Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (2.19 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Karnataka vs Shivalingaiah Alias Handigidda on 1 April, 1987

Smt Kai Mum Nisha @ Smt. Kaimul Nisha And 8 ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 October, 2022

7. Learned counsel for the applicants also relied on a judgment passed by Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur in the case of Dhula Ram and Others Vs. State, through PP, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 2019, wherein the Division Bench while considering the appeal after the conviction, followed the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Shivalingaiah Alias Handigidda (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S S Shamshery - Full Document

State vs . 1) Daljeet Kaur @ Rano on 17 November, 2018

21. My observation to the effect that the present case falls within the ambit of section 323 Indian Penal Code is strengthened by another judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Shivalingaiah, 1988 Crl. L.J. 394. In the said case conviction was ultimately maintained by their Lordships under section 325 Indian Penal Code on the ground that the act of the accused   in   squeezing   the   testicles   of   a   person   would   be   an offence of voluntarily causing grievous just under section 325 Indian   Penal   Code.   In   the   said   case   there   was   a   categorical statement of the doctor that the act was dangerous to human life   and  had  led  to  cardiac   arrest  of  the   deceased  which  was instantaneous. In the present case the factual position is that the   appellant   had   given   fist   blow   to   the   deceased   causing contusion falling within the ambit of section 323 Indian Penal Code.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cbi vs . Farman & Ors. on 3 September, 2019

In State of Karnataka Vs. Shivalingaiah (supra), charge against respondent was that after an altercation he suddenly pulled the deceased Giri Gowda by his testicles and squeezed the same as a result of which he fell down unconscious and died almost instantaneously. In these circumstances, convict of respondent was altered from Section 323 IPC to Section 325 IPC. Facts of present case are different as in the present case, deceased received nine injuries.
Delhi District Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohd. Shafique vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 October, 2022

24. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of Bai Jiba (supra), which has impliedly overruled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka v. Shivalingaiah6 and their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the act of squeezing testicles is dangerous to human life. It actually lead to the cardiac arrest and thus would clearly to be covered by Section 320 of the IPC and therefore, amounts to grievous hurt. In that view of the matter, the reliance placed in the aforesaid judgment is of no relevance.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S Agrawal - Full Document

Sewakram And Another vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 December, 2022

21) Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of definition of grievous hurt and the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in M/s. Formina Sebastio Azardeo (supra), State of Karnataka (supra), it is quite vivid that nature of injuries as noticed by Dr. Azad Ahmed Siddiue (PW/11) in Ex.P/25 was not only dangerous but has ultimately taken life of Meenabai (deceased).
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S Agrawal - Full Document

Gopal Alias Arunthava Selvan vs State By Inspector Of Police, Esplanade ... on 20 August, 1993

40. Appellant's Counsel after we reserved judgment, circulated the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Shivalingaiah, to impress upon us, that squeezing of testicles of victim, resulting in his death, will not fall either under clause 3rdly to S. 300 Indian Penal Code or even under S. 304, Part II Indian Penal Code, but would only attract the ingredients of S. 325, IPC. We have carefully perused the judgment of the Supreme Court and it is instantly evident, that the law laid down therein, can have no bearing in the instantly case. That was a case in which the incident took place suddenly and on the spur of the moment squeezing of the testicles of the victim resulted in his death. It was found, on these facts and circumstances presented, that it cannot be said, that the accused theirin had any intention of causing the death of the deceased, when he committed the act in question. Nor can he be attributed with knowledge that such act was likely to cause his cardiac arrest, resulting in his death. Supreme Court further observed as hereunder (para 3) :
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 5 - D Raju - Full Document

State Of Karnataka vs Mohamed Nazeer @ Babu on 24 January, 2003

Ms. Kiran Suri relied upon the case in State of Karnataka v. Shivalingaiah alias Handigidda, reported in [1988] Supp SCC 533. In this case, there was an altercation between two parties and in the course of the altercation, the Respondent squeezed the testicles of the deceased, who then fell down unconscious and died. The evidence of the Doctor was that the death was as a result of cardiac arrest resulting from shock due to injuries to the testicles. It is on those facts that this Court held that there was no evidence of intention to commit a murder. It was on those facts that it was held that neither Section 302 nor 304-II IPC would apply. To be noted however that this Court convicted the accused under Section 325 IPC. In our view, the facts of that case are entirely different from the present case and thus the ratio laid therein can be of no assistance to the Respondent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 Next