Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 97 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing James Martin vs State Of Kerala on 16 December, 2003

R.Jayapal vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 August, 2019

7. For the High Court having affirmed his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC, the appellant (accused No. 1) has preferred this appeal. Assailing the judgment and order so passed by the High Court, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the present one is a clear case of exercise in good faith the right of private defence since the appellant was only trying to protect his wife from being assaulted and molested by the deceased who had illegally entered into their house and, in natural circumstances, the appellant attacked the deceased with the object that was accessible to him. The learned counsel would submit that even if the accused does not plead self- defence, it is open to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record; and the burden could be discharged by the accused by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis of material available on record. The learned counsel has referred to several decisions, including those in Munshi Ram & Ors. v. Delhi Administration: (1968) 2 SCR 7 455; James Martin v. State of Kerala: (2004) 2 SCC 203; Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.: (2010) 2 SCC 333; and Sukumaran v. State: 2019 SCC Online SC 339. According to the learned counsel, on the facts and in the circumstances available on record, the case of right of private defence deserves to be accepted. The learned counsel has also argued that in any event, the present one had been a case of sudden fight and grave and sudden provocation for the reason that the deceased entered the house of the appellant and attempted to cause harm to the family of the appellant. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the action of the appellant does not lead to the offence of murder and it would, at the most, be a case of culpable homicide where the appellant had no intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 5 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

Shiv Baran Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. on 27 September, 2021

(63) Sri R.C. Singh, holding brief of Sri Arun Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellant no.2 in Criminal Appeal No. 547 of 1982 has also reiterated the submissions advanced by Sri Jyotinjay Mishra and has argued that statements of the accused/appellants recorded by the trial Court under Section 313 Cr.P.C. are missing from the record of the case, however, in paragraph-14 of the impugned judgment, the defense version taken by the different accused/appellants has been mentioned. Accused/ appellant Sharda Bux singh (of Criminal Appeal No. 547 of 1982) was said to be armed with a lathi at the time of the alleged incident. He argued that the conviction of the accused/appellants with the help of Section 149 I.P.C. is not sustainable inasmuch as it is well settled law that Section 149 I.P.C. cannot be invoked when it is a case of self defense. He also argued that it is also well settled law that more injuries on the side of the prosecution is not a proof of aggression by defence, the prosecution may have bargained for the injuries. To strengthen his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Arjun Pradhan and another Vs. State of Orissa : AIR 1979 (SC) 1259, Gotti Pulla Venkete Siva Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another : 1970 AIR 1079, Munshi Ram and others Vs. Delhi Administration : 1968 AIR 702, James Martin Vs. State of Kerala : 2004 ( 2) SCC 203 and Lakshmi Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar : AIR 1976 (SC) 2263.
Allahabad High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhola Yadav And Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 18 August, 2021

53. Before laying down the abovementioned principles of right of private defence available under Section 100 of the IPC, the Supreme Court in case of Darshan Singh (supra) has noticed a series of judicial precedents including in case of Laxman Sahu v. State of Orissa reported in 1986 Supp SCC 555, Raghavan Achari v. State of Kerala reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 719, Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2009) 16 SCC 772, Puran Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (1975) 4 SCC 518, Bhagwan Swaroop v. State of M.P. reported in (1992) 2 SCC 406, Kashmiri Lal v. State of Punjab reported in (1996) 10 SCC 471, James Martin v. State of Kerala reported in (2004) 2 SCC 203, Gottipulla Venkatasiva Subbrayanam v. State of A.P. reported in (1970) 1 SCC 235, Mahabir Choudhary v. State of Bihar reported in (1996) 5 SCC 107, Munshi Ram vs. Delhi Admn.
Patna High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - A K Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next