NEW LAW COLLEGE, BVDU

PUNE

Submitted by : Bhagyashree
Roll No. : B- 23
Class : BALLB 5th year
Semester : 10th

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) Memorial
(Presented Before Mr R.V. Deshmukh)_____________________3

2) Civil case (M/s AZ (India) & Anr.

Vs M/s Intex Technologies (India) Ltd)____________________11

3) Criminal case (Pattu Ranjan & Ors.

Vs State of Tamil Nadu)________________________________15

4) Report on Internship Experience__________________________19

5) Attachment of Certificate_______________________________20
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, JR. DIVISION,
PUNE AT PUNE

(BEFORE MR. R. V. DESHMUKH)

SUIT FILED UNDER THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE CODE OF

CIVIL PROCEDRUE, 1908, UNDER ORDER XXXVII & UNDER SECTION 9

Civil Suit No. of ______ of 2019

IN THE MATTER OF

SANJAYRAO…………….......................................................……………….PLAINTIFF

VS.

BANDU……..…………………...…………….................................……....DEFENDANT

Court room description and how the procedure begins:

Key figures in a court room are the Judge, a court reporter (in higher courts), a
clerk and a bailiff. Other central people are the attorneys, plaintiffs, defendants
and key witnesses of the case, courtinterpreters and jurors.
When the hearing begins in court the first and foremost important is for parties
to reach on time and look at the cause list/sheet sticked outside the court and see
what is the number of their case and it is written according to the nature of the
case i.e. which is first case for arguments, then evidence, then miscellaneous
and in last cases of first order and bail matters. On all sides of wall in court have
signs/directionsi.e. east, west, north and south written on them.
When we enter in court room the first look goes on sign behind Judge’s seat
which is “satyamavJayate”. On the right side of Judge place there’s seating of
plaintiff and his witness and on the left side of his place seating of accused and
his witnesses. If the Judge is already on his seat everyone are suppose to bow
down in front of him and if he is not present and comes after then everyone
needs to stand and bow down. In front of Judge’s seat just right down there’s
seating of Officers of the court, typewriter and jurors whom attorneys
supposedly know and follow the rules laid down by them to start the trail in
front of Judge. It is also duty of attorneys to speak about any fact, arguments or
issue only after taking permission from Judge and every furnished document of
plaint, evidence or arguments to be passed to judge by the clerk.
The cell phones must either be switched off or on silent mode. A court has
public gallery area where all the spectators like law students, or other parties
waiting for their turn and families of accused and plaintiffs or public sit to
observe what happens in the court.
When the counsel ends their arguments and are going out of the court room they
again have to bow down before exiting the courtroom.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Sanjayrao, Age-45, Occupation- Sarpanch (Head of Gram Panchayat) And Farmer,
Residence- Village Bori, on 24-9- 2018 at 11:45 AM was working in his own
agricultural land. Bandu, Age- 49, Occupation- Famer, Residence- Village Bori, who
too was working in his own agricultural land which is adjoining to the Sanjayrao’s
land.

2. Bandu called Sanjayrao and said that he is in need of money and asked Sanjayrao to
give him Rs. 5000 (Rs. 5 Thousand) and he promised to repay the money within three
months. Looking to his need and promise given by him Sanjayrao thought to give the
money. But for his safety, he wrote down a receipt and obtained Bandu’s signature
and signatures of two witnesses namely Mrs. Shalini – teacher and Suresh- farmer and
he too signed on that receipt. Then Sajayrao gave him Rs. 5000/-.

3. Then after three months and thereafter from time to time Sanjayrao demanded the
amount of Rs. 5000/- from Bandu, but he did not repay the money. Hence the plaintiff
Sanjayrao filed this civil suit against the defendant Bandu and prays that defendant be
directed to repay the plaintiff Rs. 5000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per
annum.

4. The Defendant Bandu in this case deny all the averments made in this plaint and said
that it is true that he was in need of money. Therefore defendant went to the house of
Plaintiff and requested him to give Rs. 500 (Rs. 5 Hundred) only. Plaintiff then gave
Rs. 500/- to the defendant and obtained his Signature on blank paper. Defendant also
said in that nobody else was present there at that time.

