Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 105 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Periasami And Another vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 September, 1996
It was also held in
Periasami v. State of T.N. [1997 S.C.C. (Cri) 121):
Laxman Singh vs Poonam Singh & Ors on 10 September, 2003
In support of his submission, he has relied on a
decision of the Supreme Court in Laxman Singh v. Poonam
Singh (2003 Crl.L.J. 4478). That was a case where the accused
had received injuries and so it was contended that they caused
the murder of the victims mentioned in that case in exercise of
their right of private defence. But it was held that the defence
has to further establish that the injuries so caused on the
accused probablises the version of the right of private defence. It
was further held in that case that non-explanation of the injuries
sustained by the accused at about the time of occurrence or in
the course of altercation is a very important circumstance. But
mere non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not
affect the prosecution case in all cases. These observations have
been relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor to canvass for
the position that even in a case where the accused was proved to
have sustained injuries, the preponderance of probabilities must
be that the deceased was the aggressor and that the accused
Crl.A.23/07 21
inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased when he had sustained
injuries at the hands of the deceased and his men. But so far as
this case is concerned, the deceased was unarmed and no injury
whatsoever was caused or attempted to be caused to the accused
and so the accused could not have a reasonable apprehension
that death or grievous would be caused to him.
Yogendra Morarji vs State Of Gujarat on 10 December, 1979
17. The learned counsel for the accused would submit that
even though it would appear from the judgment, that before the
court below no specific plea of right of private defence was
putforward by the accused, the evidence and circumstances
obtained in this case would probablise that the injuries must have
Crl.A.23/07 15
been inflicted by the accused in exercise of his right of private
defence. Learned counsel would further submit that if the court
feels a genuine doubt that the true picture of the incident is not
presented before it and when there is genuine doubt regarding
the genesis of the incident, despite the fact that the plea of
private defence was not specifically putforward by the accused
and despite the fact that the accused could not prove or
probablise the plea, still the prosecution cannot sustain its case
unless the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Learned counsel further submits that it is only where the
prosecution has proved its case with reasonable certainty that the
court can raise the presumption regarding absence of
circumstances bringing the case within any of the exceptions. It
was held in Yogendra Morarji v. State of Gujarat [(1980) 2
S.C.C. 218]: