B.M.TULSIDAS, K.T.THOMAS, P.K.SHAMSUDDIN
C. Narayanan (Writer) And Etc. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
THOMAS, J.
This is a case is which a Sub-Inspector was shot dead inside his police station. The crucial question involved here is whether he shot himself dead or was shot at by one of his subordinates in conspiracy with others in the police station. Sessions Court found that he was shot dead by one of his subordinates. One Head Constable and two Constables (out of seven persons arraigned as accused in the trial court) were convicted and sentenced for murder and also for certain other allied offences. Other accused were acquitted. The first three appeals are those preferred by the convicted accused. Union of India filed one appeal for enhancement of sentence from imprisonment for life to death penalty and another appeal against acquittal.
2. The scene of occurrence was the Sub-Inspector's room in Panur Police Station. That date of occurrence was 12-3-1981 at 11-55 a.m. The facts of this case are simple, but evidence is much. Three different agencies have handled the investigation in this case at three different stages. The first two (local police and then crime branch wing of Kerala Police) concluded that this is a case of suicide. But the Central Bureau of Investigation
Referred to: 1960 KLT 1; AIR 1928 Cal. 893; 1934 All. 406; 1940 Mad. 273 & 1960 All. 339
Relied on: 1987 (1) KLT 928 & AIR 1984 S.C. 1622; AIR 1938 Oudh. 26
None. There are no indications from the provided case law list that this case has been overruled, reversed, criticized, or otherwise treated as bad law. The list only states the principle established in the case without referencing subsequent judicial treatment.
[Followed/Established]
The case <01500017633> appears to be a foundational or landmark decision that establishes a legal principle regarding the jurisdiction of courts in contract cases. There is no indication that this case has been overruled or criticized, suggesting it remains good law and is likely followed or cited as authority in relevant legal contexts.
None. The treatment of this case is clear from the information provided; there are no indications of subsequent treatment that would suggest uncertainty or ambiguity.
**Source :** S. M. Kadirsa Rawther VS K. Shanmugha Mudaliar - Kerala Sharad Birdhichand Sarda VS State Of Maharashtra - Supreme Court
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.