Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.32 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Kikar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 May, 1993
In Kikar Singh
v. State of Rajasthan [(1993) 4 SCC 238] it was held
10
Crl.A. No. 05 of 2013
that if the accused used deadly weapons against the
unarmed man and struck a blow on the head it must
be held that by using the blows with the knowledge
that they were likely to cause death he had taken
undue advantage. In the instant case blows on vital
parts of unarmed persons were given with brutality.
The abdomens of two deceased persons were ripped
open and internal organs come out. In view of the
aforesaid factual position, Exception 4 to
Section 300 IPC has been rightly held to be
inapplicable."
Suraj Bhan vs State Of Haryana on 18 December, 2002
(iv) The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
submit that all these established facts would lead one to
draw an irresistible conclusion that the Appellant had
committed the act of causing the injury with the intention
to cause the death of the deceased thereby attracting the
provisions of Section 300 IPC. Reliance on this was also
placed upon Suraj Bhan vs. State of Haryana : (2002) 10
SCC 362 (paragraph 9).
State Of U.P vs Lakhmi on 12 February, 1998
On this proposition, Mr. Rai sought to rely upon
State of U.P. vs. Lakhmi : (1998) 4 SCC 336, which was
also referred to in Mona Han Subba (supra) the relevant
portion of which is reproduced below:
K. M. Nanavati vs State Of Maharashtra on 24 November, 1961
In the very case of Nanavati
(supra) the Indian condition of law has been set out as
under:
Jagtar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 14 February, 1983
In Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 2
SCC 342 : (AIR 1983 SC 463), the accused in the spur
of the moment inflicted a knife blow in the chest of the
deceased. The injury proved to be fatal. The doctor
opined that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. This Court observed
that the quarrel was of a trivial nature and even in such
a trivial quarrel the appellant wielded a weapon like a
knife and landed a blow in the chest. In these
circumstances, it is a permissible inference that the
appellant at least could be imputed with a knowledge
that he was likely to cause an injury which was likely to
cause death. This Court altered the conviction of the
appellant from section 302 IPC to section 304 Part II
IPC and sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for five years.
Hem Raj vs The State (Delhi Administration) on 23 April, 1990
In Hem Raj v. State (Delhi
Administration) (1990) Supp. SCC 291 : (AIR 1990 SC
2252), the accused inflicted single stab injury landing
on the chest of the deceased. The occurrence
admittedly had taken place in the spur of the moment
and in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.