Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing Rampal Singh vs State Of U.P on 24 July, 2012

Kashi Ram vs State Of U.P. on 16 January, 2019

38- Learned counsel for the appellant lastly, argued that keeping in view the over all assessment of the evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case, the case in hand falls under section 304 Part-I, of IPC and in support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision given by the Apex Court in the case of Rampal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012)8 SCC 289.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - P Diwaker - Full Document

Ranjith Kumar vs The State Rep By on 18 November, 2019

6.1.After taking note of the celebrated judgment of the Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya and another ((1976) 4 Supreme Court Cases 382) as approved in the subsequent decision in Rampal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ((2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 289 dealing with the subtle difference between Sections 298 and 300 IPC, we accordingly hold that this case would come under the purview of Section 304(II) IPC. Thus, the facts governing would lead us to come to the conclusion that the appellant is to be convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 304(II) IPC. Taking note of that fact that the appellant was only 21 years old at the relevant point of time and the case being based upon circumstantial evidence with no further evidence on motive or the strained relationship between the appellant and the deceased, we are inclined to modify the sentence to that of seven years rigorous imprisonment.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

Vellaiyan @ Marimuthu vs State on 31 August, 2019

17.It is true that Section 29 incorporates a mandatory presumption. It directs that the court shall presume that the person prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting http://www.judis.nic.in13 CRL.A.No.709 of 2015 to commit any offence under Section 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Act has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be, unless the contrary is proved. While the court is obliged to raise such a presumption, the question arises at what stage the presumption will kick in. Of course, a literal application of Section 29 may lead the court to raise such presumption the moment the charge is framed against the accused. I am afraid that the section cannot be viewed in that fashion. Presumption of innocence and right to fair trial are the essence of our jurisprudence and are accepted as rights of the accused (Rampal Singh vs State Of U.P, (2012) 8 SCC 289). They cannot be given a go-bye. In fact, one Special Judge entertained a doubt and even made a reference under Section 395 of Cr.Pc for declaring Section 29 of the POCSO Act, 2012 as unconstitutional. But then, the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court answered the reference in negative and directed the Special Judge to pronounce judgment in accordance with the existing provisions of the Act of 2012 in the judgment reported in 2017 Crl.LJ 1615 (In Re: Secretary to the Government of India and Ors). The Hon'ble Division Bench also observed http://www.judis.nic.in14 CRL.A.No.709 of 2015 that the constitutional validity of Section 29 of the POCSO Act was not challenged by the accused before the High Court.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

Gajanan Ganpat Zalte vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 May, 2019

accused returned from his home with axe. He asked where Sanjay had 1 gone and stated that he wanted to kill Sanjay. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that considering Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, culpable homicide is not amounting to murder and in support of the above submission learned counsel has heavily relied upon the following decisions of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Santosh Savita (2013) 12 SCC 663; Shivappa Buddappa Kolkar Buddappagol v. State of Karnataka (2004) 13 SCC 168; Rampal Singh v. State of U.P. (2012) 8 SCC 289 and Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh (2017) 3 SCC 247.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1