Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.43 seconds)
Documents citing Nand Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab on 11 September, 1980

Prince Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 6 July, 2019

Learned counsel has further relied upon Nand Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (1) RCR (Crl.) 801, wherein the injured suffered as many as 17 injuries, out of which 09 injuries were declared dangerous to life but the doctor, in his opinion, has not stated that the injuries sustained by the injured were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The Court, in such circumstances, has held that the conviction is liable to be converted under Section 326 IPC.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A S Sangwan - Full Document

Sukhdev Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 14 September, 2010

15. From the perusal of the medico-legal report prepared by Dr. H S Bhatia, PW2, with regard to the injuries on the person of Satwinder Singh, injured, it is made out that he received two injuries. Injury No.1 was declared as grievous in nature and could be dangerous to life if the timely surgical intervention would not have been made available to the injured. However, in the opinion rendered by this witness, there is no positive assertion of the fact that injury No.1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the necessary ingredients for bringing the offence within the ambit of Section 307 IPC were lacking and, as such, the offence would fall under Section 326 IPC. Apart from this fact, the incident is stated to have sparked of from a trivial act of sprinkling water to prevent rising of dust before the arrival of Baraat party which was found to be offensive by the appellant and, therefore, the act as such was not pre-meditated and, thus, the intention of committing the offence is also missing. This Court, in Nand Singh V. State of Punjab, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 801, has held that:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 6 - J Chauhan - Full Document

Jagir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2010

In 2007(1) RCR (Crl.) 801, Nand Singh vs. State of Punjab, conviction was under Section 307 IPC. As per story, accused had caused 17 injuries with dagger and out of 17 injuries, 9 were declared dangerous to life but doctor did not describe any of those injuries to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Then held that offence would fall under Section 326 IPC and not under Section 307 IPC. Relevant paras No.15 to 17 are reproduced as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Minesh @ Tiger And Others vs State Of Haryana on 4 October, 2010

In 2007(1) RCR (Crl.) 801, Nand Singh vs. State of Punjab, 17 injuries with dagger were caused by the accused and out of 17 injuries, 9 were declared dangerous to life but doctor did not describe any of those injuries to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Conviction under Section 307 IPC was set aside. Accused was convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone (10 months 17 days).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Gajraj S/O Tota Ram vs State Of Haryana on 20 December, 2012

This Court in "Nand Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 801; held that, to bring an offence under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had an intention to commit murder of injured. This intention could be gathered either from the act of the accused or from the impact of the injuries. In this case, accused had inflicted 17 injuries on person of victim with dagger. According to doctor, 9 injuries were dangerous to life, but he did not describe any of those 9 injuries to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It was held that the necessary ingredients required for bringing the offence under Section 307 IPC were lacking. It was held that the offence would fall under Section 326 IPC and not under Section 307 IPC. Conviction under Section 307 IPC was set aside.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nachhattar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2013

In the matter of Nand Singh (supra), while setting aside the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 307, IPC, and converting the same into Section 326, IPC, the sentence of the appellant was reduced to 10 months and 17 days, while in the case of Pritam Singh (supra) the sentence was reduced to three months, however, the amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was ordered to be paid to the victim.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - N K Sanghi - Full Document

Budhi Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 July, 2025

In the case of application for first ordinary parole submitted by such prisoners as have not availed of any parole (including emergency parole before reports from police and the District Magistrate may continue to be obtained by you as heretofore Punjab Government (Dept of Home Affairs and Justice) Letter no. 7583-3JL- 80/20306 dated 26-11-1980 read with case Nand Singh v. State of Punjab decided on 8-10-1980 P & H High Court. "
Delhi High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunder Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 November, 2013

Similarly, in Nand Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 801, this Court has held that for an offence under Section 307 IPC, the intention to commit murder of the injured has to be Prasher Ajay 2013.11.26 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and very clear and this intention could be gathered either from the act of the integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 413 of 2013 (O&M) 5 accused or from the impact of the injuries. In the aforesaid case, the accused had inflicted 17 injuries on the victim with dagger and according to doctor, 9 injuries were dangerous to life, but he did not described any of those 9 injuries to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Hence, essential ingredients, required for bringing the offence under Section 307 IPC, were lacking and the accused was convicted under Section 326 IPC. In the aforesaid judgment, it was further observed as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R Bahri - Full Document
1   2 Next