Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing Rampal Singh vs State Of U.P on 24 July, 2012

State Of Karnataka vs Chandravathi on 5 January, 2022

43. Whereas keeping in view Section 299 of IPC, 1860 relating to culpable homicide and the distinction between culpable homicide and murder, the culpable homicide is the genus and murder is its species and all 39 murders are culpable homicides but all culpable homicides are not murders as stated in a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Rampal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 8 SCC 289.
Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri.Gangappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 March, 2022

25. It is relevant to refer to the distinction between culpable homicide and murder. Culpable homicide is the genus and 'murder' its species. All murders are culpable homicides but not vice-versa. Speaking generally, all culpable homicide does not amount to murder. The same has been extensively addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2012 (8) SCC 289. Insofar as the presumption relating to the evidence or knowledge of the accused who is said to struck on his wife a violent blow on the head with which rendered her unconscious or inflicts of injuries over her person even the intention of the accused must be judged and not in the light of the actual circumstance but in the light of the, what is supposed to be the circumstances?
Karnataka High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document

Puttasiddamma @ Puttasiddi vs State Of Karnataka on 16 December, 2021

19. However, there is distinction between culpable homicide and murder. But culpable homicide is the genus and murder is its species and all murders are culpable homicides but all culpable homicides are not murders. This issue was extensively addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMPAL SINGH vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2012) 8 SCC 289. The presumption regarding intention or knowledge is an important element relating to culpable homicide or even for offences under Section 308 of the IPC, 1860. But in the instant case, the charges were framed under Section 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC and alternatively, Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC. But 29 intention of the accused must be judged not in the light of the actual circumstances, but in the light of what is supposed to be the circumstances. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted even if culpable homicide has been lugged against the accused by invoking the provisions of Section 308 of the IPC, 1860.
Karnataka High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document

M S Leela vs State By on 22 December, 2021

20. This issue was extensively addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the reliance of Rampal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 8 SCC 289. Insofar as presumptive value regarding intention or knowledge - the intention must be judged not in the light of the actual circumstances which finds place or not the theory put forth by the prosecution, but in the light of what he supposed to be the circumstances.
Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document

Mallappa S/O Durgappa vs The State on 20 April, 2022

The same is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampal Singh vs the State of U.P. reported in AIR (2012) 8 SCC 289. Therefore, keeping in view the evidence facilitated by the prosecution and under the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant is guilty of the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Therefore, the conviction held by the trial Court for the punishable under Section 498-A of IPC is maintained, but the conviction held by the trial Court under Section 302 of IPC requires to be interfered with. Therefore, the accused deserves a conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I of IPC instead of Section 302 of IPC as held by the trial Court.
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document

Sri Narasimhamurthy vs State Of Karnataka on 21 June, 2022

44. It is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Rampal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 8 SCC 289 wherein the distinction has been made between culpable homicide and murder. Culpable homicide is the genus and murder is its species and all murders are culpable homicides but all culpable homicides are not murders. Whereas in the instant case accused - Narasimhamurthy was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC relating to dowry death. The co- accused Nos.2 and 3 who were also facing of trial along 46 with accused No.1 but their case ended in acquittal.
Karnataka High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Shekarappa vs State By Thunganagara Police Station on 22 August, 2022

35. The difference between murder and culpable homicide is intention. If the intention is present the crime is said to be committed under Section 300 of IPC. If the 35 intention is absent, then the crime is dealt under section 304 of IPC. The distinction between culpable homicide and murder is culpable homicide is the genus and murder is its species and all murders are culpable homicides but all culpable homicides are not murders. The same has been extensively held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rampal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 8 SCC 289.
Karnataka High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document

Mr. Swamy Gowda vs State Of Karnataka on 8 September, 2022

24. It is relevant to refer the distinction between culpable homicide and murder- 'culpable homicide' is the genus and 'murder' is its species and all 'murders' are 'culpable homicides', but all 'culpable homicides' are not 'murders', it was held in the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Rampal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2012) para-8 SCC 289.
Karnataka High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document
1   2 Next