Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1447 (1.65 seconds)
Documents citing Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 October, 2001

Sri K C Shashikirana vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2025

41. This Court in para 20 of Ramesh Kumar [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as under : (SCC p. 629) '20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.'
Karnataka High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

Manikantha V K vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2025

41. This Court in para 20 of Ramesh Kumar [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as under : (SCC p. 629) '20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.'
Karnataka High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

Sanjeev Kumar & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 14 May, 2025

"16. This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, while dealing with a similar situation observed that what constitutes 'instigation' must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequences. A reasonable certainty to incite the consequences must be capable of being spelt out. More so, a continued course of conduct is to create such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suresh Kumar And Another vs State Of H.P on 21 August, 2024

"16. This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, while dealing with a similar situation observed that what constitutes 'instigation' must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequences. A reasonable certainty to incite the consequences must be capable of being spelt out. More so, a continued course of conduct is to create such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Rajiv Makan on 29 October, 2024

19. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 648 has held that "a word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
Delhi District Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manjunatha N P vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 September, 2025

13. It is very pertinent that a reading of the above decisions would only indicate that always a proximate incident or act prior to the suicide was held to be a very relevant aspect in finding the death to be a direct causation of the acts of the person accused of abetting the suicide. We think it apt to look at the decisions discussed in Ude Singh. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh which was a case in which the husband pursuant to a quarrel asked the wife to go wherever she pleased, after which she set herself ablaze. This Court opined that the wife, on the husband freeing her, impulsively felt that she could do nothing but kill herself. It was held so in paragraph 20:
Karnataka High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Sonia Singh & Anr on 21 November, 2024

18. In order to constitute 'instigation', it must be shown that the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. The words uttered by the accused must be suggestive of the consequence [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, Paragraph 20]
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document

Anand @ Kallu Bhatt vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 September, 2024

In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Ramesh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (supra) and Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander (supra) and considering the nature of allegations against the applicant, this Court is of the considered view that as the deceased was being harassed since the year 2020, at this stage, it cannot be said the applicant is not guilty of inducement or incitement compelling the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, no case for interference is made out in this revision.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - M S Bhatti - Full Document

Daizy Kumar @ Vishal And Anr vs State Of H.P on 20 March, 2025

"16. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench, in Ramesh Kumar case (2001) 9 SCC 618, R.C. Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) said that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of "instigation", though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what 86 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6864 ) constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an "instigation" may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation. 17. Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 96 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next