5. Defendant said that the plaintiff Sanjayrao is the sarpanch and a rich and powerful
man, and therefore he is taking the disadvantage of his position. The defendant
alleged that plaintiff has prepared a fake document and is misusing it against him.

6. The Defendant also said that he was and is ready to repay Rs. 500/- to the plaintiff
i.e. Sanjayrao.
 STATEMENT OF ISSUE FOR BOTH THE PARTIES

I. Whether the Plaintiff has given Rs.5000/- or Rs. 500/- to the

Defendant?

II. Whether the document produced by the Plaintiff is valid and

enforceable according to the procedure of law.

III. Whether the forgery done by the plaintiff or not?

 PLAINTIFF's ARGUMENT

The plaintiff demanded repayment of loan amount of Rs5000/- from the defendant with an
interest rate of 12% P.a and also legal expenses incurred by him. Defendant refused to repay
the amount within 3 months which was promised by him in promissory note even after being
given certain opportunities by the plaintiff.

The promissory note was furnished on 24-9-2018 at 11:45 AM and as per the time mentioned
and promised by the defendant it was the duty of him to repay the loan on or before 24-12-
2018. The cause of action arose on this date and the suit filed by plaintiff is well within the
limitation period as per first division of the schedule of The Limitation Act, 1963
The suit filed comes under the ambit of Order 37 Rule 1(2) of Civil Procedure Code,1908 as
the nature of suit is Summary suit.

The plaintiff hereby presents the receipt/promissory notes marked as Exhibit no.1, which
proves the defendant is liable to pay the loan amount of Rs.5000/- to the plaintiff within/after
three months as promised. From the inference of exhibit 1, it is clear that the refusal of
repayment of loan by defendant was in contradiction of the terms and conditions as promised
in the Exhibit 1
Further it is pleaded that the promissory note made in the presence of two witnesses and was
signed by both plaintiff and defendant which proves that defendant took the loan from
plaintiff beyond reasonable doubt.

In Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh (2006) 5 SCC 558, it has been held that “the burden of
proving facts rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative issues and not the
party who denies it”.

In case of R. Arumugham v. Natesan S.A.No.113 of 2006, “As soon as the execution of the
promissory note is proved, the rule of presumption laid down in Section 118 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act helps him to shift the burden to the other side.”
So from the inference of the above mentioned sections it is clear that plaintiff has proved
validity of receipt/promissory note from his side. As very law is based on the presumption as
to prudence of a prudent man that is as per the act of a general person. In todays world of
awareness it is impossible to believe that a businessman who deals in such a field related to
loan can do such a mistake as pleaded by the defendant. It is not possible to believe that
defendant will sign a blank paper, so defendant claim of signing a blank paper cannot be
accepted as it is not possible to do so without his knowledge.
Further that the plaintiff has a right as per Section 117 of he Negotiable instrument Act, 1881
and defendant is liable to repay the amount as promised to repay by him as per the
receipt/promissory note.

PRAYER ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER :

In view of the findings and citations referred on the above said case, the plaintiff is entitled
for a decree declaring the following reliefs:
1. Declaring that the plaintiff has right to get back his money from the defendant on the
strength of the receipt executed on 24-09-2018 in favour of the plaintiff.
2. That recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,000 (rupees five thousand only) from the defendant,
and in the event of default of the defendant to pay the said money with an interest rate
of 12% p.a. till the realisation of the said amount, a decree for attachment of the
immovable property of the defendant available within the jurisdiction of this Court.
3. That for the recovery of costs of the suit.
4. That of any other relief which his Hon’ble court deems fit in light of justice, equity
andgood conscience.
 DEFENDANT's ARGUMENT

The Defendant hereby denies the fact pleaded by the plaintiff that he has taken amount of
Rs.5000 from the plaintiff and also the fact pleaded by the defendant that the receipt was
made in his presence (that is on the full written document) and other two witnesses.
The defendant hereby states that he went to plaintiff to request amount of Rs.500 as he was in
need but no receipt was made in front of him and he signed on a blank paper which was later
on filled by the plaintiff. That at the time of making promissory note/ receipt, there was no
witness present at that time. Further defendant pleads that the suit is not maintainable as
wrong facts were pleaded by the plaintiff.

