Three criminal revisions arising from a murder case where the Special Judge discharged one accused and directed two others to face trial. The High Court dismissed all the revisions, holding that sufficient prima facie materials existed to proceed against the first and third accused, and confirming the discharge of the second accused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1941
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 398 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.M.P.NO.11/2011 IN IN SC 1114/2011 of SPE/CBI COURT, TRIVANDRUM DATED 07-03-2018 REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
REV.DR.THOMAS KOTTOOR, AGED 70 YRS, S/O. K.T MATHEW (LATE), KOTTOOR BHAVAN,KIDANGOOR, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.) SRI.CHACKO SIMON SRI.E.VIJIN KARTHIK SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR SRI.R.ANIL SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL) SRI.THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ACB, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY THE STANDING COUNCIL OF CBI, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S.AJITHKUMAR SPL.PP FOR C.B.I
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.09.2018, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.395/2018, Crl.Rev.Pet.627/2018, THE COURT ON 9/4/2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1941
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 395 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 14/2011 IN SC 1114/2011 of SPE/CBI COURT, TRIVANDRUM
REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:
SR. SEPHY, ST.JOSEH GENERALATE, S.H.MOUNT, KOTTAYAM, KERALA, (KANGARATHUMOOTHY HOUSE, KURUMULLOOR, KOTTAYAM).
BY ADVS. ADV.SIDDHARATH AGGARWAL(SR) SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL SRI.A.VELAPPAN NAIR SRI.GEORGIE JOHNY SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA SRI.NISHIL.P.S.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
CBI, ACB, COCHIN REPRESENTED BY ITS STANDING COUNSEL, CBI, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-31.
SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S.AJITHKUMAR SPL.PP FOR C.B.I
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.09.2018, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.627/2018, Crl.Rev.Pet.398/2018, THE COURT ON 9/4/2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1941
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 627 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.M.P.NO.12/2011 IN SC 1114/2011 of SPE/CBI COURT, TRIVANDRUM
REVISION PETITIONER/WITNESS NO. 108:
JOMON PUTHENPURACKAL
S/O. LATE KURIAKOSE, AGED 50 YEARS, CONVENOR, SISTER ABHAYA CASE ACTION COUNCIL, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, NEENDOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM-686601.
BY ADV. SRI. JOMON PUTHENPURACKAL (PARTY IN PERSON)
RESPONDENT/2ND ACUSED/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682031.
BY ADVS. SRI.CHACKO SIMON SRI.JEN JAISON SRI.J.JOSE SRI.SHAJI THOMAS SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S.AJITHKUMAR SPL.PP FOR C.B.I PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SREEJA V.
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others
4
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.09.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.395/2018, Crl.Rev.Pet.398/2018, THE COURT ON 9/4/2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others
5
O R D E R
[ Crl.Rev.Pet 398/2018,Crl.Rev.Pet.395/2018, Crl.Rev.Pet.627/2018 ]
These revisions arise from SC No.1114/2011 of the court of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI}, Thiruvananthapuram, for offences punishable under sections 302,201,449 IPC read with section 34 IPC.
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others 6
a final report on 05/12/1996 . It reported that it could not confirm whether death was suicidal or homicidal. Hence, it was requested that the case may be closed as untraced one. The CJM, before whom the report was filed, refused to accept the final report and directed the CBI to conduct further investigation.After further investigation, 2nd final report was laid on 12/7/1999. CBI took up the stand that it was a case of homicidal death, but identity of accused could not be established. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, by his order dated 23/6/2000 rejected the report as unsatisfactory and directed the CBI to conduct further investigation. In the light of above, investigation was transferred from CBI at New Delhi to CBI, Cochin Branch. Yet another report was filed after investigation on 25/8/2005, reiterating the request to close the case as untraced one. This was also rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 21/8/2006.
