Search Results Page
Search Results
31 - 40 of 58 (0.21 seconds)
Wasim Khan S/O Ajim Khan (In Jail) vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. ... on 6 May, 2025
cites
Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 66 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 428 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal on 14 July, 2020
In the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash
Kushanrao Gorantyal , the Supreme Court after discussing two
1
maxims: Firstly ex non cogit ad impossibilia i.e. the law does not
demand the impossible; Secondly impotentia excusat legem i.e. when
there is a disability that makes it impossible to obey the law, the
alleged disobedience of the law is excused, has held in para no. 51 of
the judgment as under:-
Zakia Ahsan Jafri vs The State Of Gujarat on 24 June, 2022
31. The Supreme Court in the case of Zakia Ahsan Jafri Vs.
State of Gujarat 2 has held in para no. 278 as under:-
Sivamani Alias Sivan And Anr. vs State Of Kerala Represented By C.I. Of ... on 8 July, 1992
50. Mr. Arjun Bobde, learned counsel for Wasim vehemently
submitted that the injuries on the person of Dinesh were simple
injuries. If it had been the intention of Wasim and the other accused
persons to commit the murder of Dinesh, they would have left Dinesh
with severe injuries to make sure that he dies. According to him, this
aspect has not been considered by the Trial Court. To buttress his
submission, he seeks to rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in
40 cr-appeal-336-16+4.odt
the case of Sivamani and another Vs. State Represented by Inspector of
Police 3, wherein it is held as under :-
Jage Ram And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 2 March, 1971
In the
case of Jage Ram Vs. State of Haryana 4, it has been held that just
because a fatal injury was not sustained, that alone does not dislodge
Section 307 of the IPC. What is material is the intention of the accused
which can be gathered from surrounding circumstances including the
actual injury, nature of weapon and severity of the blow. We must
state here that it has been proved that the accused persons put Dinesh,
3 2023 SCC Online SC 1581
4 2015 (11) SCC 366
41 cr-appeal-336-16+4.odt
who was under the influence of liquor as proved in the CA report, on
the Railway track to make sure that he gets crushed under the Train
and does not survive. When he managed to save himself inspite of
being under the influence of liquor, the accused persons particularly,
Kadir and the juvenile in conflict with law again brought him on the
Railway track to make sure that he gets killed but fortunately, again he
succeeded in saving himself. Thus, from the facts which have been
brought on record, it is clear that Wasim and Kadir alongwith the
juvenile in conflict with law tried to kill Dinesh by putting him on the
Railway track to make sure that he gets crushed under the wheels of
the Train. Therefore, we see no infirmity in the conviction recorded by
the Trial Court holding Wasim and Kadir guilty for the offence
punishable under Sections 307, 366 and 394 read with 34 of the IPC.
GANG RAPE