Furthermore, the suit is not maintainable under Order 37 CPC as the same is not based upon a
written contract or on liquidated liability.
Further, defendant pleads that the plaintiff is guilty of misrepresentation and fraud of facts
and documents, as the receipt was not signed by the defendant and no witness was present at
the time of making the receipt.

No witness who has signed on the receipt was neither examined nor called as a witness by
the plaintiff, which shows the malafied intention of the plaintiff. Therefore, it can be
presumed and concluded from this argument, that the receipt was fraudulently made by the
plaintiff.
The receipt cannot be said to be a promissory note, as according to Section 4 of the
negotiable instrument Act, 1881, as it is needed to be stamped according to the provisions of
the stamp Act, 1940, as per section 4 of the NI Act, 1881.

In the case of Venkatasubbaiah v. Bhushayya, 1963 (1) An.WR (NRC) 31,that was a case
in which the Hon’ble High Court of A.P considered the fact of Section 35 of the Stamp Act.
It was held that the promissory note executed in other State was liable for stamp duty in the
State where it was produced, and for not paying necessary stamp duty, the document would
be inadmissible.

Further, it is stated that as per Section 101, that the initial burden is on the prosecution to
establish that the accused has committed a crime.
In the case of In the case of Banwari Lal v. Roadtransport A.I.R 1989 Pat. 303, where
good were lost by the carrier, the burden lies upon him to establish that there was no
negligence on his part.
In case of Bhikari v. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1, the prosecution must prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence with the requisite mens rea; and
the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of
the trial.

There was no agreement whatsoever between the plaintiff and the defendant neither for the
payment of loan amount nor for the interest on the alleged outstanding amount of Rs. 5,000/
@ 12% per annum. In the absence of any agreement between the parties to that effect, the
plaintiff is not entitled to claim any interest at any rate. There was no notice was sent by the
plaintiff to the defendant for the repayment of loan amount of Rs. 500 which I took. As
promised by the defendant to repay the amount as taken by the defendant, the defendant is
ready to repay the amount.

DEFENDANT's PRAYER :

In view of the findings and citations referred on the above said case, the defendant is entitled
for a decree declaring the following reliefs:
1. That the suit of the plaintiff to be dismissed.
2. That plaintiff has taken fraudulent stands in the plaint, hence on this ground alone, the
defendant deserves to be granted leave to defend the present suit.
3. That, the defendant has prayed for allowing the present application and granting the
defendant unconditional leave to contest and defend the suit on merits.
4. That the defendant be granted cost for the charges of the suit.
5. That of any other relief which his Hon’ble court deems fit in light of justice, equity
andgood conscience.

M/s AZ (India) & Anr.

Vs
 M/s Intex Technologies (India) Ltd.
2017 (70) PTC 118 (Del)

FACTS OF THE CASE :

1. The Plaintiff, AZ Tech were operating as incorporation in India and had been
marketing and selling mobile phones handsets in India in the trade name of "Aqua"
since 2009. it had also launched various other mobile phone accessories like
earphones, chargers, bluetooth devices etc. in the same trade name since then.

2. In 2012 the defendants, i.e. Intex Technologies launched their mobile phone handsets
in the name of "Intex Aqua" which was claimed by petitioners as passing off their
products in the trade name of Plaintiff and therefore violates the IP rights of the
Plaintiff.

3. The Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendant which was put up before a single judge
bench of Delhi High Court to order an injunction against the defendants to compel
them to stop using the mark aqua for their mobile phone handsets.

4. The Single Judge Bench passed the interim injunction on 24.12.2016 against the
defendants and therefore the defendants cannot be allowed to use the same name as
this would deceive the customers of the Plaintiff.

5. Aggrieved by this order of Single Judge Bench, the defendant appealed before the
Division Bench of same High Court against the order of the Single Bench

ISSUES RAISED :

1. Whether mere prior use of the trade mark is enough to succeed in a passing off claim
or is it the goodwill /reputation in addition to prior use which is essential for
establishing a case for passing off?

