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

2015 Supreme(Mad) 2241

B.RAJENDRAN
Durai – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant: G. Vivekanand
For the Respondent:V. Arul, Government Advocate

Order

B. Rajendran, J.

1. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused in C.C. No. 141 of 2002 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304 (A) of IPC. Upon completion of trial, the trial court convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304 (A) [3 counts] of IPC. The petitioner was imposed with a fine of Rs.200/- and in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 IPC; and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- for each count, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for each count, under Section 304 (A) of IPC [3 counts]. The petitioner was not convicted for the offence under Section 337 IPC. The petitioner unsuccessfully assailed the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court by filing Crl.Appeal No. 4 of 2007 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri as it was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 24.04.2009. As against the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner.

2. The facts leading to the registration of criminal prosecutio













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