Dismissed¶¶166

Munigadppa Meenaiah v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – murder

Supreme Court23 Jul 20082008 INSC 858 · [2008] 11 S.C.R. 1722008 INSC 858

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Murder; Section 302 IPC; circumstantial evidence; last seen together; interested witness; related witness; partisan witness; complete chain of circumstances; recovery of murder weapon (pestle) on accused's information; illicit relationship with brother's widow; suspicion of chastity; Andhra Pradesh; life imprisonment affirmed; Supreme Court of India; Criminal Appeal No. 1206 of 2006; decided 23 July 2008; Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.; Dalip Singh; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda five conditions.

What did the court decide?

Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness; more often than not a relation would not conceal the actual culprit or make allegations against an innocent person. ¶¶78

Munigadppa Meenaiah versus the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Supreme Court (2008)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶166

Issue for consideration

Whether the testimony of PWs 1 and 10, sons of the deceased and therefore interested/related witnesses, could be relied upon for the conviction. +1 more

¶¶73

Court's answer

Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness; more often than not a relation would not conceal the actual culprit or make allegations against an innocent person.

¶¶78

Ratio / Principle

The ground that a witness being a close relative and consequently a partisan witness should not be relied upon has no substance; foundation must be laid for a plea of false implication, and the court must adopt a careful approach to test whether the evidence is cogent and credible.

¶¶97

Key takeaways

Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person; such circumstances must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred.ratio¶¶114
Conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence, but it must be tested by the touchstone of the law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by this Court.ratio¶¶147

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 - murder - conviction based on circumstantial evidence upheld; appeal dismissed. The deceased, the accused's brother's widow with whom he had an illegitimate relationship and whose fidelity he suspected, was killed by blows with a pestle; her body was found in front of the accused's house. PWs 1 and 10 (sons of the deceased) and PW 2 (toddy shop keeper) saw the deceased last in the company of the accused on the night of the occurrence, and the pestle used to inflict the head injury was recovered on information given by the accused. Held: (i) relationship is not a factor affecting credibility; evidence of close relatives or partisan witnesses cannot be discarded on that ground alone, and foundation must be laid for any plea of false implication (Dalip Singh, Guli Chand, Vadivelu Thevar, Masalti, Jagir Singh, Lehna, Teja Ram relied on); (ii) settled principles governing circumstantial evidence restated - circumstances must be fully established, conclusive, exclusive of every other hypothesis, and form a complete chain (Hukam Singh, Eradu, Earabhadrappa, Sukhbasi, Balwinder Singh, Chatterjee, Bhagat Ram, Chenga Reddy, Padala Veera Reddy, Srivastava, Hanumant, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, Rajaram, Jagbir Singh relied on; Wills' Circumstantial Evidence referred to). The circumstances in the instant case formed a complete chain; conviction and life sentence affirmed.

[2008] 11 S.C.R. 172

MUNIGADPPA MEENAIAH

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 1206 of 2006)

¶6

¶7

JULY 23, 2008

¶8

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]

¶9

)..,

¶10

Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder - I/legitimate re/a- c tion between parties - Accused suspecting chastity of victim, hatched a plan and murc!ered her by hitting her with pestle - Sons of victim as also shop keeper saw victim and accused together in night of occurrence, thereafter, dead body found in front of the house of accused - Murder weapon recovered at D^{the instanceof accused-}^{Convictionu/s.302 and sentence} of life imprisonment by courts below - Justification· of- Held: Justified -- Circumstances make complete chain of evidence - Evidence of witness being close relative and consequently a partisan witness cannot be discarded - Evidence.

¶11

¶12

E According to the prosecution case, there was illegitimate relationship between the appellant-accused and his brother's widow-Y and they were living together. Sons of Y were living separately. The accused suspecting fidelity of Y, hatched a plan to. murder Y. He killed Y by hitF ting her with pestle and laid the body on the road in front of his house and cleaned the blood stains in the room to throw suspicion on other persons. Before the incident both the accused and Y had gone to the toddy shop of PW-2 and purchased the bottle of toddy. PW-1-son of deG^{ceased,lodgedFIR.Investigationwascarried out. Trial} court relied on the evidence of PWs 1 and 10-sons of deceased as also PW 2 who deposed to have seen· the deceased last in the company of the appellant and PW5 with regard to certain recoveries. It convicted the accused u/s

,..

172

MUNIGADPPA MEENAIAH v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶17

173

¶18

302 IPC and imposed life imprisonment. High Court upheld the order. Hence the present appeal.

¶19

¶20

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

¶21

HELD: 1. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation B would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. The ground c that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. [Para 7,9 & 10] [177-G, 178-F]

¶22

..+

¶23

¶24

Oalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 364; Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 197 4 (3) SCC 698; Vadive/u Thevar v. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614; Masalti and Ors. v. State of UP AIR 1965 SC 202; State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh AIR 1973 SC 2407; Lehna v. State of Haryana 2002 (3) SCC 76; State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram and Ors. AIR 1999 SC 1776 - relied on.

