Appellant/accused No.1 is disbelieved rightly by the trial Court and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the findings of the Court below against the Appellant/accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC. Hence, the finding of the trial Court is hereby affirmed, finding the Appellant/accused No.1 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC. In the result, The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The Calendar and Judgment in Sessions Case No.159 of 2014, dated 24.07.2015 passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool is hereby affirmed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any in the Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

17-09-2020 Vangamudi Kasimayan, Kurnool DT. Versus State of AP., rep PP. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
14-09-2020 Kuruva Muliniti Lakshmana, Kurnool DT. Versus State of AP., Rep. PP. Hyd. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
01-09-2020 D.T. Pallavi Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
05-09-2019 The Management of Shekkalmudi Estate, M/s. Parry Agro Industries Limited, Murugali Bazaar (P), Valparai, Coimbatore DT, Represented by its Assistant General Manager P & IR Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2019 D.T. Boopathy Versus The Principal Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes & Registration Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-05-2018 D.T. C. Versus Bijender Singh High Court of Delhi
03-04-2018 D.T. Santhosh Versus M/s. Spalarge Residential Properties Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director P. Sandeep High Court of Karnataka
28-04-2017 M/s Pramila Santhosh, Land Developers And Builders Pvt.Ltd., Rept. by Its Director D.T. Santhosh & Others Versus State of Karnataka, By Sanjayanagar Police, Rept. by SPP & Another High Court of Karnataka
18-01-2017 D. Nagaraja Versus D.T. Chikkegowda High Court of Karnataka
06-10-2016 Jayamurugan Versus The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Thoothukudi Dt. Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
27-04-2015 D.T. Virupakshappa Versus C. Subash Supreme Court of India
29-04-2014 Ch. N.V. Sriram Versus The Branch Head, Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. Khojjillipet, Machilipatnam Krishna Dt. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2013 Mrs. S. Mabubi Odasalpatti Koot Road Dharmapuri Tk And Dt. Versus State of Tamilnadu Rep by its Secretary to Govt. & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-02-2013 C.M. Ragunathan Versus The Deputy Registrar of Coop Societies, Vellore Dt. & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-09-2012 Tvl. Sakthi Ferro Alloys India Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Ka. Anandh, Kanchipuram (DT) Versus Commercial Tax Officer RS-III Enforcement (Central) High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-02-2012 In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt.4/5.06.2011 Versus Home Secretary, Union Of India & Others Supreme Court of India
30-01-2012 P. Kandeepan Versus The District Collector Thiruvannamalai Dt & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-08-2011 In the Matter of Re : Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt. 4/5.06.2011 Versus Home Secretary, Union Of India & Others Supreme Court of India
10-08-2011 M/s. Sathyam Associates, Rep. by its Managing Partner P. Rama Krishna Reddy & Another Versus The Superintending Engineer, APSPDCL, Vidyuthbhavan, Dargamitta, Nellore (D.T.) & Others Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
13-07-2011 D.T. Sridhar, Shivamogga District Versus B.K. Sangameshwar, Shivamogga District & Others High Court of Karnataka
20-06-2011 In the Matter Of : Re :Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt. 4/5.06.2011 Versus Home Secretary, Union Of India & Others Supreme Court of India
27-04-2011 Rev.FR. Francis M. Vincent Kanyakumari Dt Versus The Secretary to Government Higher Education Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-11-2010 V.M. Haleema, Manager, Edathirinji, Thrissur Dt. Versus High Court of Kerala, Rep: its Registrar General, High Court of Kerala Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
18-10-2010 R. Arunkumar Versus The Tahsildar Polur Tiruvannamalai Dt High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-10-2010 M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd, Regd. Office, Pithambur Dt. Dhar (M.P.) & Another Versus M. Babu & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
04-08-2010 Murugesan & Others Versus State through Inspector of Police, Vathalakundu Police Station, Dindigul Dt. Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-03-2010 Santha @ Santhakumari Versus State rep. by The Inspector of Police Salavakkam Police Station, Kancheepuram (Dt.) High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-03-2010 Kumarasamy Versus The Sub-Divisional Magistrate & Sub- Collector, Erode (Dt.) High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-03-2010 Poojyashree Mahanth Pasanth Das Bavaji Matathipathi Versus The Superintendent of Police Kancheepuram (Dt.) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-03-2010 P. Madankumar Versus The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vellore (Dt.) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-03-2010 V. Amirtharaj Versus The Inspector of Police Nangavalli Police Station Salem (Dt.) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-01-2010 D.T. & T.D.C. LTD. Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax High Court of Delhi
