Back
K.RAMASWAMY, R.M.SAHAI
Varkey Joseph – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Understood. Please provide the legal document (as {content} within
JUDGMENT
K. RAMASWAMY, J.:—Special Leave granted.
2. The appellant was charged, found guilty and convicted under S. 302, IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for causing the death of his brother Mathew on August 5, 1988 at about 8 a.m. in their Ramanattu house in Mazhuvannur in Kerala State. It was confirmed on appeal by High Court of Kerala in Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 1989 dated February 6, 1992. Thus this appeal by special leave.
3. The prosecution case in nutshell is that Ramanattu Varkey had seven sons and four daughters. During his lifetime he executed repeated settlement deeds settling his extensive properties of 60 acres, double storeyed building and factories which lead to acrimony among his children. In 1976 the deceased Mathew was charged for patricide but was acquitted. He was a discharged military officer and managed to have complete hold of the properties and excluded other brothers and sisters from enjoyment of the properties. The appellant is the youngest and he resented the conduct of the deceased. The prosecution case itself was that later on there was reconciliation between the. appellant and the deceased as spoken to by the widow of the
[No cases identified as bad law. None of the excerpts contain keywords or phrases indicating that any case has been overruled, reversed, abrogated, criticized, questioned, or otherwise treated as bad law. All references appear affirmative or neutral.]
[The vast majority of cases reference "Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala, AIR 1993 SC 1892" (and minor citation variants like 1993 Supp (3) SCC 745) positively, indicating it has been followed, relied upon, or approved in subsequent decisions. This is the dominant pattern across the list.]
AMAR SINGH VS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - 2000 0 Supreme(HP) 275: Relied upon by counsel for appellant; their Lordships have settled [a principle], implying approval.
JAGANNATH VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - 2002 0 Supreme(MP) 1071: Supreme Court held [principle] as under, directly quoting para 12 approvingly.
Diwali Mahto VS State Of Bihar - 2007 0 Supreme(Pat) 1736: Apex Court reiterated [principle] vide para 12, quoting approvingly.
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma VS State (NCT of Delhi) - 2010 3 Supreme 190: Learned senior counsel relied upon the judgment.
CHANDAPARAMBIL RAMACHANDRAN Vs STATE OF KERALA - 2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12948: Relying on the decision of the Apex Court.
Central Bureau of Investigation VS Sakru Mahagu Binjewar - 2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 965: Listed as a cited precedent (xiii).
RAJEEVAN K.V. vs STATE OF KERALA - 2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41512: Fortified in this view by the pronouncement of the Apex Court.
Prabhat Singh VS State - 2014 0 Supreme(Del) 1663: Reliance placed on it, though noted as not helping appellant (still cited as valid authority).
STATE OF H. P VS HHC KASHMIR SINGH - 2014 0 Supreme(HP) 2035: See [case], cited as reference.
State of Himachal Pradesh VS Sunder Singh son of Shri Sewak Ram - 2014 0 Supreme(HP) 1210: See AIR 1993 SC 1892 titled [case], cited as reference.
State of Himachal Pradesh VS Shesh Ram - 2015 0 Supreme(HP) 113: See AIR 1993 SC 1892 titled [case], cited as reference.
DHAVAL GOPALBHAI DOBARIYA VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2015 0 Supreme(Guj) 208: Strong reliance on decision; Supreme Court explained [principle] in detail.
SIKANDAR SINGH VS STATE OF M. P. - 2015 0 Supreme(MP) 1177: Held by Apex Court that [principle].
Ramdeo VS State of Maharashtra - 2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 1265: Placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court.
Saileshkumar Ambalal Patel VS State of Gujarat - Crimes (2016): Supreme Court explained [principle] in detail; relied upon by senior counsel.
Saileshkumar Ambalal Patel VS State of Gujarat - 2016 0 Supreme(Guj) 2161: Supreme Court explained [principle] in detail; relied upon by senior counsel.
S. Ramachandran VS B. Bhanuvikraman Nair - 2017 0 Supreme(Ker) 956: So held by Supreme Court [principle].
S.RAMACHANDRAN Vs B.BHANUVIKRAMAN NAIR - 2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13464: So held by Supreme Court [principle].
Umesh Kumar VS State NCT of Delhi - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 4366: Supreme Court held [principle].
Nageshwar Singh VS State of Bihar - 2018 0 Supreme(Pat) 231: Relied upon judgments including this case (para 12).
Kulwinder VS State (NCT of Delhi) - 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 2724: Position clarified by Supreme Court [quoting approvingly].
DIGAMBER VAISHNAV VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - 2019 3 Supreme 41: This Court has held [principle].
Pramila VS State Of U. P. - 2019 0 Supreme(All) 1369: Court held [principle].
Pramod Prajapati VS State of U. P. - 2019 0 Supreme(All) 1048: Court held [principle].
Manojbhai VS State of Gujarat - 2019 0 Supreme(Guj) 662: This Court has held [principle].
Ajay VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2020 0 Supreme(All) 415: Court held [principle].
Boby @ Sushil VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2020 0 Supreme(All) 832: Court held [principle].
Satish Kumar Verma VS State of U. P. - 2020 0 Supreme(All) 818: Court held [principle].
K. Raghavan VS State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor - 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 894: We quote from [case].
Satendra Kumar VS State of U. P. - 2022 0 Supreme(All) 912: Supreme Court has held [principle].
Suresh Babu, S/o. Kalassery Vasu VS State of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 891: Cited alongside other cases.
Sonu @ Paua @ Beedi VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 2042: Para 11 reproduced; aptly put by Supreme Court.
Gopireddy Srinivas VS State of A. P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 92: Learned counsel relied on judgment wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held [principle].
CHANDRA BABU @ BABU S/O DIVAKARAN VS STATE OF KERALA - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 888: Cited in brackets.
Sai Lal Patel VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 587: Supreme Court has held as under, quoting.
Diksha Bharat Dhande vs State of Maharashtra - 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 1074: Explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court; relied on observations.
Pankaja Kumar Lenka vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13414: Further, in the case of [minor spelling variant].
Om Prakash vs State of U.P. - 2026 0 Supreme(All) 211: Cited as Varkey Joseph Vs. [incomplete but affirmative].
Note: Other cases in the list (e.g., Gulzarilal Tandon AIR 1979 SC 1382, Mst Madani AIR 1993 SC 1892) appear in chain citations or as relied upon alongside Varkey Joseph, e.g., [AMAR SINGH VS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - 2000 0 Supreme(HP) 275, but lack individual negative treatment indicators. They are grouped here as positively cited.]
RUCHI RAI SEHMBEY VS SIMON JASON SEHMBEY @ HAMINDER SEHMBEY - 2013 0 Supreme(Del) 1537: Describes a court emphasis on a principle (no named case, but positive judicial treatment implied; grouped as followed based on context of maintenance law approval.]
Prabhat Singh VS State - 2014 0 Supreme(Del) 1663: "Varkey Joseph (supra) relied upon... does not help him in any manner, inasmuch as, in that case..." – Distinguished on facts (not disapproved; still valid authority).
No cases. All excerpts provide clear indicators of positive reliance or distinction. Incomplete fragments (e.g., [Om Prakash vs State of U.P. - 2026 0 Supreme(All) 211, AMAR SINGH VS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - 2000 0 Supreme(HP) 275) do not suggest negative treatment and align with followed pattern. No ambiguous negative signals like "criticized," "questioned," etc.]
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
