Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.03 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Subran @ Subramanian And Ors vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 1993
This decision was not brought to the notice of their Lordships in Subran alias Subramanian v. State of Kerala (supra).
Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Hallu And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 1974
19. Great emphasis was laid on Exhibit P. 4 and the evidence of the Doctor, in contending that injuries Nos. 10 and 11 on the head of the deceased could not have been caused by choppers. It was contended that it cannot be taken that the blunt side of the choppers were used for inflicting the said injuries, unless the witnesses have said so. For this purpose, much emphasis was laid down in Hallu v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1974 Cri LJ 1385) (SC) (supra), in which it was observed "We should have thought that normally when the witness says that an axe or a spear is used there is no warrant for supposing that what the witness means is that the blunt side of the weapon was used. If that be the implication it is the duty of the prosecution to obtain a clarification from the witness as to whether the sharp edged or a piercing instrument was used as a blunt weapon." A spear and a chopper are totally different type of weapons. A spear is essentially a piercing weapon, whereas a chopper is used for cutting as well as hitting heavy blows. We have seen the choppers and we found that the blunt side of the choppers are very heavy and can cause the injuries found on the head of the deceased, which is supported by the medical evidence. There may be a normal presumption that when a spear is used, normally the sharp edge will be aimed at the victim. So far as choppers are concerned, there can be no such presumption, as either the sharp edge or the blunt edge may be used for achieving the objective. It is therefore not necessary for the eye-witnesses to say as to which side of the weapon of the choppers was aimed at the deceased and there was no need for the prosecution to elicit such information. It is also to be noted that the assailants were as many as 22 in number and the victims were merely seven in number and that it may not be possible for any one to notice as to which side of the weapon was used during the assault.
Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani vs State Of Maharastra on 17 February, 1982
22. The next submission of the learned counsel is that the injured eye-witnesses have either not given out all the names of the accused or given only the names of some of the accused before the Doctors and hence their evidence in Court cannot be believed. This submission is based on Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra, , wherein it was held that the statement made by victim to Doctor being first in point of time must be preferred to his subsequent statement. This observation of the Supreme Court was based on the evidence in that particular case.
Pattipati Venkaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 August, 1985
In Pattipati Venkaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, , it was observed that a Doctor is not at all concerned as to who committed the offence or whether the person brought to him is a criminal or an ordinary person, his primary effort is to save the life of the person brought to him and inform the police in medico legal cases. The contention that the eye-witnesses never care to disclose the names of the assailants to the Doctor when the body of the deceased was taken to the hospital and therefore their evidence in Court cannot be believed, was rejected by the Supreme Court.
Dalbir Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1987
In Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 1328 : (1987 Cri LJ 1065), it was held that it is not necessary to decide as to which of the accused persons inflicted what particular injury. In appreciation of evidence, no hard and fast rules can be laid down as it is after all a question of fact and each case has to be decided on the facts as they stand in that particular case.
Bhajan Singh & Ors vs State Of U.P on 9 April, 1974
In Bhajan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, , it was held that S. 149, I.P.C. constitutes, per se, a substantive offence although the punishment is under the section to which it is tagged being committed by the principal offender in the unlawful assembly known or unknown.
Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 20 December, 1974
In Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1992 AIR SCW 2909 : (1992 Cri LJ 3858), it was held that in inferring the common object of unlawful assembly, various factors depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case have to be taken into consideration. The fact that the appellants therein were found to be armed with fire arms and other deadly weapons went in a body and participated in the occurrence was taken into consideration in holding that all of them shared the common object and S. 149 is squarely attracted.