Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1192 (6.17 seconds)
Documents citing Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs State Of West Bengal on 11 November, 2009

Hansaben @ Hasina Yusufbhai vs The State Of Gujarat on 25 July, 2024

20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, 2010 AIR(SC) 512, after considering various earlier judgments in para 15 observed that, "15. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable." "16. In order to bring a case within the Page 71 of 82 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 25 21:05:01 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/11/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2024 undefined purview of Section 306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC."
Gujarat High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Ankit Rathore & Ors. on 28 July, 2023

57. Before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it, in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment, metered out to the victim, had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. In the cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the basis of allegations or harassment, without there being any positive action, proximate to the time of offence, on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. - Ref. Amalendu Pal Vs. State of WB (supra).
Delhi District Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M. Sundaramoorthy vs State Of Kerala on 25 February, 2011

11. The next question is whether treating the second FIR as an interim report filed in the first FIR, the police could have proceeded against petitioner for offences punishable under Secs.306 and/or 506(i) of the IPC. It is in this connection that learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on the decisions in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal (supra) and Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra). In the former decision, it has been held in paragraph 12, referring to the application of Sec.306 of the IPC:
Kerala High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - T Joseph - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next