Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
Ladli Mohan Swami Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 April, 2023 cites

Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 October, 2001

It is a tentative view that the Court forms on the basis of record and documents annexed Signature Not Verifiedtherewith. No doubt that the word œinstigate used in Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Section 107 IPC has been explained by this Court in Ramesh Signing time: 12-04-2023 11:06:56 AM Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh ((2001) 9 SCC 618) to say that 11 where the accused had, by his acts or omissions or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an instigation may have to be inferred. In other words, instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of the case. All cases may not be of direct evidence in regard to instigation having a direct nexus to the suicide. There could be cases where the circumstances created by the accused are such that a person feels totally frustrated and finds it difficult to continue existence.'' Therefore, it is clear that a person can be said to have instigated another person, when he actively suggests or stimulates him by means of language, direct or indirect. Instigate means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 847 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

State Of W.B vs Orilal Jaiswal on 23 September, 1993

17. Thus, to constitute instigation™, a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by goading or ˜urging forward™. The dictionary meaning of the word ˜goad™ is ˜a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts....' In State of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal, reported in 1994 (1) SCC 73, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 456 - G N Ray - Full Document

Gangula Mohan Reddy vs State Of A.P on 5 January, 2010

Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. Abetted in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence.' I n Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in (2010) I SCC 750, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 697 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Netai Dutta vs State Of West Bengal on 28 February, 2005

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after death of deceased Rahul Merg was enquired for ten days in which statements of the witnesses were also recorded, but no witness alleged that petitioner has abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Subsequently, after two and half months statement of Nawal Kishore was recorded, in which he alleged that during Panchayat petitioner along with other accused put a condition of transferring the ownership of ancestral house of the deceased in the name of Shivani for compromising the matter. It is submitted that on these allegations, prima facie no offence under Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner. Petitioner being Mausa of the deceased during Panchayat only supported the demand of family members of the deceased, that does not mean that petitioner has instigated the Signature Not Verified deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 12-04-2023 11:06:56 AM the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Netai Dutta Vs. State 4 of West Bengal [(2005) 2 SCC 659] and Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. [(2002) 5 SCC 371] and contended that the petitioner has not committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the petitioner has played any part or any role in any conspiracy which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 277 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander & Anr on 13 September, 2012

Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.' 1 6 . Therefore, the issue that arises for our consideration is whether any of the aforesaid clauses namely firstly alongwith explanation 1 or more particularly thirdly with Explanation 2 to Section 107 is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case so as to bring the present case within the purview of Section 306 IPC.' The Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapur Vs. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has held as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 1303 - S Kumar - Full Document

Mahendra Singh And Anr., Gayatribai vs State Of M.P. on 7 February, 1995

10. This Court, considering the definition of 'abetment' under section 107 I.P.C., found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under section 306 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased. This Court further held that neither of the ingredients of abetment are Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU attracted on the statement of the deceased.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 325 - Full Document
1