2. Whether added matters in the product are sufficient to dispel the likelihood of
confusion in the minds of public at large?
CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES :

The plaintiffs claimed that they were prior users of the “Aqua” mark in India since 2009, and
their product had been an instant hit as it was economically priced. They claimed that in
2012, the defendants launched phones under the brand name “Intex Aqua” in an attempt to
exploit the goodwill of the plaintiff’s mark and cause a likelihood of confusion in the minds
of the consumers. It was contended that the defendant’s products are also deceptively similar
in both looks and features.

On the other hand, the defendants claimed that the plaintiffs could not claim exclusive rights
over the impugned trademark as it was descriptive and devoid of any distinctive character. It
was contended that the suit was not maintainable owing to the added features such as the
addition of the house mark “Aqua”, its get-up, colour-combination, placement, writing style
etc. which make the goods of both parties distinguishable and negate any possibility of
confusion between the marks. It was also argued that the plaintiffs had acquiesced to the use
of the mark as the suit was filed after a delay of 14 months. Further, the defendants contended
that the inspiration for the term “Aqua” came from the fact that the display was crystal clear
and the defendants have been aggressively advertising the mark, with sales of the “Intex
Aqua” phone exceeding 200 crores.

The defendants claimed that the plaintiff had not come to court with clean hands. The 104
service centers as claimed by the plaintiffs did not service the products of the plaintiffs, as per
their investigation. They also claimed that despite the fact that the plaintiff’s application for
registration of trademark was still pending, they were wrongly using the ® mark with their
logo, amounting to misrepresentation. The plaintiffs claimed that the investigations carried
out by the defendant were a sham and the use of the ® mark was a bona fide mistake.

JUDGMENT DELIVERED :

Insofar as the question of goodwill in the present case is concerned, we find that as on
August, 2012, when Intex started selling its mobile phones under the mark, “AQUA”, it
cannot be stated with any degree of confidence that the mark ‘AQUA’ had acquired a
goodwill or reputation in respect of the respondents mobile phones. The property which is
protected in an action of passing off is not the Plaintiffs proprietary right in the mark which
the defendant allegedly misappropriates, but the goodwill and reputation of his business,
which is likely to be harmed by the Defendants misrepresentation

“Thus, insofar as this point is concerned we are of the view that AZ Tech has not been able to
establish that it had a goodwill/reputation in India in the mark in August 2012
when Intex launched its product under the mark ‘AQUA

Insofar as the issue of added matter is concerned, there is no doubt that if the added matter is
so prominent as to completely distinguish one product from the other, then there would be no
case for confusion whether it be confusion proper or, initial confusion or reverse confusion.
In the present case, we find that the mark “Intex” is as prominent, if not more, than the mark
“AQUA” in the appellant’s product  packaging

Insofar as the question of initial interest confusion is concerned, that, in our view, does not
arise in the facts of the present case. The added matter in the form of the word mark ‘INTEX‘
is so prominent and distinct as to dispel any chance of even an initial confusion.

“It is clear in the present case which is one of passing off, the appellant/defendant would
escape liability inasmuch as the added matter is, in our view, sufficient to distinguish the
appellant’s products from those of the respondents.

ANALYSIS :

It is a landmark judgment and the Division Bench observations are path breaking in view of
the fact that despite the Plaintiffs/Respondents being the prior adopter and user of the
mark AQUA, the Division Bench went ahead and vacated the initial interim injunction so
granted in their favour.

It is noteworthy that despite of Division Bench Judgment Century Traders vs. Roshan Lal
Duggar & Co. AIR 978Delhi250, wherein the Court observed that “For the purpose of
claiming proprietorship of a mark, it is not necessary that the mark should have been used for
considerable length of time. As a matter of fact, a single actual use with intent to continue
such use confers a right to such trade mark as trade mark “ and the Supreme Court
Judgment S. Syed Mohideen vs. P. Sulochana Bai, 2016 (66) PTC 1 (SC) wherein the
Supreme Court has observed that “essentially the right of the prior user is considered to be
superior than that of any other rights,  being in the favour of  the Plaintiffs/Respondents, the
Division Bench observed that the Plaintiffs/Respondents could not establish
goodwill/reputation, a necessary ingredient of the tort of passing off, in India on relevant date
i.e. August 2012,  when the Defendants/Appellants launched their product under the
mark AQUA.

Hence, in view of such observation of the Division Bench, one is required to establish
goodwill in the mark along with the claim of prior adoption and use on the relevant date i.e.,
the date on which the other party commences with the infringing activities under the
impugned mark.
 Pattu Ranjan & Ors.

