The single judge of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya of the Chitra Mukherjee v. Union of India (WPA 103 of 2023) Calcutta High Court in the case of has observed that a death caused by a mosquito bite wouldn’t count as an “accident” and hence, the same wouldn’t be covered as an insurable claim under the ‘Accident’ insurance.

Facts of the Case:

The mother of one Chayan Mukherjee, who was serving in the Indian Army and died on December 20, 2021 in the Command 2 Hospital (Eastern Command), Kolkata, was the petitioner who filed the writ suit before the HC. Mukherjee was taken to Command Hospital on November 16, 2021, after experiencing post-surgical problems as a result of a knee injury, and was diagnosed with end-stage renal disease while receiving treatment. Mukherjee, on the other hand, experienced a high-grade fever with chills on December 12, 2021, and was determined to be Dengue NS1 Ag positive. On December 20, 2021, he died as a result of his sickness. The petitioner (Mukherjee’s Mother) filed a claim with respondent no. 4 / United India Insurance Company following the death of her son; however, the Insurance Company denied the claim, claiming that the cause of death was Dengue, an illness not covered by its policy.

Judgment Review:

“The conclusion which follows is that the death cannot be attributed solely to Dengue or seen as the sole and direct contributory factor resulting in the death of the petitioner’s son. This substantially dilutes the argument that the cause of death was accidental since the mosquito bite was an unexpected “accident””, said the Court. the Court noted that the case of the petitioner’s son must be seen in the factual context of the definition of accident that is to say that Death or Disability must result solely and directly from an accident caused by an external, violent and visible means and the causation must necessarily involve:

Accident → death

However, the Court further added that the accident does not include disease and implies the intervention of an external cause which is fortuitous and happens by chance. In view of this, the Court concluded that the death of the petitioner’s son cannot be attributed solely to Dengue or seen as the sole and direct contributory factor resulting in the death of the petitioner’s son as the Medical Certificate showed that the direct cause of death was both Dengue and End-stage renal disease IgA Nephropathy. The Court also noted that the Insurance Policy made it clear that death caused by a disease won’t be covered and only accidental deaths would be covered, however, the Court added, since a bite by a mosquito can not be said to be an accident, the same wouldn’t be covered as an insurable claim under the ‘Accident’ insurance.

Click here to view the Judgment

“Prime Legal is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of the best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”

JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY DIVYA SHREE GN

Ramesh And Ors vs The State

 9 May, 2023

Bench: Hon’ble Ramachandra D. Huddar

 

Introduction:-

In the case with the petition number CRL.P No. 200397 of 2023, the petitioners have filed a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to seek regular bail in Crime No. 24/2023 of Ferhatabad Police Station, Kalaburagi. The crime is registered for the offense punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

Facts:-

According to the prosecution’s case as per the FIR, the complainant, K. Gadilingappa, alleged that on 12.03.2023 at around 5:00 p.m., he was returning from Sonna Village after meeting Yallamma. While he was on National Highway 50 near the bridge of Siranoor village at approximately 8:30 p.m., five individuals on two motorcycles intercepted him. They forcefully removed his helmet and used it to assault him on the head twice. They also snatched his bag containing 1,000 INR and a mobile phone, as well as his motorcycle, before fleeing towards Kalaburagi. The complaint was registered with the Ferhatabad Police Station for the offense under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, and now the petitioners are seeking bail.

Arguments by Petitioner

The counsel for the petitioners argues that they are innocent and falsely implicated in the case. They have been in judicial custody since 14.03.2023. The offense they are charged with does not carry the punishment of death or imprisonment for life. The petitioners are willing to comply with any conditions imposed by the court, and they have permanent residency and immovable properties within the jurisdiction of the court. Therefore, the counsel prays for their release on bail.

Arguments by Respondent

On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader, representing the respondent/state, opposes the bail petition. The prosecution contends that there is prima facie evidence connecting the petitioners to the commission of the crime. During the investigation, the petitioners did not provide satisfactory answers when interrogated, and the process of conducting an identification parade is pending. The petitioners are also allegedly involved in similar crimes registered with different police stations. The government pleader argues that if the petitioners are granted bail, they might tamper with the prosecution evidence, which could hinder the ongoing investigation.

Judgement:-

After hearing the arguments from both sides and examining the records, the court notes that the complainant lodged the complaint alleging the incident and subsequently, the police arrested the petitioners, who are currently in judicial custody. The offense under Section 395 of the IPC is not punishable by death. The court emphasizes that bail is the general rule, and the denial of bail should be the exception. The court refers to established legal principles stating that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that the grant of bail does not amount to acquittal.

Considering the objections raised by the prosecution, the court opines that imposing strict conditions on the petitioners while granting bail can address those concerns. The court finds merit in the submission that the investigation is nearly complete and that the petitioners have undertaken to abide by the conditions imposed by the court. Moreover, the court takes into account the impending marriage of the petitioner’s sister and the exercise of their franchise in the upcoming Vidhana Sabha election. Accordingly, the court allows the bail petition and grants bail to the petitioners in Crime No. 24/2023 of Ferhatabad Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offense under Section 395 of IPC.