4 . Thereafter, investigation was entrusted with
Sri.Nandakumar Nair, Dy.SP., CBI, Kochi unit. who conducted investigation and laid a final report on 17/7/2009 arraying three persons as accused. First accused is Fr. Thomas Kottoor, who was the lecturer of Psychology at BCM College, Kottayam, second accused was Fr. Jose Poothrikkayil, who was lecturer in the same college and also the manager of a Catholic Mission Press. The third accused was Sr. Sephy, who was a nun residing at St.Pius Xth Convent Hostel. It was
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others 7
alleged by the prosecution that, the first and the second accused priests maintained an unholy relationship with the third accused . On 26/3/1992, during night, the first and the second accused committed house trespass into the Pius Xth convent hostel by scaling the boundary wall. They entered the kitchen room with the help of the third accused and spent their night in her room, which was in the ground floor of the Pius convent hostel. On 27/3/1992 at about 4.15 a.m., sister Abhaya who had woken up by that time for her studies, came down to the ground floor from her room to fetch water from the kitchen. According to the prosecution, Sister Abhaya saw the accused. To silence her, the accused allegedly hit on the back of the head of the sister Abhaya with a small axe kept in the kitchen. She fell unconscious. It was alleged that, the first and the second accused in their attempt to dispose of her body, to screen the accused and to cause disappearance of evidence, climbed the emergency stair case on the rear side leading to terrace. Since it was found to be inconvenient, body was lifted and was thrown into the well situated on the rear side of the convent. It was alleged that, hence all the accused were guilty of offences. V.V.Augustine, the initial investigating officer was also arrayed as an accused. But since he had died on 25/11/2008, he was not charge sheeted.
8
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others
Crl.M.P.No.11/2011, to the extent of refusing to discharge accused No.1 is illegal, Crl.R.P.No. 398/2018 has been preferred by the first accused. The third accused challenged the order in Crl.M.P.No.14/2011 by filing Crl.R.P.No. 395/2018. The order discharging the second accused was challenged by Jomon Puthenpurackal, who was involved in the agitation for proper investigation of the crime, by filing
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others
9
Crl.R.P.No. 627/2018.
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others 10
Nair took over the investigation towards the fag end of investigation and immediately thereafter arrested accused 1 to 3. On the basis of the some materials gathered, the above investigating officer jumped into the conclusion that there were materials against accused 1 to 3 and thereafter laid charge against them, it was contended. It was contended that there was no material evidence to proceed against the petitioners. It was further contended by both counsel that, all the earlier statements given by the crucial witnesses were contradictory to the conclusion arrived at by the CBI in its final report. Artificial evidence was let in and facts were distorted by the CBI, to prejudice the mind of the court.
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others 11
Hence, the court below was not justified in discharging the second accused on the various grounds, it was argued. It was also contended that though CBI had chargesheeted the second respondent also, they had not chosen to challenge the order of discharge.
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others 12
had concluded that death was not homicidal one, but was a case of suicide. After the case was referred for investigation to the CBI, it conducted investigation through different investigating officers and had successively filed three closure reports. In all the reports, conclusion was that it was a case of homicide, though sufficient materials to identify the accused could not be unearthed. Each time, while considering the respective closure report, three different Chief Judicial Magistrates disagreed with the ultimate conclusion of the CBI and directed the CBI to conduct further investigation with respect to the specific aspects pointed out by respective CJM. Clearly, all the CJMs did not agree with the ultimate conclusion that the accused could not be identified. CBI was consistent through out that it was a case of homicide. It is pertinent to note that after Dy.S.P. Nandakumar Nair took over the investigation, he questioned some of the earlier witnesses, their statements were got recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C.and thereafter, accused 1 to 3 were arrested. The most crucial fact is that, the above investigating officer, relied exclusively on the same set of witnesses relied on by the earlier teams of investigation. No new witness was brought by him to conclude that accused 1 to 3 are involved in the crime. Records also show that two among the witnesses,
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others 13
Adakka Raju and Sanju P.Mathew, were kept under the cloud of suspicion initially by the investigating agencies. Adakka Raju, who was apprehended at the initial stage of investigation by the Crime Branch, had alleged that he was pressurized by the Crime Branch to own the guilt. He even stated that he was offered consideration for accepting the guilt. Both the above witnesses are now projected as crucial witness by the investigating agency.
15.Records show that, the CBI, in the course of investigation, had arrived at a clear conclusion that there were destruction of material objects and records, that investigation was not conducted properly and records were manipulated. There are materials on record to show that at the scene of occurrence several activities had taken place at or about the time of the incident. The lights in the corridor, which were switched off during the previous night, had been switched on. Doors to the kitchen and the work area which were locked were opened. Door to outside, which was latched from inside, was found opened and latched from outside. White head veil of sister Abaya was found tucked in between the door. One chappal was found near the fridge and another one was lying near the door. Plastic bottles were found near the fridge with water oozing from it. An axe was found lying on
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others 14
the floor and a fruit basket was lying near the door. Both were found displaced from its original places. The bucket used for drawing the water from the well which was kept on the side of well on the previous night was found drawn up to the pully.
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others 15
was noticed that she was not wearing undergarments. However, the seizure mahazar, refers to the recovery of brazier and panties from the body. Those items were produced before the SDM court as material objects. It has also come on record that on the evening of the date of the incident, fresh inquest report was prepared by V.V.Augustine at the police station and the signatures of the witnesses were manipulated.
18.According to CBI, manipulations regarding the material objects and the injuries in the inquest report were done by V.V.Augustine. According to CBI, Augustine had admitted that he did not incorporate the actual scenario in the inquest report to satisfy K.T.Michael, who was the Superintendent of Police of Crime Branch at that time. The CFSL report and the report of experts Mr. N.K.Agarawal and Dr. Ali indicates that signatures on the inquest report were manipulated. However, according to CBI, it is difficult to establish that now, since V.V.Augustine was found dead under mysterious circumstances on 25/11/2011. Eight material objects were seized at the time of inquest. One personal diary of sister Abhaya was seized later. All the above material objects produced before the SDM were allegedly destroyed in the SDM office or elsewhere and are not available now.
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others 16
after considerable lapse of time. In the meanwhile, several rounds of investigation and interrogation have taken place. Several vital materials were gathered. Evidently, CBI is now attempting to establish the case with these constraints imposed on the prosecution.
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others 17
accused ultimately, then the court would not be justified in framing the charge against the accused. The judge at that preliminary stage is simply required to find out that there was material which may lead to the inference that the accused has committed an offence.
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others 18
been evolved by the courts over the years. A criminal trial, on the contrary, is contemplated only on definite allegations, prima facie, established the commission of an offence by the accused, which fact has to be proved by leading unimpeachable and acceptable evidence.
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others 19
substantiate the ingredients of framing charge, legally admissible evidence should be available which can be translated into legally admissible evidence and in the absence of it, accused is liable for discharge.
20
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others 21
he went to bed and slept. Next day morning, the scooter was not there. That day, sisters came to his house and informed that sister Abhaya was missing and sought help of the father of CW4. It was later revealed that sister Abhaya had died.
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others 22
relating to narco analysis test written by a criminologist. Since he was interested in the subject, he pursued the matter, which got him acquainted to the first accused. In the course of discussion with the first accused, first accused revealed that he was also interested in the issue regarding to narco analysis test used by the police in criminal cases. First accused persuaded CW7 to challenge the legality of narco analysis test by filing a public interest litigation. He promised that he was ready to spent any amount for challenging that test. In the course of the discussion, the first accused is stated to have revealed that he had committed a wrong and he had all the weaknesses of an ordinary human being. He confessed that he had illicit relationship with the third accused. He also revealed that something that ought not have happened, had happened.
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others 23
liability on the first accused and the case against the first accused can be proved. The court held that those materials prima facie are sufficient to frame charge against the first accused.
a thief, who cannot be relied on for the purpose of establishing the matter, since his version can only be inherently tainted. The learned senior counsel submitted that the court below failed to discharge its bounden duty to sift
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others 24
and weigh the evidence, at least for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against accused has been made out, as held in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samuel's case (supra) . Even without going into the realm of appreciation of evidence, it could be seen that version of CW4 was inherently improbable and contradictory. However, it is pertinent to note that the incident happened during night. Normally such acts are likely to be seen only by those persons who have reason to move around during night. The above witness was questioned even by the first agency and his version that he had committed theft earlier, is supported by evidence of other witnesses that copper plate was stolen from the convent on an earlier occasion. His version cannot be rejected unless it is found to be inherently unbelievable. Having considered this, I am not inclined to totally discard the evidence of Adakka Raju on the only ground that he is a thief. Versions of all the above witnesses indicate that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the first accused.
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others
25
had seen two persons climbing up the staircase. He identified one among the two persons as the first accused. He did not mention about the identify of the other person. Hence, that version cannot be used against the second accused.
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others
26
39.Relying on the entire materials, Sri.Jomon Puthen Purackal contended that the court below went wrong in discharging the second accused. It was pointed out that court below failed to evaluate other materials which pointed to the complicity of the second accused in the crime. It was also
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others
27
contended that CBI, which had charge sheeted the second accused did not challenge the order discharging the second accused.
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others
28
does not call for any interference.
29
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others
accused. Infact, it was the ground floor of the multi storied building and directly opened to the rear side, which was on the ground level. The dining room, kitchen and the room occupied by the third accused were in that floor. It is true that the nomenclature of it as a cellar room appears to be a misnomer. It is true that all other residents of the convent except third accused and Sister Helen resided in the upper stories of the convent. It was also contended that, though prosecution has alleged that third accused was living alone in that room, infact, it has come on record that she was not alone in that room. Sr. Helen, who was in charge of the mess shared the room along with the third accused. It was stated by Sr.Helan that she has been residing in that room along with the third accused for the past one and half years. She asserted that, room was allotted to them without asking. They were earlier occupying rooms on the first floor. To accommodate a Phd. student, sister Helen and third accused who were occupying the upper floor rooms, were shifted to the present room on the ground floor. Evidently, shifting was not by their choice and the room was allotted by the mother superior. It was stated by sister Helen that, whenever either of them left the convent, the other used to be alone in that room. Further, the version of witnesses shows that as a rule, from
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others
30
10.30 p.m. till 5a.m. on the next day, the entire ground floor was inaccessible to the occupiers of the upper floors. Whether the room of the third accused was called as a ground floor or cellar room or whether the room was jointly occupied by third accused, the crucial fact is that on the fateful night, third accused was alone in that floor.
