SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

A.RAMAN, R.VANAROJA
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
P. SRINIVASAN – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. K.S. Narsimhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Arul Sagai, Advocate.

ORDER

Thiru Justice A. Raman, President—The claim arose on the death of one Pennatchi Ammal. There is much mystery surrounding the death of Pennatchi Ammal.

2. In the notice issued by the complainant through his lawyer, it is stated that Pennatchi Ammal died by falling into a well. The heirs of Pannatchi Ammal have given an affidavit along with their claim in which they have stated that on 15.9.1998 Pennatchi Ammal fell down accidentally into a well and died. The death certificate gives the date of death as 15.9.1998 whereas we find that the declaration affidavit signed by the heirs gives the date as 15.6.1998. FIR has been registered and it is under Section 174, Cr.P.C. It has been registered on 15.9.1998 at about 7.45 p.m. If really she died because of accident by falling into a well, it is rather strange that a claim came to be registered under Section 174, Cr. P.C. Death of drowning cannot come under Section 174, Cr.P.C. Section 174, Cr. P.C. reads as follows :

“When the officer-in-charge of Police Station or some other Police Officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives information that a person had committed suicide, or has been killed by another o







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top