Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.44 seconds)
Documents citing Devendra Nath Srivastava vs State Of U.P on 6 April, 2017

State Of Gujarat vs Puriya @ Parsottam Natvarbhai ... on 20 September, 2017

37. We   are   called   upon   to   examine   whether   the   case  against   accused   No.4,   Puriya,   would   fall   under  exceptions   secondly   to   fourthly   or   under   the   first  part of Section­300 IPC. In our considered view, the  present case against accused No.4 would squarely fall  under the first part of Section­300 of the IPC, as the  act by which the death of the deceased has been caused  has been done with the intention of causing death. No  mitigating circumstances emerge from the evidence on  record   to   bring   the   case   against   Puriya   within   the  ambit   of   any   of   the   exceptions   to   Section­300.  Referring once again to the quotation  from  State   of  A.P.   Vs.   Rayavarapu   Punnayya  contained  in   the  judgment   of  Devendra   Nath   Srivastava   Vs.   State   of  Uttar   Pradesh   (supra),  the   first   question,   whether  the   accused   has   done   an   act   by   doing   which   he   has  caused the death of another, is answered in this case.  The   second   question   whether   the   act   of   the   accused  would   amount   to   culpable   homicide   as   defined   in  Section­299 IPC is also answered in the affirmative.
Gujarat High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - A Kumari - Full Document

Pramod Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 28 February, 2019

12. Sri Sharad Dixit, learned counsel for appellant-accused, in rebuttal, submits that as per the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellant-accused 's case falls within the parameter of Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. and not under Section 302 I.P.C and in support of his argument he placed reliance on paragraph Nos. 14, 18, 19 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devendra nath Srivastava VS. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2017 (5) SCC 769 which reads as under:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 1 - A Kumar - Full Document

Mathur @ Mathura Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal on 3 July, 2019

6. Mr. Soubhik Mitter, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted as follows. The alleged incidents took place evidently at the spar of the moment and without any premeditation. Therefore, in spite of Section 302 of the Penal Code, at best Section 304 of the Penal Code could have been attracted in the present case. On this, reliance was placed on Devendra Nath Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2017) 5 SCC 769, K. Ravi Kumar vs. State of Karnataka (2015) 2 SCC 638 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Abdul Latif, (2018) 2 CCrLR (SC) 233. The appellant has already undergone custody for nearly 12 years. In the alternative, the Learned Counsel prayed for a reference to the State for considering remission of sentence.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - J Sengupta - Full Document

Sharwan Ram vs State on 6 September, 2017

Upon consideration of the entire evidence and facts it is obvious that deceased was brutally murdered by the husband, accused appellant, Sharwan Ram, therefore, we have no hesitation to say that there is no substance in the prayer of the accused appellant to convert the conviction from the offence under Section 302 to 304 Part-I of IPC. Upon perusal of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Devendra Nath Shrivasta (supra), it is apparent that facts of that case were altogether different. Although in that case nine injuries were found upon the body of deceased, but child eyewitness Shailendra Kumar (PW.6) turned hostile and there was evidence that occurrence took place all of sudden in anger, but in this case no such facts are in existence, more so, it is a case in which minor son of the accused appellant (PW.12- Ganesh) categorically proved which is further corroborated by the medical evidence as well as statements of close relatives of the accused appellant himself, therefore, there is no question to accept the prayer of the accused appellant to alter the conviction from offence under Section 302 IPC to 304 Part-I of IPC.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next