State of Kerala Vs. Devika Asokan and Union of India (Uoi)

State of Kerala vs Devika Asokan and Union of India (Uoi)

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Kerala Decided Nov 06, 2009

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/849056

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/849056
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. and; A.K. Basheer, J.
Decided On: Nov 06, 2009
Case Number: WA. No. 2442 of 2009
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Appeal allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of th...

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Appeal allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of Kerala

Advocate Government Pleader

Respondent

Devika Asokan and Union of India (Uoi)

Advocate No Appearance

Excerpt

- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16].....last five years, she approached this court and sought for appropriate direction.4. the learned single judge accepting the bare contention of the writ petitioner that, the compensation amount was deposited with the district collector and there was inaction on the part of the district collector in disbursing the same to the legal heir, without even the district collector being a party and without hearing him, proceeded to hold that the district collector was negligent in not taking steps and as such directed the government to pay the compensation with 12% interest with further direction that the government to recover the interest from him personally. it is this direction in the impugned judgment which is challenged before us.5. in our view, in the absence of any prima facie material as to whether the writ petitioner is the only legal heir of the deceased asokan and especially in the absence of the district collector being a party to the proceedings, and without affording him any opportunity, the learned single judge has erroneously held that there is default on the part of the district collector in disbursing of the compensation and as such liable to pay penal interest.6. it is to be noted that there is nothing on record to show that the writ petitioner has ever approached the district collector and on the other hand, as is contended by the appellant, after receiving the amount, the district collector had made enquiries and as nobody approached him, he could not disburse the compensation. it is also not much in dispute that only after the impugned judgment, the writ petitioner has applied for the legal heirship which indicates that even at the time of approaching this court, no steps have been taken by her to establish that she is the only legal heir, nor approached the district collector for that purpose.7. in that view of the matter, especially when the district collector was not a party to the writ petition and he was not given any opportunity, we find that the.....

Full Judgment

S.R. Bannurmath, C.J.

1. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 4th June, 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 7313 of 2004, especially the direction issued to the District Collector to make payment of the compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum personally, the first respondent in the writ petition has filed the present writ appeal.

2. The writ petitioner claims to be the wife of the deceased Asokan who was murdered in Middle East, and in this regard eligible compensation was paid by the Insurance Company for the death of her husband. This amount was received by the Consulate General of India to the tune of Rs. 45145/- which is stated to be forwarded to the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram for payment to the legal heirs of the deceased.

3. According to the writ petitioner, she and her children are the only legal heirs of the deceased, and alleging that inspite of having received the money, the District Collector has not taken any steps to trace the legal heirs and release the amount for the last five years, she approached this Court and sought for appropriate direction.

4. The learned Single Judge accepting the bare contention of the writ petitioner that, the compensation amount was deposited with the District Collector and there was inaction on the part of the District Collector in disbursing the same to the legal heir, without even the District Collector being a party and without hearing him, proceeded to hold that the District Collector was negligent in not taking steps and as such directed the Government to pay the compensation with 12% interest with further direction that the Government to recover the interest from him personally. It is this direction in the impugned judgment which is challenged before us.

5. In our view, in the absence of any prima facie material as to whether the writ petitioner is the only legal heir of the deceased Asokan and especially in the absence of the District Collector being a party to the proceedings, and without affording him any opportunity, the learned Single Judge has erroneously held that there is default on the part of the District Collector in disbursing of the compensation and as such liable to pay penal interest.

6. It is to be noted that there is nothing on record to show that the writ petitioner has ever approached the District Collector and on the other hand, as is contended by the appellant, after receiving the amount, the District Collector had made enquiries and as nobody approached him, he could not disburse the compensation. It is also not much in dispute that only after the impugned judgment, the writ petitioner has applied for the legal heirship which indicates that even at the time of approaching this Court, no steps have been taken by her to establish that she is the only legal heir, nor approached the District Collector for that purpose.

7. In that view of the matter, especially when the District Collector was not a party to the writ petition and he was not given any opportunity, we find that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge saddling him with liability to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum appears to be unjustified. Accordingly that portion of the judgment is set aside and it is directed that the amount in deposit shall be disbursed by the District Collector to the legal heir of the deceased Asokan on production of substantive material to prove the legal heirship and also after holding a detailed enquiry in this regard, to the appropriate legal heir. The District Collector is also directed to complete the enquiry within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and disburse the amount as directed above without any interest.

8. The writ appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge stands modified to the above extent.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2009 Same Parties State of Kerala vs Devika Asokan and Union of India (Uoi) Same Subject Civil Same Judge S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. and; A.K. Basheer, J.

Civil