Vs

State of Tamil Nadu

2019 (2) SCC (Cri) 354

FACTS OF THE CASE :

1. Accused No.1 is the proprietor of a chain of hotels (Saravana Bhavan). Either upon
the advice of an astrologer having become besotted with PW1, Accused No.1 had
evinced a keen desire to take PW1 as his third wife, though she was already married
to Santhakumar (the deceased). In order to fulfil his desire, Accused No.1 used to
financially help PW1, her family members and her husband. He used to talk to PW1
over the phone frequently, and or also gave her costly gifts such as jewellery and silk
sarees and even went to the extent of paying her medical bills. In a further bid to gain
PW1's love and affection, he frequently interfered in her personal matters. Once when
she was ill, under the pretext of better treatment as advised by another doctor,
Accused No. 1 forcefully shifted her to another hospital, where he advised her not to
have sexual relations with her husband and made her undergo a 2 series of tests. The
deceased Santhakumar was instructed to get himself tested for AIDS and other such
diseases, which he refused outright.

2. Accused No.1 took the help of the other appellants in order to eliminate the husband
of PW1, for securing PW1 as his third wife. Subsequent to the incident of 01.10.2001
relating to abduction, Accused No. 2 contacted PW1 and told her that he regretted the
previous events and suggested to PW1 to lodge a police complaint. A few days prior
to the murder, Accused No. 2 instructed PW1 to tell her husband to come alone to a
certain Sai Baba temple to meet a press reporter whom Accused No.2 personally
knew in order to highlight Accused No. 1's wrongdoings. In other words, Accused
No.2 posed himself as a well wisher of PW1 and the deceased.

3.  On 18.10.2001, PW1 as well as her husband went to the Sai Baba temple as
instructed by Accused No. 2. Soon after, two Ambassador cars bearing Registration
Nos. TN 09 T 3224 (M.O.1) and TN 22 5202 (M.O.2), and a Tata Sumo vehicle
bearing Registration No. TN 09 Q 1310 (M.O.3) came and halted behind the car in
which PW1 and her husband were sitting. Accused Nos. 3 and 4, armed with knives,
got out of one of the cars and forced PW1 and her husband to board the car of the
accused in which Accused No.5 was sitting, and took them to Chengalpattu.

4.  On 19.10.2001, PW1 was taken to PW9 by Accused Nos.5 and 8 at Parappadi
village, to remove the alleged influence of witchcraft (black magic) which was
allegedly the cause of her being in love with Santhakumar. From there, she was taken
to Veppankulam village to seek the advise of an astrologer (PW8). At the said place,
an employee of Accused No.1, Janarthanam came and informed PW1 that her
husband had escaped the clutches of the henchmen of Accused No.1 and his
 whereabouts were unknown. Subsequently, after spending the night at Hotel Ariyas at
Tirunelveli, PW1 and her family, along with Accused Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 8 returned to
Chennai by train.

5. While PW1 was staying at her mother's house at Velachery, Accused Nos. 5, 8 and
other henchmen of Accused No.1 kept a constant vigil over the movements of PW1
and her family. Thereafter, at the instance of Accused No.1, PW1 and her family
members were taken to an astrologer by the name of Ravi (PW4), and later, she was
made to undergo certain rituals, conducted by 7 one Raghunatha Iyer, in the presence
of the second wife of Accused No.1 at K.K. Nagar. Later, much to her shock, PW1
learnt that these rituals were traditionally conducted by the wife after the death of her
husband. Therefore, upon growing gravely suspicious, she lodged the first
information on 20.11.2001 stating that Accused No.1 and his henchmen had murdered
her husband, and the same was registered as  Crime No.1047 of 2001.

