Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.28 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 37 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 38 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Ajay Bind vs State Nct Of Delhi on 7 July, 2017
34. Applying the law laid down in the case of Ajay Bind (supra) and the
judgment of the Apex Court extracted hereinabove to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, we are persuaded to accept the
alternative limb of submission advanced by the learned counsels for
the appellants that the present case would fall within the ambit of
Section 304 Part I of IPC. We find force in the argument made by the
counsel for the appellants that the injuries were sustained by the
appellants also, which would show that the fight was free for all. The
injuries were caused with the pharsa which is an agricultural
instrument and is found in the house of every farmer. The other
injuries were also given by lathis. The appellants did not act in any
unusual and cruel manner, there was no pre-mediation and there is
every possibility that the appellants had picked the pharsa which is
CRL. A. 779/2000 Page 25 of 27
easily available at their home. This shows that the appellants did not
have the requisite intention to kill the deceased and the incident had
happened on the spur of moment which had occurred over a trivial
issue of water drainage between the appellant and the deceased.
Having regard to the testimonies of the injured witnesses PW1 and
PW3, being the son and the wife of the deceased who had identified
the appellants in Trial Court and attributed a specific role to them.
There was no motive which could have impelled PW1 and 3 to falsely
implicate the appellant and allow the real culprits go scot free.