Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Ramashraya & Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2001

Fatesinh Jesinh Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 28 January, 2003

In Ramashraya v. State of M. P., AIR 2001 SC 1129, the appellants contended that the offence, if at all committed by the appellants, will not come within the definition of "murder", but only "culpable homicide" looking to the nature of injuries and the sudden quarrel took place without any premeditation. It was, therefore, contended that at the highest the appellants were liable to be punished under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. The Apex Court held that "from the nature of the injuries and the origin and genesis of the incident, it would be spelt out that all the ingredients of the offence of murder defined under Section 300 I.P.C. were made out and it was not possible to bring the offence within any of the five exceptions of Section 300 I.P.C. Therefore, Section 304 I.P.C. cannot be invoked."
Gujarat High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - M S Shah - Full Document

Prithvey Singh vs State on 13 February, 2002

30. Learned counsel for the State has drawn our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramashraya and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2001 (1) (Crl.) SC 523, therein there was an altercation followed by an attack. There were multiple injuries all over the body including skull. It was held that injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Supreme Court returned the finding that conviction under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was rightly held.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sahebrao Dhondiba Patekar vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 January, 2002

44. Reference may also be made to the recent decision of the Supreme Court, brought to our notice by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, in the case of Ramashraya and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2001 Cr. L.J. 1452. In that case, there was quarrel between the deceased and the accused. The accused tried to hit the deceased on his head with a lathi, but the blow fell on the shoulder of the deceased. Several injuries were inflicted over the deceased. He fell down on the ground and died.
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - S S Parkar - Full Document

Suchand Bauri vs State Of West Bengal on 9 April, 2009

12. The determinative factor in Section 300 `Thirdly' is the intentional injury which must be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary way of nature. It is immaterial whether the offender had knowledge that an act of that kind will be likely to cause death. The offender's subjective knowledge of the consequences is irrelevant. The result of the intentionally caused injury must be viewed objectively. To find out whether the offender had intention to cause such bodily injury which in the ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause death, the 8 diverse factors need to be kept in mind such as: the force with which the blow has been dealt with, the type of weapon used, the vital organ or the particular spot of the body targeted, the nature of the injury caused, the origin and genesis of the crime and the circumstances attendant upon the death. [Jagrup Singh v. State of Haryana3; and Ramashraya and Anr. V. State of M.P.4]
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Neelkanth vs State Of U.P. on 24 August, 2018

12. The determinative factor in Section 300 ''Thirdly' is the intentional injury which must be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary way of nature. It is immaterial whether the offender had knowledge that an act of that kind will be likely to cause death. The offender's subjective knowledge of the consequences is irrelevant. The result of the intentionally caused injury must be viewed objectively. To find out whether the offender had intention to cause such bodily injury which in the ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause death, the diverse factors need to be kept in mind such as: the force with which the blow has been dealt with, the type of weapon used, the vital organ or the particular spot of the body targeted, the nature of the injury caused, the origin and genesis of the crime and the circumstances attendant upon the death. [Jagrup Singh v. State of Haryana 1981 Cri LJ 1136 ; and Ramashraya and Anr. V. State of M.P. 2001 Cri LJ 1452]
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Kerala vs Subramanian Namboothiri on 29 October, 2025

(See Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala6, Sudershan Kumar v. State of Delhi7, Ram Murti v. State of Haryana8, State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya9, Mahadeo Ganpat Badavane v. State of Maharashtra10, Morcha v. State of Rajasthan11, Bakhtawar and Another v. the 5 AIR 1957 SC 474 6 1966 SCC OnLIne SC 50 7 1975(3) SCC 831 8 (1976) 4 SCC 308 9 (1976) 4 SCC 382 10 1977(3) SCC 264 11 1979(1) SCC 161 2025:KER:80902 Crl. Appeal No.696 of 2018​ ​ ​ 25 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ State of Haryana12, State of Karnataka v. Vedanayagam13, Ramashraya and Another v. State of M.P.14 , Khuman Singh and Others v. State of M.P.15, Suchand Bouri v. State of W.B.16, Aradadi Ramudu Slias Aggiramudu v. State Through Inspector of Police, Yanam17 and Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra18.)
Kerala High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - V R Vijayaraghavan - Full Document

State Of Kerala vs Subramanian Namboothiri on 30 October, 2025

(See Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala6, Sudershan Kumar v. State of Delhi7, Ram Murti v. State of Haryana8, State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya9, Mahadeo Ganpat Badavane v. State of Maharashtra10, Morcha v. State of Rajasthan11, Bakhtawar and Another v. the State of Haryana12, State of Karnataka v. Vedanayagam13, Ramashraya and Another v. State of M.P.14 , Khuman Singh and Others v. State of M.P.15, Suchand Bouri v. State of W.B.16, Aradadi Ramudu Slias Aggiramudu v. State Through Inspector of Police, Yanam17 and Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra18.)
Kerala High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - V R Vijayaraghavan - Full Document

Madhu @ Basheer vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2026

(See Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala11, 11 1966 SCC OnLIne SC 50 2026:KER:183 Crl.Appeal No.432/2021​ 26 Sudershan Kumar v. State of Delhi12, Ram Murti v. State of Haryana13, State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya14, Mahadeo Ganpat Badavane v. State of Maharashtra15, Morcha v. State of Rajasthan16, Bakhtawar and Another v. the State of Haryana17, State of Karnataka v. Vedanayagam18, Ramashraya and Another v. State of M.P.19 , Khuman Singh and Others v. State of M.P.20, Suchand Bouri v. State of W.B.21, Aradadi Ramudu Slias Aggiramudu v. State Through Inspector of Police, Yanam22 and Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra23.)
Kerala High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - V R Vijayaraghavan - Full Document
1