Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)
Nagga @ Bhuralal Mangilal Nayak vs State Of M.P. on 9 February, 2018 cites

Madhavan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2017

In view of the aforesaid discussion and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhavan and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Sikandar Ali Vs. State of Maharashtra, Arjun and Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Elavarasan Vs. State (supra), we are of the view that the case of the appellant qualifies all parameters. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed. We hold that the act of the appellant does not fall under the purview of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC but -: 19:- Cr.A.No.1206 of 2007 falls under the purview of offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 42 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Arjun And Anr. Etc. Etc vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 February, 2017

In view of the aforesaid discussion and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhavan and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Sikandar Ali Vs. State of Maharashtra, Arjun and Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Elavarasan Vs. State (supra), we are of the view that the case of the appellant qualifies all parameters. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed. We hold that the act of the appellant does not fall under the purview of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC but -: 19:- Cr.A.No.1206 of 2007 falls under the purview of offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 260 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Sikandar Ali vs State Of Maharashtra on 14 February, 2014

In view of the aforesaid discussion and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhavan and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Sikandar Ali Vs. State of Maharashtra, Arjun and Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Elavarasan Vs. State (supra), we are of the view that the case of the appellant qualifies all parameters. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed. We hold that the act of the appellant does not fall under the purview of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC but -: 19:- Cr.A.No.1206 of 2007 falls under the purview of offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Gopal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 8 February, 2013

9. We may usefully refer to the decision of this Court (one of us, Justice Dipak Misra speaking for the Court) in the case of Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 7 SCC 545 : (AIR 2013 SC 3048) enunciated the necessity to adhere to the principle of proportionality in -: 19:- Cr.A.No.1206 of 2007 sentencing policy. In paragraphs 18 and 19 of the said decision, the Court observed thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 153 - D Misra - Full Document

Elavarasan vs State Rep.By Inspector Of Police on 5 July, 2011

In view of the aforesaid discussion and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhavan and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Sikandar Ali Vs. State of Maharashtra, Arjun and Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Elavarasan Vs. State (supra), we are of the view that the case of the appellant qualifies all parameters. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed. We hold that the act of the appellant does not fall under the purview of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC but -: 19:- Cr.A.No.1206 of 2007 falls under the purview of offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 33 - T S Thakur - Full Document
1   2 Next