Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 441 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 442 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Chimanbhai Jagabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 16 March, 2009
(b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death,
or that the accused attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him
to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a)
death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused
having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury (see
2025:KER:45998
Crl.Appeal No.97/2014 13
decision in Chimanbhai Jagabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, reported in
AIR 2009 SC 3223 : (2009) 11 SCC 273).
Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao vs State Of A.P.& Ors on 20 February, 2014
18. The first part makes any act committed with the intention
or knowledge that it would amount to murder if the act caused death
punishable with imprisonment up to ten years. The second part makes such
an act punishable with imprisonment for life if hurt is caused thereby.
Thus even if the act does not cause any injury it is punishable with
imprisonment up to 10 years. If it does cause an injury and therefore hurt,
it is punishable with imprisonment for life (see decision in Pasupuleti Siva
Ramakrishna Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2014 (2) Scale
417 : (2014) 5 SCC 369).
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Saleem @ Chamaru And Anr on 13 July, 2005
In the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh V. Saleem,
reported in (2005) 5 SCC 554, the Apex Court held that to sustain a
conviction under Section 307 IPC, it was not necessary that a bodily injury
capable of resulting in death should have been inflicted. As such, non-
conviction under Section 307 IPC on the premise only that simple injury
was inflicted does not follow as a matter of course. In the said judgment, it
was pointed out that the court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its
2025:KER:45998
Crl.Appeal No.97/2014 14
result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances
mentioned in the section.
Jage Ram & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 28 January, 2015
Yet, in Jage Ram
(supra) and Kanha (supra), it was observed that while grievous or life
threatening injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction under
Section 307, IPC, the intention of the accused can be ascertained from the
actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among
other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows
inflicted can be considered to infer intent.