¶25

There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence. Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. [Paras 14 and 19] [179-G 180-A,B,C 182-A]

Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SC 1063; H

¶31

174

¶32

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶33

[2008] 11 S.C.R.

¶34

¶35

A Eradu and_Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316; Earabhadrappa v. State of Kamataka AIR 1983 SC 446; State ·of UP v. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1224; f?alwinder Singh· v. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 350; Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P AIR 1989 SC 1890;

¶36

¶37

Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P 1996 (10) SCC 193; Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 79; State of U. P v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava 1992 Crl.LJ 1104; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya C Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622; State of Rajasthan v. Rajaram 2003 (8) SCC 180; State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh 2003 (11) sec 261 - relied on.

¶38

o "Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" by Sir Alfred Wills (Chapter VI) - referred to.

¶39

In the instant case, PWs 1 and 10 as well as PW2 saw the deceased and the accused together in the night of the occurrence. In the morning; dead ·body of the deE ceased, was found in .front of the house of the accused. Additionally, on the basis of information given by the accused certain articles were recovered and one of them was the pestle used for inflicting the injury on the head. That being so, the judgment of the trial court and the High F Court does not suffer from any infirmity. [Para 23] [183D,E,F]

¶40

¶41

¶42

Case Law Reference AIR 1953 SC 364 Relied on. Para 8 1s14 (3) sec 698 Relied on. Para.9 AIR 1957 SC 614 Relied on. Para 9 AIR 1965 SC 202 Relied on. Para 11 AIR 1973 SC 2407 Relied on. Para 12 2002 (3) sec 76 Relied on. Para 12

¶43

MUNIGADPPA MEENAIAH v. THE STATE 175 OF ANDHRA PRADESH [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

AIR 1999 SC 1776	Relied on.	Para 13	A
AIR 1977 SC 1063	Relied on.	Para 14
AIR 1956 SC 316	Relied on.	Para 14
AIR 1983 SC 446	Relied on.	Para 14
AIR 1985 SC 1224	Relied on.	Para 14	B
AIR 1987 SC 350	Relied on.	Para 14
AIR 1989 SC 1890	Relied on.	Para 14
AIR 1954 SC621	Relied on.	Para 14	c
1996 (10)sec193	Relied on.	Para 15
AIR 1990 SC 79	Relied on.	Para 16
1992 Crl.L.J 1104	Relied on.	Para 17	D
AIR 1952 SC 343	Relied on.	Para20
AIR 1984 SC 1622	Relied on.	Para21
2003 (8)sec180	Relied on.	Para 22
2003 (11)sec261	Relied on.	Para22	E
CRIMINALAPPELLATE No.1206 of 2006	JURISDICTION:	Criminal Appeal

¶49

From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2005 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in F Crl. Appeal No. 179 of 2003

¶50

Bal raj Dewan for the Appellant.

¶51

D. Bharathi Reddy for the Respondent.

¶52

¶53

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶54

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction recorded by Ill Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, holding the

176

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶59

[2008] 11 S.C.R.

¶60

A appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and sentencing him imprisonment for life.

¶61

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

¶62

B The accused Munigadapa Meenaiah is native of Thimmapuram, Bommalaramaram of Nalgonda District. He was doing fruit business at Medchal. Ten years back, his younger brother Mallaiah died. After demise of Mallaiah, his wife Yellamma (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'), along c with her two sons took shelter at the house of the accused. During that period, he developed illegal intimacy with the deceased and both were living together and her sons were living separately. Suspecting the fidelity of the deceased, the accused used to pick up quarrels with her, as a result of which, he separated o and took another portion at Medchal.

¶63

While so, the accused hatched up a plan to liquidate the deceased. On 3.6.2001 at about 9.00 A.M. the accused went to the house of deceased and invited her to house to consume toddy and both of them went to the toddy shop of PW 2, purE chased two bottle of toddy and brought the same to his house in a tumbler and both of them consumed toddy. While consuming toddy, the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased on the ground of her chastity. As a consequence of which the deceased grew wild and abused him by denying the allegations F of illegal contacts with others. On that, the accused brought a pestle and murdered the deceased by hitting the same on her head and laid the body on the road in front of his house, cleaned the blood stains in the room and tried to obliterate the scientific evidence so as to throw the suspicion on other persons. On the G report given by P. W.1, a case in Cr. No.117 of 2001 of Medchel Police Station was registered for the offence under Section 302 IPC and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

¶64

Accused abjured guilt and demanded trial. The prosecuH tion examined 10 witnesses, and marked Exs P 1 to P 21 and

¶65

i '

¶66

MUNIGADPPA MEENAIAH v. THE STATE 177 OF ANDHRA PRADESH [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

¶67

¶68

Mos 1 to 5. On the other hand, no oral evidence was adduced^A on behalf of the accused, Ex. 01 contradiction was marked.

¶69

¶70

,. -'

¶71

After scrutinizing the entire material on record and after hearing the learned counsel on both sides, the learned District Judge found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under B Section 302 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to sl.fffer imprisonment for life.

