Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 71 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Karnataka vs Vedanayagam on 23 November, 1994

Laxman S/O Uttam Tajne vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Police ... on 12 June, 2002

16. The next ruling upon which reliance has been placed by learned A.P.P. is State of Karnataka v. Vedanayagam (supra). In this case the High Court had held that there was no pre meditation and that accused could not be said to have intended to cause death. The High Court, therefore, converted the conviction from Section 302 of the I.P.C. to Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. The Apex Court, however, found that there was evidence on record showing that the accused intended to cause that particular injury which was objectively found to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, the Apex Court set aside findings of the High Court and convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The nature of injury in this case was also taken into consideration. The injury was serious and brought about instant death. The blow was aimed at chest, injury was inflicted with great force with deadly weapon on the vital part. It entered the thoracic cavity, passed through sternum, injured lower lobe of left lung and entered the chamber off the left ventricle.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - R K Batta - Full Document

Lalla vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 April, 2002

Could the appellant be said to have committed murder? Whether Part I or Part III of Section 300 IPC would be attracted in the facts of this case? Submission of Mr. S.S. Rathore learned P.P. and Mr. N.A. Naqvi learned counsel for the complainant was that at any rate the appellant when he wielded a weapon like a knife and gave a blow on the head, a vital part of the body must have intended to cause that particular injury and this injury was objectively found by the medical evidence to be fatal and therefore Part HI of Section 300 IPC would be attracted. Reliance is placed on.Jai Prakash v. State (Delhi Administration) (supra) and State of Karnataka v. Vedanayagam (supra), wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded that when the ingredient of 'intention' is established, the offence would be murder and the intentional injury is found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Stalin vs The State Thr Rep By The Inspector Of ... on 9 September, 2020

The Court (in Vedanayagam case [(1995) 1 SCC 326 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 231] , SCC p. 330, para 4) relied on the observation by Bose, J. in Virsa Singh case [AIR 1958 SC 465] to suggest that: (Virsa Singh case [AIR 1958 SC 465], AIR p. 468, para 16) “16. … With due respect to the learned Judge he has linked up the intent required with the seriousness of the injury, and that, as we have shown, is not what the section requires. The two matters are quite separate and distinct, though the evidence about them may sometimes overlap.” The further observation in the above case were:
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 29 - M R Shah - Full Document

Murarilal (Deleted) vs State Of M.P. on 30 April, 2021

The Court (in Vedanayagam case [(1995) 1 SCC 326 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 231] , SCC p. 330, para 4) relied on the observation by Bose, J. in Virsa Singh case [AIR 1958 SC 465] to suggest that: (Virsa Singh case [AIR 1958 SC 465], AIR p. 468, para 16) "16. With due respect to the learned Judge he has linked up the intent required with the seriousness of the injury, and that, as we have shown, is not what the section requires. The two matters are quite separate and distinct, though the evidence about them may sometimes overlap."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 8 - R K Shrivastava - Full Document

Hameer Singh vs State Of M.P. on 11 June, 2021

The Court (in Vedanayagam case [(1995) 1 SCC 326 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 231] , SCC p. 330, para 4) relied on the observation by Bose, J. in Virsa Singh case [AIR 1958 SC 465] to suggest that: (Virsa Singh case [AIR 1958 SC 465], AIR p. 468, para 16) "16. With due respect to the learned Judge he has linked up the intent required with the seriousness of the injury, and that, as we have shown, is not what the section requires.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 1 - R K Shrivastava - Full Document

Ram Singh vs State Of M.P. on 24 August, 2021

The Court (in Vedanayagam case [(1995) 1 SCC 326 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 231] , SCC p. 330, para 4) relied on the observation by Bose, J. in Virsa Singh case [AIR 1958 SC 465] to suggest that: (Virsa Singh case [AIR 1958 SC 465], AIR p. 468, para 16) "16. With due respect to the learned Judge he has linked up the intent required with the seriousness of the injury, and that, as we have shown, is not what the section requires. The two matters are quite separate and distinct, though the evidence about them may sometimes overlap."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 10 - R K Shrivastava - Full Document

Phoolabai vs State Of M.P. on 25 August, 2021

The Court (in Vedanayagam case [(1995) 1 SCC 326 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 231] , SCC p. 330, para 4) relied on the observation by Bose, J. in Virsa Singh case [AIR 1958 SC 465] to suggest that: (Virsa Singh case [AIR 1958 SC 465], AIR p. 468, para 16) "16. With due respect to the learned Judge he has linked up the intent required with the seriousness of the injury, and that, as we have shown, is not what the section requires. The two matters are quite separate and distinct, though the evidence about them may sometimes overlap."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - R K Shrivastava - Full Document

State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Akola Old City Ps ... vs Vivek Prakash Ingle And 7 Others on 16 February, 2021

The said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is considered and followed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Vedanayagam reported in (1995) 1 SCC 326. This is apparent from the observations contained in para no. 4 of the said judgment. In the instant case, the evidence of all the eyewitnesses is that respondent nos. 2 and 3 intentionally inflicted blows on the head of Sunil (deceased) with iron pipes and other respondent nos. 1 and 4 to 7 with sticks. The medical evidence in the form of the deposition of Dr. Hussaini (PW15) is that the injuries suffered by Sunil (deceased) on his head were possible by the recovered iron pipe. We find opinion of Dr. Hussaini (PW15) to be plausible because vital organ like head, is damaged.
Bombay High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 2 - A B Borkar - Full Document

Nandu vs State Of M.P. on 1 September, 2021

The Court (in Vedanayagam case [(1995) 1 SCC 326 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 231] , SCC p. 330, para 4) relied on the observation by Bose, J. in Virsa Singh case [AIR 1958 SC 465] to suggest that: (Virsa Singh case [AIR 1958 SC 465], AIR p. 468, para 16) -( 22 )- CRA No. 499/2006 Nandu vs. State of MP "16. With due respect to the learned Judge he has linked up the intent required with the seriousness of the injury, and that, as we have shown, is not what the section requires. The two matters are quite separate and distinct, though the evidence about them may sometimes overlap."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - R K Shrivastava - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next