10-11-2009 The Commissioner, Rajapalayam Municipality Rajapalayam Versus The Proprietor Janakiram Mills (P) Ltd., Virudunagar Dt. Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-10-2009 Manikandan & Others Versus State rep. by Inspector of Police, Kottur Police Station. Coimbatore (Dt.,) High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-10-2009 Prakash Trading Company Versus Dt Padia High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
07-08-2009 M/s. Manoj Fire Works, Rep. by its Partner, A. Senthil Kumar Versus The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Sattur, Virudhunagar Dt. & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-07-2009 Sree Bargav Finance and Investments Represented by its Managing Partner Mrs. Vanaja Chackravarthy East Godavari Dt. A.P. State Versus The Inspector of Police EOW I Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-07-2008 S. Krishnasamy Gounder Versus The Tahsildar, Kangeyam Talukk, Erode Dt. & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-04-2007 Irulayee Versus Thiru.A.Narayana Moorthy, Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Acquisition, Ring Road Scheme, Madurai (dt) Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
07-12-2006 Sankar Versus State by Inspector of Police Cuddalore Dt. Police Stati High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-10-2006 Raja Versus State rep. By Inspector of Police, Auroville Police Station, Villupuram Dt High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-05-2006 C. Govindaraju Versus The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Dharmapuri (PO) & (Dt.) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-04-2006 Kuttiappa Gounder and Others Versus State rep. by Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station, Erode Dt. High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-04-2006 D. Sudharshan Versus State, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Rajakkamangalam Police Station, Kanyakumari Dt. High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-03-2006 Lenin Kumar and Others Versus State, Represented by Inspector of Police, Srivaikundam Police Station, Thoothukudi Dt. High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-03-2006 Ramamoorthy Versus State, Represented by Inspector of Police, Abiramam Police Station, Ramnad Dt. High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-02-2006 M. Dharmalingam Versus State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Senthamangalam Police Station, Salem Dt. High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-01-2006 P.Murugavel Versus The District Magistrate and District Collector, Nagapattinam Dt., Nagapattinam & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-06-2005 Minor Anantharaman, by next friend and Mother, V. Sellam (The Appellant declared as major discharging the next friend, his mother, V. Sellam vide C.M.P. No. 5242/1993, dt. 28.6.1993) Vs. Mahalingam and others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-04-2004 S.S. Ummul Habiba, Proprietor, M/s.Alim Auto Supplies, 65, Cumbum Road, Periyakulam. (Appellants name amended as per the order of this Court dt.26.11.2002 made in Crl.M.P.12064/2002) Versus B. Rajendran High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-07-2002 S. JYOTHI VERSUS. PRESIDING OFFICER/election OFFICER, THOTTAMBEDU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DT. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
15-05-2002 MANAGEMENT OF KANYAKUMANI DT. CO-OP. SPINNING MILLS LTD. , ARALVOYAMOZHI, KANYAKUMARI DT. VERSUS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MADRAS High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-03-2002 Universal Cycle Acessories, Mandaiyur, A Partnership Firm Rep. By Its Partner V. Ananthanarayanan, Trichy Road, Mandaiyur, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai Dt. and 3 others Versus Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. By Its Divisional Chief Engineer, Tennur, Tiruchirapalli-17. and 3 others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-03-2001 Malappuram Dt. Co-op. Bank Ltd. Versus Malappuram Dt. Co-op. Bank Employees W.F. Committee High Court of Kerala
22-02-2001 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOWN, ARCOT, VELLORE DT. VERSUS A. MANI High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-02-2001 Seeni Konar and another Versus State by Inspector of Police, Masarpatti P.S.Tuticorin Dt. and another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-02-2001 NELLORE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED, NELLORE VERSUS PRESIDENT, NELLORE DT. CO-OP. CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION, NELLORE High Court of Andhra Pradesh
18-11-2000 NELLORE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED VERSUS PRESIDENT, NELLORE DT. CO-OP. CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION High Court of Andhra Pradesh
07-03-2000 Narayanan Versus Trichur Dt. M.I.E. Co-op. Society High Court of Kerala
02-08-1999 All Kerala Dt. Co-op. Bank Employees Congress Versus State of Kerala High Court of Kerala
27-07-1999 State Bank of India, its Branch Manager, Tirupattur Versus Kasim, Proprietor, M/s. Kasira Stores, Big Bazaar St, Tirupattur, Ramanathapuram Dt. and others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-03-1999 Government of Kerala Versus Phalghat Dt. Coop. Rubber Marketing Society Ltd. High Court of Kerala
