Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.29 seconds)Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 342 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Arms Act, 1959
Section 27 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Jage Ram And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 2 March, 1971
25. It would be apposite to reproduce para 12,
13 & 14 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Jage Ram (supra), which reads as under for a ready
reference:
Sukhjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 2 September, 2014
32. It would be apposite to reproduce para 10, 11,
12 & 13 of the legal report of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
matter of Sukhjit Singh (supra), which reads as under:
State Of M.P vs Kashiram & Ors on 2 February, 2009
In State of M.P. v. Kashiram [State of M.P. v.
Kashiram, (2009) 4 SCC 26 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 40 :
AIR 2009 SC 1642], the scope of intention for
attracting conviction under Section 307 IPC was
elaborated and it was held as under: (SCC pp. 29-30,
paras 12-13)
"12. ... '13. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under
Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with
some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential
that bodily injury capable of causing death should
have been inflicted. The section makes a distinction
between the act of the accused and its result, if any.
The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of
its result, was done with the intention or knowledge
and under circumstances mentioned in the section.
Therefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC
cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries
inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple
hurt.
State Of Maharashtra vs Balram Bama Patil And Ors. on 1 February, 1983
14. This position was highlighted in State of
Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil [State of
Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil, (1983) 2 SCC 28 :
1983 SCC (Cri) 320] , Girija Shankar v. State of U.P.
[Girija Shankar v. State of U.P., (2004) 3 SCC 793 :
2004 SCC (Cri) 863] and R. Prakash v. State of
Karnataka [R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka, (2004)
9 SCC 27 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1408] .
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Saleem @ Chamaru And Anr on 13 July, 2005
13. '6. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate
sentence would do more harm to the justice system to
undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law
and society could not long endure under such serious
threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to
award proper sentence having regard to the nature of
the offence and the manner in which it was executed
or committed, etc. This position was illuminatingly
stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of
T.N. [Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N., (1991) 3 SCC
471 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 724] ' (Saleem case [Saleem
case, (2005) 5 SCC 554 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1329] ,
SCC p. 558, para 6)"