SANJAY KUMAR, ALOK ARADHE
State of Kerala – Appellant
Versus
Suni @ Sunil – Respondent
JUDGMENT
SANJAY KUMAR, J
1. Leave granted.
2. In Maktool Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1999) 3 SCC 321 this Court had observed that precision and brevity are generally the hallmarks of legislative draftsmanship. The cases on hand, however, bear testimony to how laxity in such draftsmanship can generate and be a source of litigation.
3. The issue presently is as to how the offence under Section 195A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), has to be construed and dealt with. Section 195A IPC reads as follows: -
Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause that person to give false evidence shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both;
and if innocent person is convicted and sentenced in consequence of such false evidence, with death or imprisonment for more than seven years, the person who threatens shall be punished with the same punishment and sentence in the same manner and to the same extent such innocen
Maktool Singh vs. State of Punjab
Salib alias Shalu alias Salim vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
Rahul Yadav vs. State and another
Abdul Razzak vs. State of M.P. and another
Neput Rajiyung @ Action Dimasa @ Miput Rajiyung vs. State of Assam and another
Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma and others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.