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others 31
was found moody and depressed and she remained aloof from others for the next two weeks. Thereafter, she improved.
45.CW21 and CW70 who were intimates of the convent stated that sister Sephy maintained illicit relationship with the priests. According to them, priests used to come to the convent every week and also on special occasions. Sisters in the convent were found to be in cheerful mood in their company. They also asserted that they had seen the sisters sitting with priests and sipping tea.
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others
32
familiar to the dogs.
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others 33
prosecution to establish that he had seen persons entering the compound on three occasions, had not seen the dogs nor heard it barking. This shows that it may be possible that even without the dogs being noticed, it was possible for anybody to enter the compound. Hence, the conclusion arrived at by the learned special judge that since dogs did not bark during night, assailants were persons known to the dogs and that evidence supports prosecution case that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were assailants, evidently, is a very feeble material to be considered at this stage.
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others 34
towards outside. It has also come on record that room was not chosen by the third accused. Infact, third accused had lived in an up stair room earlier, and to accommodate another student in that room, was vacated by the mother superior and the room was given to the student. In fact that room was not an inconvenient room than the up stair room and had attached toilet and bathroom. However, on the above assumption, learned Special Judge relied on the decisions reported in State of Kerala v. Sudarsanan and others (2014 3 KHC 110), Desin Bai and Shanti Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh (2015 KHC 4091) and Gajanan Dashrath v. Kharate State of Maharashtra (2016 KHC 6179) to draw an inference that in this case the aid of Section 106 of the Evidence Act is available to the prosecution.
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others
35
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others
36
The court, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Selvi and others v. State of Karnataka(2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 263) held that Narco analyst test had to be conducted with the consent of parties and subject to the guidelines of NHRC. It was held that voluntary undertaking of tests by the subject is permissible, provided certain safeguards recommended by the National Human Rights Commission are followed. In case of Polygraph test certain safeguards were provided, which were extended in case of Narco analysis test by the decision of the Supreme Court in Selvi's case (supra). It was held that even such test results are not admissible in evidence, except that they can be put to use for the limited purpose as indicated under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. According to the prosecution, in this case, narco analysis test was conducted before the guidelines were laid. It is on record that before conducting narco analysis test, consent was obtained by the prosecution. Learned Special Judge held that in the above circumstances, the result of narco analysis test cannot be challenged by the accused. Evidently, in the case at hand, the materials gathered in the course of narco analysis test are only for a limited purpose.
52 . Learned senior counsel for the third accused
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others
37
seriously attacked the version of CW7 which according to the prosecution was an extra judicial confession statement given by the first accused to CW7, inculpating himself and the third accused in the incident. CBI projected it as a strong piece of evidence against accused Nos. 1 and 3, admitting the illicit relationship between them and also about the suppressing of the evidence. It was contended by the learned senior counsel for the third accused that, the above statement attributed to the first accused, does not disclose that they were in the nature of a confessional statement. They do not admit the offence at all or disclose the ingredients of the offences. It was contended that, the above statement does not satisfy the ingredients of a confession as laid down in Pakala Narayana
Swami v. the King Emperor,(AIR 1939 PC 47). It was further contended that even if the whole or any part of it is admissible, it can at the most only be considered as only as an admission, which can be used against the first accused and not against the co-accused. In Pakala Narayanan Swami's case(supra) it was held that no statement that contains self exculpatory matter can amount to confession, if the exculpatory statement is of some fact, which if true, would negative the offence alleged to be confessed. Moreover, a confession must either admit in terms the offence, or at any
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others
38
rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. It was further held that an admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact, is not of itself a confession.
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others
39
authoritative pronouncement in Pakala Narayana Swami's case. (cited supra). It was held that statement made by an accused person is admissible in evidence as against others, who are jointly tried with him, unless statement amounts to a confession. Where statement falls short of confession, it is admissible as against the maker as admission and not against those who are jointly tried. Relying on the above decision, learned senior counsel pointed out that at the most, the evidence tendered by CW7 can only be treated as an admission which can be used against the first accused alone and not against co-accused.
