THANKAPPAN NADAR Vs. GOPALA KRISHNAN
LAWS(SC)-2002-4-118
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KERALA)
Decided on April 30,2002

THANKAPPAN NADAR Appellant
VERSUS
GOPALA KRISHNAN Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

MANJU VS. MUSTAFA MASTAN [LAWS(DLH)-2011-1-89] [REFERRED TO]
SABITRI BARMAN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2011-4-76] [REFERRED TO]
MENOKA MALIK VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-2004-6-65] [REFERRED TO]
KANAGARAJ VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2006-11-332] [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDI VS. DHARAMRAJ [LAWS(MPH)-2003-3-48] [REFERRED TO]
DEVARAJ VS. STATE AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2004-2-245] [REFERRED TO]
PR JAYAKUMAR VS. AMIRTHARAJ AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2004-3-368] [REFERRED TO]
M PATMA VS. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION [LAWS(MAD)-2018-3-532] [REFERRED TO]
DAXABEN GAUTAMBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-11-74] [REFERRED TO]
CHINTAMAN PRASAD DHANUSHADHARI DUBEY VS. KUNJBIHARI BABULAL TIWARI [LAWS(BOM)-2003-3-25] [REFERRED TO]
SHANTI DEVI HALWAI VS. STATE [LAWS(BOM)-2010-8-103] [REFERRED TO]
ANANDA TANTUBAI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2010-9-35] [REFERRED TO]
WAQF INTZAMIYA COMMITTEE MUSLIM SAMAJ, AMBAH VS. BABUKHAN [LAWS(MPH)-2009-1-128] [REFERRED TO]
RAMASUBBU VS. KANDASAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2018-3-559] [REFERRED TO]
PRAHLAD & MUNNI VS. STATE & KANHAIYALAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-8-71] [REFERRED TO]
Signals and Systems I Pvt LTD VS. M Rajini [LAWS(MAD)-2004-12-67] [REFERRED TO]
M TATABAI VS. B KRISHNAMURTHY AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2004-3-369] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-1-172] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA BAHADUR KOTWAL VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2006-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
TALEWAR SHARMA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2012-11-253] [REFERRED TO]
SANGAPPA V TENGINAKAI VS. ATMARAM J SHETTYE [LAWS(BOM)-2003-11-99] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH NARAYANRAO DEWAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2003-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRAKASH VS. STATE N C T OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2011-2-108] [REFERRED TO]
MUNSA KUMHAR S/O LALUA VS. BRIJ KISHORE S/O PARMESHWAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2005-11-118] [REFERRED TO]
STATE AND ORS VS. PEDDAKKA @ PADMAVATHAMMA W/O MALLAPA AND ORS [LAWS(KAR)-2011-10-160] [REFERRED]
Thirunavukkarasu VS. State [LAWS(MAD)-2005-2-115] [REFERRED TO]
BALAMURUGAN VS. HARIKRISHNAN [LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-685] [REFERRED TO]
THULASIDAS VS. STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2018-3-539] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITA VS. SATVIR SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2008-2-270] [REFERRED TO]
DATTATRAY S/O TRIMBAK BAVISKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-8-567] [REFERRED]
SETTUM SUVARNA RAJU VS. ANTHAVEDIPALEM AT ANTHARVEDI RAMA [LAWS(APH)-2023-8-99] [REFERRED TO]
RAMA GOSWAMI VS. LAKSHMI KANTA ROY AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2004-7-82] [REFERRED TO]
KAPTAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-1-411] [REFERRED TO]
CHELLATHAL VS. VEERAPPA GOUNDER [LAWS(MAD)-2006-4-276] [REFERRED TO]
Mangleshwar Singh VS. Vijay [LAWS(MPH)-2006-1-147] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPA BAI VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2007-6-30] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYAMOHANAN VS. SOMASEKHARAN [LAWS(KER)-2011-3-370] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY ANTONY VS. AUSTIN AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-1002] [REFERRED TO]
JOHNSON ASHIRWATHAM VS. P RAJAN [LAWS(MAD)-2011-9-444] [REFERRED]
ASHRUBA S/O LAXMAN DEVKAR VS. PANDURANG S/O BABURAO RAUT & ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2008-8-517] [REFERRED]
RAM GOSWAMI VS. LAKSHMI KANTA ROY [LAWS(CAL)-2004-6-39] [REFERRED TO]
VEERALAKSHMI VS. KANNAPIRAN [LAWS(MAD)-2011-7-221] [REFERRED TO]
BUDUL AHMED VS. KUTUB ALIMAZUMDAR & ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2009-4-57] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 18/07/2001 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Crl. R. P. no, 62 of 1994 allowing the revision application filed by PW1 de facto complainant.
(3.)In the present case, the principal assistant sessions judge, Thiruvananthapuram by his judgment and order dated 18/01/1992, convicted accused nos. 1 to 11 and sentenced them for the offences under sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 read with section 149 IPC. The sessions judge, thiruvananthapuram, after appreciating the evidence allowed the criminal appeal no. 24 of 1992 and acquitted the accused for the offences for which they were charged. In revision application filed by PW1- defacto complainant, the High Court set aside the order of sessions judge. Hence, this appeal.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.