Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 May, 1978

Ramesh vs State (Nct) Of Delhi on 9 May, 2013

In the said case, this Court relying upon the observations of the Supreme Court in the judgments reported as Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade vs. State of Maharashtra and Vijender CRL. A. 555/2010 Page 10 of 14 Kumar alias Vijay vs. State of Delhi (supra) held that where the accused was armed with dangerous weapon and the deceased was unarmed conviction for the offence of murder deserved to be sustained.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - R Khetrapal - Full Document

Jangaliya And Others vs State Of U.P. on 31 May, 2022

In Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade v. State of Maharashtra, (1978) 3 SCC 330 (Para 6), it was observed that where the accused is armed and the deceased is unarmed, Exception 2 can have no application and Exception 4 to Section 300 would not apply if there is sudden quarrel but no sudden fight between the deceased and the accused. It was held that ''Fight' postulates a bilateral transaction in which blows are exchanged.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mahesh And Others vs State Of U.P. on 6 September, 2022

In Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade v. State of Maharashtra, (1978) 3 SCC 330 (Para 6), it was observed that where the accused is armed and the deceased is unarmed, Exception 2 can have no application and Exception 4 to Section 300 would not apply if there is sudden quarrel but no sudden fight between the deceased and the accused. It was held that "Fight' postulates a bilateral transaction in which blows are exchanged."
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shankerlal Vishwakarma vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 November, 1990

20. Yet another ruling Bhagwan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1120 : (1979 Cri LJ 924), was cited in which sentence of three years of an accused convicted under S.409, I.P.C., who had already undergone five months imprisonment, was reduced by the Supreme Court to already undergone but the sentence of fine was maintained, considering the circumstances, that the accused was a new and inexperienced hand who had been made a scapegoat. In that ruling also it is not clear as to what was the amount defalcated or what was the sentence of fine. The appellant Shankerlal Vishwakarma in the present case was not a new or inexperienced official but was a pretty senior and responsible officer and it did not at all behove him to commit the kind of offences committed by him.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Sanjay Ramchandra Tarare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 July, 1995

In the case of Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade v. State of Maharashtra, . Their Lordships held that as there was no sudden fight or fight as such in that the deceased was unarmed and there was no exchange of blows and the deceased did not cause any injury to the accused or co-accused the accused was not entitled either to the benefit of exception 2 or exception 4 of Section 300 I.P.C. The observations made by Their Lordships are as under :
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Sikander @ Mohd. Safiq vs The State (Delhi Admn.) on 6 April, 1999

In the said case after considering the proved facts that all of a sudden quarrel took place when the deceased and the witness entered the room occupied by the accused and his family members and had demanded vacant possession of the kitchen, witness uttered filthy abuses in presence of the sister of accused which finally led to heated arguments between the deceased and the witness on one side and the accused on the other. At that stage, witness took out a pen knife from his pocket, the accused went in the kitchen and returned with a knife and in the ensued fight between them few injuries were caused to the deceased out of which one proved to be fatal. In such circumstances, the Court held that the act would be covered by Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC and offence would be punishable only under Part I of Section 304 IPC. As against that, in the present case, facts are totally different, firstly, there was no sudden fight between the accused and the deceased Zohra Bi or daughter Gulzar. Intervention of Zohra Bi at the stage when the accused Maqbool was inflicting injuries on her husband and protesting by saying as to why a handicapped father was being beaten would not amount that there was fight between the appellant and the deceased. Similarly, intervening and entreating the accused not to inflict blows on her mother Zohra Bi by deceased Gulzar also cannot be termed as "fight". As such there was no "fight" between P.W.1 and accused Maqbool or the appellant, it was only a verbal quarrel. "Fight" postulates a bilateral transaction in which blows are exchanged between the parties (Re: Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade vs. State of Maharashtra, 1978(3) SCC 330 and Narayanan Nair Raghwan Nair vs. The State of Travancore-Cochin, AIR 1956 SC 99). Further, both the victims i.e. Zohra Bi and Gulzar were totally unarmed, they had not caused any injury to the appellant or Maqbool. Hence, it will be difficult to accept the contention that there was a sudden fight between the accused or the witness and the victims, even though the quarrel started suddenly. Secondly, in the present case, it will be difficult to hold that appellant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The injuries found by the Doctor, P.W.12, who carried out the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased Zohra Bi, aged 40 years, had found in all sixteen incised wounds, similarly, he had noted eleven incised wounds on the dead body of Gulzar, aged about 17 years. On the face of it, it is apparent that accused acted in a most cruel manner by inflicting number of dagger blows on a helpless step-mother and young sister. Hence, even assuming that there was no premeditation and the act was done in the heat of passion because of sudden quarrel between P.W.1 on one side and Maqbool and appellant on other side and that appellant used the dagger which was brought out by his brother Maqbool for inflicting injuries, yet main requirements, viz., (i) it was sudden fight and (ii) accused have not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC are not satisfied. Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.1 and the accused have reconciled and are staying together or that accused is sole earning member of the family would be totally irrelevant on the question of conviction and sentence of the accused for the offence of murder of his step-mother and sister. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. Bail bond stands cancelled. Appellant must surrender forthwith to serve the sentence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 7 - M B Shah - Full Document

State Of M.P vs Shivshankar on 16 September, 2014

13. The academic distinction between “murder” and “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” has vexed the courts for more than a century. The confusion is caused, if courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into minutae abstractions. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of these provisions seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used in the various clauses of Sections 299 and 300.” In Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade v. State of Maharashtra [3] , this Court held as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 10 - A K Goel - Full Document
1   2 3 Next