 

The court imposes the following conditions for the bail:

 

1. The petitioners each shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/- with two sureties for like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

2. The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses;

3. The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the respondent’s police once in a week preferably on Sunday between 8.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. and sign a register to be maintained by the Station House officer to that effect;

4. The petitioners shall not involve in similar offence;

5. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for the purpose of further investigation and co- operate for investigation;

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SHREEYA S SHEKAR

Click here to view judgement

 

 

Shivasharanappa  vs The State Of Karnataka

9 May, 2023

Bench: Hon’ble Ramachandra D. Huddar

 

 

Introduction

In the case of Shivasharanappa S/O Chandrashekhar Attadmani vs. The State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No. 200473 of 2023, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail. The petitioner is accused No. 7 in Crime No. 31/2023 registered at Ferhatabad Police Station, Kalaburagi, for offenses punishable under Sections 143, 498(A), 304(B) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

Facts:-

According to the facts presented in the petition, the complainant, Sidram, who is the father of the deceased Mahananda, alleges that after her marriage to accused No. 1, Raju, on April 25, 2022, the accused and his family members harassed and demanded additional dowry from the deceased. The petitioner, as accused No. 7 and uncle of accused No. 1, allegedly made threats during a panchayat conducted in relation to the matter. On April 4, 2023, the complainant received a call informing him that Mahananda had consumed pesticide and was being taken to Kalaburagi Hospital. However, when the complainant and his son reached the spot near Kotanoor Math, they found that Mahananda had already died, and the accused persons fled the scene.

Arguments:-

The petitioner, through his counsel, contends that he is a law-abiding citizen from a respectable family and has no criminal antecedents. He denies any involvement in the alleged offenses, stating that he has been falsely implicated in the case due to his relation to accused No. 1. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since his arrest on April 5, 2023.

Judgement:-

The High Court considered the arguments presented by both the petitioner’s counsel and the learned High Court Government Pleader representing the State. After a careful examination of the records and allegations, the Court observed that there are no serious accusations against the petitioner, apart from the claim that he made a threatening statement during the panchayat. The Court referred to established principles of bail, including the presumption of innocence and the general rule of granting bail, and noted that the investigation was still ongoing.

Based on these considerations, the Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail. The Court emphasized that bail should be granted with conditions and that it would meet the ends of justice.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SHREEYA S SHEKAR

Click here to view judgement

The Punjab High Court, in Narender Kumar v/s Dr. Kuldeep Singh and others (LPA-1457-2018(O&M),delivered on 25^th April 2023, held that proof of qualification can be produced later, since the qualification of an individual already exists. The judgement was presided by Honorable Mr. Justice M.S. Ramchandra Rao and Honorable Mrs. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

An advertisement for the position of Assistant Professor of History was issued by the University. Thereby, (appellant) Narender Kumar and (respondent) Dr. Kuldeep Singh had applied for the said position. The selection process comprised of submission of research publications and marks to be allotted, before the deadline. After the selection process, the appellant was awarded 68 marks and the respondent was awarded 66 marks. Consequently, the appellant was considered for the post of the Assistant Professor of History. A writ petition was filed by the respondent and stated that the appellant was granted benefit of 3 research papers which were published after the deadline mentioned in the application. This contention was negated on the ground of meritorious selection by the selection committee. The single judge bench passed an order in favor of the respondent, which was challenged by the appellant through a writ appeal.

JUDGEMENT:

The Court held that “proof of publication can be produced later which is an added qualification.” A reference was made to Dolly Chhanda v/s Chairman, JEE and Charles K. Skaria and Other v/s Dr.C. Mathew and others. It was held that the selection committee had rightly appointed the candidate, as the required merit was possessed by the appellant and only proof of publication was produced later.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ARYA THAKUR.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

CLICK HERE TO VIEW JUDGEMENT. 

The Punjab High Court, in Bholu, ‘a juvenile in conflict with law’ v/s Central Bureau of Investigation(CRR-452-2023), delivered on 3^rd May 2023, held that juvenile to be tried as an adult in a school murder case. The judgement was presided by Honorable Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The Juvenile Justice Board passed an order which directed the child in conflict with the law to be treated as an adult. This order was challenged before the Sessions Court, which also affirmed the same. Further, this was challenged before the High Court. The father of the deceased and the CBI had approached the Honorable Supreme Court of India, in this regard. The apex court disagreed with the reasoning but upheld the final directions. The juvenile justice board held the view that the accused minor was in the mental as well as physical capacity to understand the circumstances and consequences of the situation. Later, the matter was sent to PGIMS, Rohtak as directed by the Honorable Supreme Court. The board concluded that no such test exists that can administer the mental capacity retrospectively.

JUDGEMENT:

The Court held that the findings revealed that the IQ of the minor was 92 and of average intelligence functioning. This was supported by the clinic assessment report which proved that there was no evidence of physical, metal or intellectual impairment. The child had completed 16 years during the commission of the crime. It was held that the order is absolutely in tune with directions passed by the Supreme Court.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ARYA THAKUR.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

CLICK HERE TO VIEW JUDGEMENT.