¶72

The Trial Court placed reliance on the evidence of PWs. 1 and 10 who spoke to have seen the deceased last in the company of the appellant. Reference was also made to the evi- c dence of PW5 relating to certain recoveries by PW. 19. PW 2 also deposed to have seen accused and deceased together when they purchased toddy and thereafter the dead body of the deceased was found in front of the house of the accused with injuries on her head and other parts of the body. As noted above, D the learned Trial Court found the accused guilty.

¶73

Before the High Court the stand was that PWs. 1 and 10 are sons of the deceased and are interested witnesses and should not have been believed. It was also submitted that the circumstances· highlighted do not make a complete chain of^E circumstances. The High Court did not find ai:iy substance in the plea and dismissed the same by the impugned judgment.

¶74

In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the stands taken before the High Court.

¶75

¶76

In response, learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the Trial Court and the High Court.

¶77

-'\

¶78

We shall first deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.

178

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008] 11 S.C.R.

~ ~ ' t ~ ' ,_ t-1-~

I ~- I

• f l

( l I l

¶90

t t

¶91

¶92

In Oalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab (AIR 1953 SC 364) it has been laid down as under:-

¶93

"A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has B cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, w!len feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to c drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping D generalization. Each case must· be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts."

¶94

¶95

¶96

The above decision has since been followed in Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1974 (3) SCC 698) in which Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras (AIR 1957 SC 614) was also relied upon.

¶97

F 10. We may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Da/ip Singh's case (supra) in which surprise was expressed over the impression G^{which prevailed in the minds of the Membersof theBar that} relatives were not independent witnesses. Speaking through Vivian Bose, J. it was observed:

¶98

:>--

¶99

¶100

"We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an

¶101

;..-

¶102

MUNIGADPPA MEENAIAH v. THE STATE 179 OF ANDHRA PRADESH [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

¶103

¶104

observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are^A women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court B endeavoured to dispel in - 'Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan' (AIR 1952 SC 54 at p.59). We find, however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of the Courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel."

¶105

Again in Masa/ti and Ors. v. State of U.P (AIR 1965^c SC 202) this Court observed: (p, 209-210 para 14):

¶106

¶107

...(

¶108

"But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested D witnesses ....... The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; E but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct."

¶109

¶110

To the same effect is the decision in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh (AIR 1973 SC 2407) and Lehna v. State of Haryana (2002 (3) sec 76) ..

¶111

¶112

As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram and Ors. (AIR 1999 SC 1776) the over-insistence on witnesses having no relation with the victims often results in criminal justice going awry. When any incident happens in a dwelling house or nearby the most natural witnesses would be the inmates of that house.

¶113

¶114

·it has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating

¶115

¶116

180

¶117

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶118

[2008] 11 S.C.R.

¶119

....

¶120

~ f

¶121

¶122

A facts and circumstances are found to.be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063); Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316); Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446); State B of UP v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P (AIR 1989 SC 1890). The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have c^{to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact} sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must D be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.

¶123

We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P (1996) 10 sec 193, wherein it has been observed thus:

¶124

¶125

"In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence .... ".

¶126

¶127

G 16. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P and Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 79), it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:

¶128

"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

r..

MUNIGADPPA MEENAIAH v. THE STATE 181 OF ANDHRA PRADESH [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

¶135

)..-

¶136

(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency^A unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

¶137

(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime B was committed by the accused and none else; and

¶138

¶139

(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not c only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.

¶140

In State of UP v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied D on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. E

¶141

Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be F clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of G guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted". H

¶142

¶143

182

¶144

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶145

[2008] 11 S.C.R.

¶146

¶147

There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial' evidence but it should be tested by the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by the this Court as far back as in 1952.

¶148

In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr V State of 8 Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343), wherein it was observed thus:

¶149

"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which c the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should D be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been E done by the accused."

¶150

A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1984 SC 1622). Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it F has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. G Theyare:

¶151

¶152

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established;

¶153

¶154

MUNIGADPPA MEENAIAH v. THE STATE 183 OF ANDHRA PRADESH [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

¶155

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only A with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

¶156

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

¶157

¶158

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

¶159

(5) the:e must be a chain of evidence so complete as C not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

¶160

These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan D v. Rajaram (2003 (8) SCC 180) and State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh (2003 (11) sec 261).

¶161

In the instance PWs 1 and 10 as well as PW2 saw the deceased and the accused together in the night of the occurrence. In the morning, dead body of the deceased was found in front of the house of the accused. Additionally, on the basis of information given by the accused certain articles were recovered and one of them was the pestle used for inflicting the injury on the head. That being so, the judgment of the Trial Court and the High Court do not suffer from any infirmity.

¶162

¶163

¶164

The appeal is without merit, deserves dismissal, which we direct.

¶165

N.J.

¶166

Appeal dismissed.

Munigadppa Meenaiah v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munigadppa Meenaiah v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shambhoo Singh versus State of Rajasthan

Raj Rajendra Singh Seth @ R.R.S. Seth versus the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Sonelal versus State of M.P.

Bantu versus the State of U.P.

Suraj Singh versus Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, Jj.]

National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Gulab Nabi and Anr.