Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.77 seconds)
Documents citing Parusuraman @ Velladurai And Others vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 September, 1991

Ramnath Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 October, 2019

In the light of what has been observed by the Supreme Court in the above referred matters of Parusuraman alias Velladurai and others (supra) and Khuman Singh and others (supra), if we consider the evidence available in the case at hand, it is seen that deceased Shivbaran had received only two injuries on his person, the first being a mild swelling and second being a bruise. The first injury had blood clot beneath the scalp over the left temporoparietal region. There was no visible serious external injury. He suffered extra dural blood clot on the left side of temporoparietal region and left side of occipital region due to injury No.1, however, the accused persons were not aware that internal bleeding beneath the mild swelling over the left temporoparietal region would occasion death of the deceased. The fact that the first injury was not accompanied with any fracture of any part of the skull would itself show that it was not a serious injury. Moreover, both the parties were fighting with each other and in that course, the deceased sustained injuries by means of club which cannot be said to have been caused with an intention to commit murder. The intention was only to cause grievous hurt.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lalta And Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 2 December, 1999

It was a blunt weapon injury and it would be recalled that three accused-appellants namely, Ram Bahadur and Chandra Bali wielded Lathis. The prosecution evidence does not spell out as to who of them had caused this fatal injury No. 2 by blunt weapon to Ramchet deceased. All other injured received simple injuries only of blunt weapons. Having regard to these facts and circumstances it would be just and proper to hold that the common intention of all the four appellants was only to cause grievous injuries punishable under Section 325 I.P.C. In this view of ours, we are fortified by a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Parusuraman v. The State of Tamil Nadu 1991(28) A.C.C. (SC) 604 : AIR 1993 SC 141. In that case, seven persons were tried for the murder of one Jawahar. Participation of the appellants in the occurrence which resulted in the death of the deceased was proved beyond doubt. In all 13 external injuries were found on his body out of which 11 were on lower legs and arms which had voluntarily been caused by the appellants. It was found that they had no intention to kill and the offence was found to be covered within the parameters of Section 325 I.P.C. and not under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. for which three of them had been convicted by the High Court reversing the acquittal recorded by the trial Judge. The things may be a bit explained in the present case also. Four accused-appellants participated in the incident out of whom one used a sharp edged weapon and the other three wielded Lathis. Out of them, the deceased alone sustained an incised wound and rest of his injuries as well as of the remaining three eye witnesses were of blunt weapons. The injuries of three injured eye witnesses were simple also. It was one of the blunt weapon injuries sustained by the deceased which proved to be fataly responsible for his death. Taking all these facts together, it appears that the common intention of all the four appellants was only to cause grievous hurt, as otherwise, they could have inflicted many more injuries on vital parts of the victim than those they did. The ruling referred to above handed down by the Supreme Court lends support to this view. Of course, the appellants voluntarily caused simple hurt too to the three injured eye witnesses but the offence of Section 325 I.P.C. being graver, for practical purposes it comprises in itself the offence of Section 323 I.P.C. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the four accused-appellants committed offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 I.P.C. for which they should be convicted and sentenced. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper to award three years' rigorous imprisonment to each of them and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- or in default to pay the fine to suffer additional rigorus imprisonment for six months. It would also be proper to direct that in case of realization of the fine, Rs. 16.000/- be paid to P.W. 1 Ram Lala injured and brother of the deceased and Rs. 2000/- each to the other two injured, namely, P.W.2 Jeet Bahadur and P.W.3 Ram Sagar.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - M C Jain - Full Document

Thakore vs State on 27 February, 2012

6. Learned counsel Mr.Gondaliya relied upon judgments of the Apex Court in Parusuraman v. State of Tamil Nadu [1992 Supp (1) SCC 429] and Genda Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2008) 11 SCC 791] to submit that if the intention to kill were not proved or if the right of private defence were exceeded, conviction under section 304 and sentence of imprisonment for ten years were appropriate and sufficient punishment.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - D H Waghela - Full Document

Des Raj And Others vs . State Of Haryana on 1 October, 2008

Under the circumstances conviction was converted from under Section 302 I.P.C. to one under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 I.P.C. In Parusuraman alias Alias Velladurai and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1992 SCC (Crl.) 292 out of thireen external injuries eleven were on the lower legs and arms. Therefore, the court held that there was no intention to cause death. Intention was only to cause grievous hurt. The accused was convicted under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 40 - K S Garewal - Full Document
1   2 Next