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others 40
his best to shield one person and to implicate in its place another person. Hence, the Supreme Court on facts referred to it as a confession. The Supreme Court in the above decision placed reliance on the decisions in Ammine and others v. State of Kerala (1998 (2) SCC 301) and Prakash Dhawal Khairnar and others v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 2 SCC 35), wherein the issue dealt with was not extra judicial confession, but was the judicial confession recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C.
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others 41
that with all the infirmities in the initial investigation, that the investigation was carried out by different agencies, destruction of material evidences and material objects and long delay in chargesheeting the accused, each of the crucial witness projected by the CBI refers to each crucial relevant fact, which that witness is expected to disclose, and each of such relevant fact taken along with other facts projected through other witnesses, cumulatively constitute a complete chain of circumstances which is sufficient to lead to an irresistible conclusion of guilt. It was contended that the CBI, according to him, had made out a strong edifice with available materials. It was contended that at this juncture, the right of the CBI to proceed with the trial and to establish the case before the court of law should not be denied and the quality of statement revealed by the witnesses should be tested against the extent to which each witness may be able to survive the test of cross examination. It was also contended that the scope of evidence gathered by the CBI should not be tested against earlier versions spoken by the above witnesses to the other agency at this stage, since the stand of CBI was that earlier agencies did not properly investigate the case, and the testing of the evidence projected by CBI should be undertaken only by the trial court at the time of trial.
42
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others
Crl.R.P.No.398/2018 & others
43
eschewing the above few observations made while considering such issues, sufficient materials are prima facie available to proceed against accused 1 and 3. Hence, I find no infirmity in the conclusions arrived at by the special judge that accused Nos. 1 and3 has to face trial.
Having regard to the fact that the incident happened several years back and the long delay in the trial, the trial court shall expedite the trial proceedings and shall commence trial as expeditiously as possible immediately on receipt of the copy of this order.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
JUDGE
dpk
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Special Judge exceeded the scope of the enquiry contemplated under Section 227 CrPC while dealing with the discharge applications?
Whether there were sufficient prima facie materials to direct accused Nos. 1 and 3 to face trial?
Whether the discharge of the second accused was justified on the materials gathered by the prosecution?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
L.K.Advani v. Central Bureau of InvestigationReferred¶21
1997(41) DRJ
Suresh Budharmal Kalani Alias Pappu Kalani v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶22
(1998) 7 SCC 337 · Who else cites this
Satish Mehra v. State (NCT of Delhi) and anotherReferred¶23
(2012) 13 Supreme Court Cases 614
Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali Allias Deepak and OthersReferred¶24
(2013) 5 Supreme court Cases 762
State of U.P. v. Dr.Sanjay Singh and AnotherReferred¶25
1994 Supp(2) Supreme Court Cases 707
Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶26
MANU/SC/7528/2008
Century Spinning And Manufacturing Co.Ltd. and Others v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶27
1972 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 495
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and othersReferred¶27
1990 KHC 882
Union of India (UOI) v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and AnrReferred¶27
MANU SC)?0414/1978
State of Karnataka v. Muniswamy and OthersReferred¶27
1977 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 404
Bakhshish Singh v. State of PunjabReferred¶27
1971 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 251
Palvinder Kaur v. State of PunjabReferred¶27
MANU/SC/0038/1952
Sahadevan & Anr. v. State of Tamil NaduReferred¶27
AIR 2012 Supreme Court 2435 · Who else cites this
Om Prakash v. State of U.P.Referred¶27
MANU/SC/0205/1959
State of Kerala v. Sudarsanan and othersReferred¶48
2014 3 KHC 110
Desin Bai and Shanti Bai v. State of ChhattisgarhReferred¶48
2015 KHC 4091
Gajanan Dashrath v. Kharate State of MaharashtraReferred¶48
2016 KHC 6179
Selvi and others v. State of KarnatakaReferred¶51
(2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 263
Pakala Narayana Swami v. the King EmperorReferred¶52
AIR 1939 PC 47 · Who else cites this
Central Bureau of Investigation v. VC Shukla and OthersReferred¶53
(1998) 3 Supreme Court Cases 410
Sunil Rai Allas Pauya and others v. Union Territory, ChandigarhReferred¶54
( 2011)12 Supreme Court Cases 258
Ammine and others v. State of KeralaReferred¶54
1998 (2) SCC 301 · Who else cites this
Prakash Dhawal Khairnar and others v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶54
(2002) 2 SCC 35 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Thomas Kottoor
Sephy
Jomon Puthenpurackal
Central Bureau of Investigation
Jose Poothrikkayil
State of Kerala
Sunil Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
