Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (0.94 seconds)
Documents citing Virsa Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 11 March, 1958

Ashok Kumar vs State on 14 March, 2014

In State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya [(1976) 4 SCC 382 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 659], after referring to the law laid down in Virsa Singh case [AIR 1958 SC 465 : 1958 Cri LJ 818] and Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala [AIR 1966 SC 1874 : 1966 Cri LJ 1509] , the Court proceeded to enunciate that: [SCC, pp. 388-89, para 21] " ... whenever a court is confronted with the question whether the offence is „murder‟ or „culpable homicide not amounting to murder‟, on the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to „culpable homicide‟ as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300 of the Penal Code, is reached. This is the stage at which the court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of the definition of „murder‟ contained in Section 300. If the answer to this question is in the negative the offence would be „culpable homicide not amounting to murder‟, punishable under the first or the second part of Section 304, depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third clause of Section 299 is CRL. APP. NO.351/1998 Page 18 of 20 applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would still be „culpable homicide not amounting to murder‟, punishable under the first part of Section 304 of the Penal Code."
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R Khetrapal - Full Document

Mannu vs The State on 29 April, 2014

44. To satisfy whether the offence in the facts of the present case fall under 'murder' or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, we must see whether the case is squarely covered within clause thirdly of Section 300 of IPC. The legal position in this regard has been most appropriately summed up in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (1958) 1 SCR Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 34 of 46 1495, laying down the guidelines which the prosecution must prove before the case can be brought under third exception of Section 300 of IPC and the same are as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - K Gambhir - Full Document

Sc No. 66/12 State vs Ranjeet Etc. Page No. 1 Of 54 on 3 April, 2014

58. According to the rule laid down in Virsa Singh Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1958 SC 465) even if the intention of accused was limited to the infliction of bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and did not extend to the intention of causing death, the offence would be of murder. To judge as to whether act was done with the intention of causing death, all the acts, utterances and circumstances will be counted together otherwise there will be no difference in cases falling in clause (1) and clause (3) of Sec 300.
Delhi District Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ravi Kumar & Ors. vs State on 30 May, 2014

"... that the safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of Section 299 and 300 of the Code is to keep in focus the key words used in various clauses of the said sections. Minutely comparing each of the clauses of Section 299 and 300 of the Code and the drawing support from the decisions of the court in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab and Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala, speaking for the court, Justice RS Sarkaria, neatly brought out the points of distinction between the two offences, which have been time and again reiterated. Having done so, the court said that wherever the Court is confronted with the question whether the offence is murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, on the facts of a case, it would be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be that the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Two, if such causal connection between the act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to culpable homicide as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is in the negative, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under the First or Second part of Section 304, depending respectively, on whether this second or the third clause of Section 299 is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the cases come within any of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would still be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under the first part of Section 304 of the Code. It was, however, clarified that these were only Crl. A. No. 819/2011 Page 74 of 89 broad guidelines to facilitate the task of the court and not cast-iron imperative."
Delhi High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - S Gupta - Full Document

Richhpal Singh Meena vs Ghasi @ Ghisa . on 4 July, 2014

36. Learned amicus submitted that the cases falling in the first category above, in which there is a homicide but a conviction only for voluntarily causing grievous hurt, may even fall within Section 300 (thirdly) of the IPC and, therefore, require reconsideration. To illustrate his point, learned amicus referred to three decisions, the first being Abdul Waheed Khan v. State of A.P.16 which decision in turn refers to Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala17 and Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab.18
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 35 - Cited by 22 - M B Lokur - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next