Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.81 seconds)
Documents citing Pandurang Narayan Jawalekar vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 February, 1978

Bansi vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 9 May, 2019

In Pandurang Narayan Jawalekar v. State of Maharashtra [1979] 1 SCC 132: (AIR 1978 SC 1082), the facts proved were that the appellant gave a blow on the head of the deceased old man who was advising him not to quarrel. The injury caused to the brain from one end to the other resulted in fracture as could appear from the evidence of the doctor. It would show that the accused must have struck the blow on the head of the Crl.A.No.589/2004 Page 10 of 26 deceased with an iron bar with very great force. Accordingly it was held that exception 4 does not apply though there was sudden quarrel and that the fight was not premeditated to cause death. It must be shown that the injury caused is not cruel one. The conviction for offence under S.302 by the High Court reversing the acquittal by trial court was upheld.
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Manmohan - Full Document

Ashok Pundalik Gavade And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 December, 2020

41. An useful reference, in this context, can be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pandurang Narayan Jawalekar vs. State of Maharashtra3, wherein the fact that the extensive damage was caused to the brain from one end to other resulting in several fractures, consequent to a single blow by an iron rod, was construed to hold that the accused acted in a cruel manner. It was observed as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - N J Jamadar - Full Document

Kikar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 May, 1993

In Pandurang Narayan Jawalekar v. State of maharashtra [1979] 1 SCC 132, the facts proved were that the appellant gave a blow on the head of the deceased old man who was advising him not to quarrel. The injury caused to the brain from one end to the other resulted in fracture as could appear from the evidence of the doctor. It would show that the accused must have struck the blow on the head of the deceased with an iron bar with very great force. Accordingly it was held that exception 4 does not apply though there was sudden quarrel and that the fight was not premeditated to cause death. It must be shown that the injury caused is not cruel one. The conviction for offence under s. 302 by the High Court reversing the acquittal by trial court was upheld.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 88 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Deni @ Lalo Vikramsinh Punamsinh Khant & ... vs State Of ... on 26 March, 2014

In Pandurang Narayan Jawalekar v. State of Maharashtra, (1979)1 SCC 132, the facts proved were that the appellant gave a blow on the head of the deceased, an old man, who was advising him not to quarrel. The injuries caused to the brain resulted in a fracture as could appear from the evidence of the doctor. It would show that the accused must have struck the blow on the head of the deceased with an iron bar Page 38 of 52 R/CR.A/1110/2007 CAV JUDGMENT with a great force. The Supreme Court held that Exception 4 did not apply, though there was a sudden quarrel and that the fight was not pre-meditated to cause death. The Supreme Court held that it must be shown that the injury caused was not a cruel one. The conviction for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC by the High Court reversing the acquittal by the trial Court was upheld.
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

Ahir Jesangbhai Patabhai & vs State Of ... on 25 March, 2014

In Pandurang Narayan Jawalekar v. State of Maharashtra, (1979)1 SCC 132, the facts proved were that the appellant gave a blow on the head of the deceased, an old man, who was advising him not to quarrel. The injuries caused to the Page 43 of 91 R/CR.A/2039/2008 CAV JUDGMENT brain resulted in a fracture as could appear from the evidence of the doctor. It would show that the accused must have struck the blow on the head of the deceased with an iron bar with a great force. The Supreme Court held that Exception 4 did not apply, though there was a sudden quarrel and that the fight was not pre-meditated to cause death. The Supreme Court held that it must be shown that the injury caused was not a cruel one. The conviction for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC by the High Court reversing the acquittal by the trial Court was upheld.
Gujarat High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

Vikas Alias Vicky Alias Ponga vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 January, 2015

In Panduranga Narayan Jawalekar Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at [1979] 1 SCC 132, the accused used deadly weapon against the unarmed man and struck him a blow on the head. He had taken undue advantage. He did not stop with the first blow, he CRL.A.992/2011 Page 20 of 22 inflicted two more blows on the fallen man and the third one proved to be fatal. He acted crudely with no justification. By his conduct the appellant denied himself of the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and it was held that Exception 4 does not apply though there was sudden quarrel and that the fight was not premeditated to cause death. It must be shown that the injury caused was not the cruel one.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 5 - G S Sistani - Full Document

Umeshbhai Premabhai Ahir vs State Of ... on 11 January, 2016

In Pandurang Narayan Jawalekar v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 1 SCC 132, the facts proved were that the appellant gave a blow on the head of the deceased old man who was advising him not to quarrel. The injury caused to the brain from one end to the other resulted in fracture as could appear from the evidence of the doctor. It would show that the accused must have struck the blow on the head of the deceased with an iron bar with very great force. Accordingly it was held that Exception 4 does not apply though there was sudden quarrel and that the fight was not premeditated to cause death. It must be shown that the injury caused is not a cruel one. The conviction for offence under Section 302 by the High Court reversing the acquittal by trial court was upheld.
Gujarat High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - H Devani - Full Document

Ayyappan Alias Appu vs State Of Kerala on 31 October, 2005

(See Pandurang Narayana Jawalekar v. State of Maharashtra 1978 Cri LJ 995 and Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade v. State of Maharashtra 1979 Cri LJ 49). In the above circumstances, 4th Exception is not applicable in this case. The trial Court has considered the evidence in a detailed manner and we are of the opinion that no interference is required in the findings of the trial Court who had seen the demeanor of the witness. Since Court imposed only statutory minimum punishment, no grounds are made out in this appeal to set aside or modify the conviction and sentence. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - J B Koshy - Full Document
1