22-09-1998 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DT. VERSUS YEPURI VENKATA RAMA RAO High Court of Andhra Pradesh
09-08-1996 T. ANJANEYULU VERSUS D.T. NAIK High Court of Andhra Pradesh
20-12-1995 Abdul Rahim Jivani since deceased by heirs 1. Arif Abdul Rahim Jivani 2. Mariambai abdul R. Jivani deleted by order dt. 25.4.95. 3. Nargis Abdul R. Jivani. 4. Javed Abdul Rahim Jivani. 5. Dr. Rumza Abdul R. Jivani Vs. 1. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay. 2. Minocher D.Bhandari. 3. Abdul Rahim Bachu Shott deleted by order dt. 11.2.91. 4. Mr. Devdas Kashinath Bandekar added as per order dt. 11.2.91. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-12-1995 MUTYALA VENKAT RAO VERSUS LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-CUM-SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, YELERU LEFT CANAL,. , VIZAG DT. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
11-12-1995 MUTYALA VENKAT RAO VERSUS LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-CUM-SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, YELERU LEFT CANAL,. , VIZAG DT. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
04-11-1995 SHAIK KHASSIM, PRESIDENT, CONSUMERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, BITRAGUNTA, NELLORE DT. VERSUS SARPANCH, VISWNATHRAOPET GRAM PANCHAYAT High Court of Andhra Pradesh
06-06-1995 Cochin Port Trust Versus Ernakulam Dt.L.D. & CHLabour Union High Court of Kerala
20-03-1995 YEGANDLA LAXMAIAH VERSUS DEPUTY REGISTRAR, CO-OP. SOCIETIES, MIRYALAGUDA, NALGONDA DT. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
02-02-1995 State of Tamil Nadu Versus D.T. Kaliaperumal Naidu and Company High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-04-1994 Prabhu Narain Rai Versus Secretary-cum-General Manager, Dt. Coop. Bank Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
18-02-1994 T. PARTHASARATHY VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-I, R. R. DT. , SECUNDERABAD High Court of Andhra Pradesh
23-11-1993 Dinamony Versus Dt. Supdt. of Police, Kollam High Court of Kerala
17-08-1993 Quilon Dt. M.T.W. Co-op. Society Versus R.T.A. High Court of Kerala
25-11-1992 Amrik Singh versus Dt.Food and Supplies Controller High Court of Punjab and Haryana
03-08-1992 Budhi Sagar Dubey Versus Dt. Inspector of Schools High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-03-1992 TVASANTHA LAKSHMI VERSUS Y. RAVINDRA NAIK, PRINCIPAL APSWR SCHOOL B. KOTHAKOTA CHITTOOR DT High Court of Andhra Pradesh
30-04-1991 Asha Ram Yadav Versus Dt. Magistrate High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
05-12-1990 INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS D.T. PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-10-1990 Rajayyan & Another Versus The District Collector, Kanyakumari Dt. & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-08-1990 D.T. Makwana Versus State High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
23-01-1990 D.T. Deivasigamani Mudaliar & Others Versus T. Parandaman & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-10-1989 Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd Versus Guntur Dt. Milk Producers Cooperative Union Ltd. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
28-07-1989 P. Gangaraju Versus Agent to Government West Godavari Dt and two High Court of Andhra Pradesh
07-06-1989 Dt Social Welfare Officer Versus P Narasimha Murthy High Court of Andhra Pradesh
20-06-1988 IDUKKI DT. ESTATE WORKERS UNION Versus LABOUR COURT High Court of Kerala
09-12-1986 Nirmala Industries, Uthagamandalam, Nilgiris Dt, by Its Sole Proprietor, C.S. Benjamin Versus Srinivasa Perumal Financing Corporation, Tatabad, Coimbatore and others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-08-1986 The Management, Thiru Arroran Sugars Ltd., Vadapathimangalam, Tanjore Dt. Versus The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Tiruchirapalli & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-01-1986 THANKAPPAN Versus TRIVANDRUM DT. CO-OP.BANK LTD. High Court of Kerala
11-12-1985 K N. Kesavan Versus The Collector, Chengalpattu Dt. & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-04-1985 District Collector, Salem Dt Versus N. Periasami High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-04-1985 MEERAN UNNI Versus KOTTAYAM DT. CO-OP. BANK High Court of Kerala
29-08-1984 A.R.Krishnamurthy Versus Arni Municipality, Arni, North Arcot Dt. by its Commissioner High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-08-1983 A.R. Krishnamurthy Versus Arni Municipality, Arni, North Arcot Dt. by its Commissioner High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-06-1983 KRISHNA. M VERSUS DY. COMMR. BANGALORE DT High Court of Karnataka
06-11-1982 SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM DT. CO-OPERATIVE M.S.U. LTD. Versus INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL High Court of Kerala
22-12-1981 Sri Baikunthanath Das Versus Chief Dt Medical Officer High Court of Orissa
17-11-1981 K. Mohideen Hussain Jaffer, Licencee Andavar Match Works, Kovilpatti, Tirunelveli Dt and Others Versus Assistant Director (Match), Directorate of Marketing (Match Division), Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Sattur and Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-04-1981 P. Appavu Gounder, Petitoner Versus Collector of South Arcot Dt. At Cuddalore High Court of Judicature at Madras