Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing Kuriakose vs State Of Kerala on 1 February, 1994

Sri Rajesh K N vs Sri K R Umesh on 25 September, 2023

20. The Kerala High Court in the case of Kuriakose Vs. State of Kerala reported in 1995 Cri.L.J 1751 has observed that the proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. should not be initiated as a matter of course, even when the witnesses give contradictory evidence. It appears that Section 340 of Cr.P.C should be exercised with care and due consideration in the interest of justice.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S Amarannavar - Full Document

Ravji @ Ram Chandra vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 December, 1995

185) and Kuriakose and Another versus State of Kerala (1994 (Suppl. 1) SCC 602). Mr. Bhati has submitted that although Mr. Natarajan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has very strongly contended that it was quite likely that the appellant was suffering from psychic disorder otherwise such facts, without any motivation could not have been perpetrated and likelihood of sudden psychic disorder ought to be considered as a mitigating factor in awarding the extreme penalty of death, there is not an iota of evidence regarding sudden psychic disorder of the accused appellant at the time of commission of the said crime. The evidences on the contrary reveal that in a cool and calculated manner, and without any provocation whatsoever, he committed one after the other the said dastardly crime in a very brutal and ghastly manner. Mr. Bhati has submitted that the number of murders in one continued course of action and attempt to kill two others including the mother of the appellant cannot but shock the conscience of the society. The offence committed by the appellant is one of the rarest and there is no mitigating circumstances which warrant punishment of life imprisonment instead of capital punishment. He has, therefore, submitted that the order of death sentence is wholly justified in the facts of the case and no intereference is called for.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 213 - G N Ray - Full Document

Anil Kumar vs Ashok Kumar

In the decision reported in Kuriakose Vs. State of Kerala [2000 (1) KLT 117], this court has held that in order to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, it must be alleged and proved by the complainant that the accused do not belong to that community while complainant belong to that community. In order to attract the offence under this Section, it must be alleged that the complainant belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the accused do not Crl.M.C.No.2151 of 2013 : 8 : belong to that category and having domain over the caste position, they have used these words. But, in this case, there is nothing mentioned in the complaint that the accused persons do not belong to that community. No document has been produced along with the complaint to prove that the complainant belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the accused belonging to some other community other than the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. None of the witnesses examined also stated that the accused do not belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, but, they belong to some other community. So, under the circumstances, on the basis of the evidence available on record, court below was not justified in taking cognizance of the case for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as the allegations in the complaint and the evidence adduced are not sufficient to attract the offence and proceeding with the case as against them is nothing, but, an abuse of process of court, especially when no such allegation has been made in Annexure I First Information Statement and that was the subsequent development made by the complainant when he filed Annexure Crl.M.C.No.2151 of 2013 : 9 : III complaint and the proceedings as against the petitioners initiated on the basis of Annexure III resulted in taking cognizance as C.P.No.54/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamkotta has to be quashed invoking the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure as on the basis of the allegations and the evidence, proceeding with the case as against them will only amount to abuse of process of court. So, the petition is allowed and further proceedings in C.P.No.54/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamkotta is hereby quashed.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - K Ramakrishnan - Full Document

Smt. Rajni Sehrawat And Another vs Sh. Rakesh Sehrawat on 14 August, 2012

In 1995 Crl J 1751, case titled as Kuriakose Vs. State of Kerala, it was held that "it is not in all the cases when witness speaks falsehood that action shall be initiated against him for perjury by invoking section 340 Cr.P.C. There must be prima facie satisfaction on the part of the Smt. Rajni Sehrawat Vs. Sh. Rakesh Sehrawat No. 696/3/05 Unique ID No. 02401R1032232003 Page 12 of 14 Court that such a proceeding should be initiated for the interest of justice".
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ajay Raj Bhagat vs State on 31 March, 2010

In case titled as Kuriakose Vs. State of Kerala reported as 1995 Criminal Law Journal 1751, it was held that proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. need not be initiated as a matter of course but after considering the gravity of false statement. It was held that contrary statement as to contents of panchnama or mahazar by attesting witness does not make him liable for prosecution. It is not in all cases when witnesses speak falsehood that action shall be initiated against him for perjury by invoking Section 340 of Cr.P.C. There must be prima facie satisfaction on the part of the Court that such a proceedings should be initiated 'for the interest of justice' and that there is prima facie evidence to come to the conclusion that false evidence Probate Case No. 84/2007 Page 16 of 17 -: 17 :- has been tendered. In the absence of those conditions, the court will not be justified in proceeding with the matter.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Jagmohan S/O Shri Chattar Sain vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 10 September, 2009

In case titled as Kuriakose Vs. State of Kerala reported as 1995 Criminal Law Journal 1751, it was held that proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. need not be initiated as a matter of course but after considering gravity of false statement. It was also held that it is not in all the cases when witnesses speak falsehood that action shall be initiated against him for perjury by invoking Section 340 of the Code. There must be prima facie satisfaction on the part of the Court that such a proceeding should be initiated for the interest of justice and there is prima facie evidence to come to the conclusion that false evidence has been tendered.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr C B Murthy @ Chingategere Basappa ... vs Sri C R Vishwaprakash on 24 August, 2023

20. The Kerala High Court in the case of Kuriakose Vs. State of Kerala reported in 1995 Cri.L.J 1751 has observed that the proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. should not be initiated as a matter of course, even when the witnesses give contradictory evidence. It appears that Section 340 of Cr.P.C should be exercised with care and due consideration in the interest of justice.
Karnataka High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S Amarannavar - Full Document

Kerala State Road Transport ... vs Appellate Tribunal on 2 September, 2002

7. Before I part with the judgment I am persuaded to observe the following lines under the facts and circumstances of the subject of discussion. Though Indian Penal' Code prescribes a maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A, the quantum of punishment should not be taken for analysing the facts constituting an offence. Now a days motor accidents claim countless lives of human beings due to the rash, careless and negligent driving of drivers of motor vehicles. The question of imposing maximum term of imprisonment has to be considered by the Courts. It is now high time to prescribe severe and more term of imprisonment and substantial amount as fine by the framers of the law and also such authorities to impose deterrent punishments to such offenders who are causing death of innocent persons. The question of imposing deterrent and maximum punishment in motor offences has been considered by this Court in Kuriakose v. State, 1992 (2)'KLT 292, wherein this Court observed as follows:-
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - K Thankappan - Full Document
1   2 Next