Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (1.03 seconds)Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of West Bengal vs Orilal Jaiswal And Another on 25 September, 1993
In State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal & Another,
(1994)1 SCC 73, this Court has cautioned that the Court
should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and
circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the
trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out
to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by
committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim
committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,
discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the
society to which the victim belonged and such petulance,
discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly
circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide,
the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing
a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of
suicide should be found guilty."
Praveen Pradhan vs State Of Uttranchal & Anr on 4 October, 2012
32. Learned counsel for the informant has relied on judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttranchal
and Anr. reported in (2012)9 SCC 734, Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar
and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2004)10 SCC 192,
Didigam Bikshapathi and Anr. Vs. State of A.P. reported in (2008)2
SCC 403, Virendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2007)9 SCC
211, Moti Lal Vs. State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh) reported in
(2004)2 SCC 469 and Sahebrao and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in (2006)9 SCC 794 for his submission that the referred cases
would reveal that in similar situated facts and circumstances, the Court
held that instigation to commit suicide was there.
Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra on 21 November, 2003
32. Learned counsel for the informant has relied on judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttranchal
and Anr. reported in (2012)9 SCC 734, Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar
and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2004)10 SCC 192,
Didigam Bikshapathi and Anr. Vs. State of A.P. reported in (2008)2
SCC 403, Virendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2007)9 SCC
211, Moti Lal Vs. State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh) reported in
(2004)2 SCC 469 and Sahebrao and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in (2006)9 SCC 794 for his submission that the referred cases
would reveal that in similar situated facts and circumstances, the Court
held that instigation to commit suicide was there.
Didigam Bikshapathi & Anr vs State Of A.P on 29 November, 2007
32. Learned counsel for the informant has relied on judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttranchal
and Anr. reported in (2012)9 SCC 734, Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar
and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2004)10 SCC 192,
Didigam Bikshapathi and Anr. Vs. State of A.P. reported in (2008)2
SCC 403, Virendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2007)9 SCC
211, Moti Lal Vs. State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh) reported in
(2004)2 SCC 469 and Sahebrao and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in (2006)9 SCC 794 for his submission that the referred cases
would reveal that in similar situated facts and circumstances, the Court
held that instigation to commit suicide was there.
Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mohan Singh & Anr vs State Of M.P on 28 January, 1999
In Mohan Singh vs. The State of M.P. reported in 1997 Cr.
Law Journal 894, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that mere allegation of
harassment made by the deceased in her dying declaration against the
accused is not sufficient to constitute the offence of abetment to commit
suicide.
Gangula Mohan Reddy vs State Of A.P on 5 January, 2010
19. Paragraph 20 and 21 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
reported in 2010(1) PCCR 247 is being reproduced below:-