Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Abdul Latif on 12 March, 2018

Lalaram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 July, 2022

10. In various judgments of the Apex Court reported in 2018(3) M.P.L.J (Cri) (S.C.) 311 State of M.P. Vs. Abdul Latif and in (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 746 Rambir Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in the similar facts and circumstances murder of wife by her husband due to a quarrel took place between them, the Apex Court has held that the offence would not travel more than Section 304 Part I and Part II of IPC because it falls under the Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - V Rusia - Full Document

Rakesh Lakda vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 August, 2022

5. Mr.Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant-accused, would submit that the appellant did not have any intention to commit the crime in question and as such, it is the case where offence would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC as per Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2, as such, his conviction for offence under Section 302 of the IPC can be altered to offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and as such, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. He would rely upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of Uday Singh v. State of U.P. 1and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Abdul Latif 2.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S Agrawal - Full Document

Bablu Chandra Dey @ Babul vs The State Of West Bengal on 12 September, 2022

23. At this juncture we are duty bound to consider as to whether learned trial court is at all justified in sentencing the present appellant under Section 302 of IPC or not. As discussed herein above that the learned Advocate for appellant strongly contended in course of his argument that in the event this Court finds that the present appellant committed the crime of culpable homicide of her wife on the relevant day and hour, such act cannot come under the purview of Section 302 of the IPC and at best the same may come under the purview of Section 304 Part I or Part II. In course of his submission, learned Advocate for the appellant placed his reliance upon the following reported decisions namely; 'Devendra Nath Srivastava vs State of Uttar Pradesh' reported in (2017) 5 SCC 769 and 'State of Madhya Pradesh vs Abdul Latif' reported in (2018) 5 SCC 456.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mathur @ Mathura Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal on 3 July, 2019

6. Mr. Soubhik Mitter, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted as follows. The alleged incidents took place evidently at the spar of the moment and without any premeditation. Therefore, in spite of Section 302 of the Penal Code, at best Section 304 of the Penal Code could have been attracted in the present case. On this, reliance was placed on Devendra Nath Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2017) 5 SCC 769, K. Ravi Kumar vs. State of Karnataka (2015) 2 SCC 638 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Abdul Latif, (2018) 2 CCrLR (SC) 233. The appellant has already undergone custody for nearly 12 years. In the alternative, the Learned Counsel prayed for a reference to the State for considering remission of sentence.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - J Sengupta - Full Document

Sambhunath Maity @ Sambhu vs State Of West Bengal on 29 November, 2021

Lastly it has been argued that the conviction may be altered from the Sections 302 to one 304 Part I of IPC. Learned Counsel submits that the 7 incident occurred in the course of a quarrel and on the spur of the moment. He relies on State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Abdul Latif 1 in support of his contention. I am unable to accept his submission on this score also. The appellant was a habitual wife beater as would appear from the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W. 11. On the fateful night the appellant had not only struck the victim mercilessly with a banti on her neck but had also smothered her with a pillow. Conduct of the appellant in assaulting the victim on a vital part of the body and thereafter smothering her, leaves no doubt in my mind that he had intended to kill her. In the cited decision the accused had not been acted in a cruel manner as in the present case wherein the appellant after assaulting his wife with a bonti on the neck had smothered her. Moreover, the fatal incident was preceded by regular violent behaviour and assault on the victim. Hence, I am of the opinion that the conduct of the appellant proves that he intended to murder his wife and the case does not fall within the exceptions of section 300 IPC justifying modification of conviction.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - J Bagchi - Full Document

Ramkishan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 March, 2022

10. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on various judgments of the Apex Court reported in 2018(3) M.P.L.J (Cri) (S.C.) 311 State of M.P. Vs. Abdul Latif and in (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 746 Rambir Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in the similar facts and circumstances murder of wife by her husband due to a quarrel took place between them, the Apex Court has held that the offence would not travel -5- more than Section 304 Part I and Part II of IPC because it falls under the Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - V Rusia - Full Document

Abdul Latif vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 November, 2022

T he appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under Section 471 and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, Section 473 of IPC and has been sentenced to R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, Section 9 of Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam and has been sentenced to R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- and Section 66/192 (A) of Motor Vehicle Act and has been sentenced to fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation by the learned third Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni vide judgment dated 22.09.2022 passed in ST No. 20/2017 (State of MP Vs. Abdul Latif and another).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - D K Paliwal - Full Document
1