Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.48 seconds)
Thangapandi vs State Rep. By on 24 March, 2023 cites

Atul Thakur vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 19 January, 2018

13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that injury speaks the intention of the appellant is not accepted in the specific circumstances of the present case where there was a sudden fight between the appellant and the deceased and it is not the case of the witnesses that the appellant had kept the knife, even prior to the occurrence. So, the occurrence took place suddenly and the witnesses also spoke about the fight between the deceased and the appellant and there is some justification for both appellant and the deceased are to be blamed equally. It is settled principle of law, in the case of sudden fight, the number of injuries is not material and number of wound caused by the appellant itself cannot be a justifying factor to bring the case under the Exception (4) of Section 300 IPC when there was no premeditation and the act was done in the heat of passion without taking undue advantage. The same was the dictum laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions in Atul Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, reported in 2018 (2) SCC 496.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 49 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document
1   2 Next