6. The motive put forth by the prosecution for the commission of the offence is that
Accused No.1 wanted to take PW1 as his third wife despite knowing that she was
already married to the deceased Santhakumar. Accused No.1 made several failed
attempts with the help of the other accused to sever the relationship between PW1 and
her husband. Ultimately, Accused No.1 committed the offence in question in order to
eliminate the deceased so as to be able to marry PW1 without any obstruction.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER :

The appellants stated that the circumstances depended upon by the prosecution have not been
demonstrated as per law and the High Court and the Trial Court have only continued on
presumptions. He further stated that the subsequent first information report registered on
20.11.2001 could not have been registered at all, inasmuch as there cannot be a second FIR
relating to the same incident. According to him, the incident as found in the first information
report dated 20.11.2001 is merely a continuation of the earlier offence of abduction which
had taken place on 01.10.2001, which had generated proceedings pursuant to the first
information lodged on 12.10.2001. In this manner, as per him, the FIR in the current case
would just accept the character of an announcement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C
and the proceedings in this issue would stand vitiated.
Learned counsel also submitted that the identification of the body merely on the basis of a
superimposition test was improper, in the absence of a DNA test.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT :

The Respondent mainly depended upon three circumstances to demonstrate the guilt of the
accused, i.e. motive, observed situation and the recuperation of the dead body at the case of
the accused. An extra connection in the chain of conditions is the non-clarification by the
accused about the last observed situation in their announcement recorded under Section 313
of the Cr.P.C.
He argued that the incident of murder in the case in hand is merely a continuation of an
earlier offence, i.e. Crime No. 1030 of 2001 relating to the abduction of PW1 and the
deceased Santhakumar, which occurred on 01.10.2001. Without a doubt circumstantial
factors must be considered so as to decide if such acts structure some portion of a similar
exchange or not. In any event, when the two FIRs are perused together, it turns out to be
evident that the principal occurrence of abduction started and finished on 01.10.2001.

Evidently, the time and place of the two occurrences are unique but merely because of their
common motive, the second offence cannot be said to be in continuation of the first incident,
in light of there being distinct intentions behind the two offences. The first offence was
committed with the intention to abduct the deceased and PW1, the purpose for which was
merely to threaten and pressurize them. In contrast, the intention behind the second offence
was to murder the deceased with a view to permanently get rid of him. Therefore, it is evident
that unity of purpose and design between the two offences is also absent.

RATIO DECIDENDI :

While referring the law that the registration of a second FIR (which is not a counter case) is
violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the law laid in
the case of Awadesh Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar, that the fresh offence cannot be
investigated as part of the pending case and should instead be investigated afresh in case a
fresh offence is committed during the course of the earlier investigation, which is distinct
from the offence being investigated, and further investigation, as envisaged under sub-section
8 of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C, connotes investigation of the case in continuation of an earlier
investigation with respect to which the charge-sheet has already been filed.

It is further held that the probative value accorded to DNA evidence, like all other opinion
evidence, also varies from case to case, depending on facts and circumstances and the weight
accorded to other evidence on record, whether contrary or corroborative. Thus, it cannot be
said that the absence of DNA evidence would lead to an adverse inference against a party,
especially in the presence of other cogent and reliable evidence on record in favour of such
party.
The contention that the non-conducting of a DNA test and the reliance on evidence regarding
identification through superimposition was improper, was rejected.

OBITER DICTA :

The bench of Justices N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Indira Banerjee
dismissed the batch of appeals filed by accused against the 2009 judgment of Madras High
Court. The Apex Court upheld the life sentence awarded by the High Court to P. Rajagopal
and five of his aides for murder of Santhakumar in 2001.

Stating that the prosecution has fully proved that the accused had murdered Santhakumar by
strangulating him and thereafter throwing the dead body at near Tiger Chola forest area, the
Court said:
“It is worth recalling that while it is necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should be
adduced in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that such proof should be perfect, and
someone who is guilty cannot get away with impunity only because the truth may develop
some infirmity when projected through human processes.”
The Court, hence, concluded that the chain of circumstances is complete and points solely at
the guilt of Rajagopal.

CONCLUSION :

It took 18 years for Jeevajothi, who got widow in her youth to get justice for the murder of
her husband.

The High Court of Madras held the accused guilty of murder under Section 302, IPC, which
was appealed by Rajagopal. The Supreme Court on 29th April 2019 dismissed the appeals
filed and held P Rajagopal guilty for murder, awarding him life sentence.

Rajagopal was given time till July to surrender and serve his sentence however, he suffered
from a cardiac arrest and passed away on July 18, 2019.
REPORT ON INTERNSHIP EXPERIENCE