Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)

Rohtas vs The State Of Haryana State Of Haryana on 5 November, 2019

14. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, from the statement of the complainant/injured (PW-1) it is proved that the hurt was caused by the appellant not in the process of committing lurking house trespass. The offence of lurking house trespass was complete once they entered into the dwelling unit of the complainant. The injuries subsequently caused by the appellant after breaking into his house do not satisfy the requirement of section 459 IPC as held in Said Ahmed's case (Supra) and by this court in Rohtas's case. Since the grievous hurt has been caused after committing the lurking house trespass, the offence proved against the appellants would be under Section 457/34 IPC and not under Section 459/34 IPC."
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 16 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document
1   2 Next