Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.41 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Bhaba Nanda Sarma & Ors vs The State Of Assam on 12 October, 1977
On the other hand, in Bhaba Nanda Sharma v. State of
Assam [1977] 4 SCC 396 it has been categorically laid down
by this Court that the prosecution is not obliged to explain
the injuries on the person of the accused in all cases and
in all circumstances. It depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case whether the prosecution case
becomes reasonably doubtful for its failure to explain the
injuries on the accused.
Ramlagan Singh And Ors. vs State Of Bihar on 17 August, 1972
In Ramlagan Singh v. State of
Bihar, [1973] 3 SCC 881 this Court again examined the
question and it has been laid down that the prosecution is
not called upon in all cases to explain the injuries
received by the accused persons. It is for the defence to
put questions to the prosecution witnesses regarding the
injuries of the accused persons. When that is not done,
there is no occasion for the prosecution witnesses to
explain the injuries on the person of the accused. In the
instant case also, the injury sustained by the appellant
Hare Krishna Singh, has not been put to the prosecution
witnesses and so they had no occasion to explain the same.
In such circumstances, as laid down in Ramlagan Singh's
case, the non-mention of the injuries on the person of the
appellant in the prosecution evidence would not
10
affect the prosecution case, which-has been accepted by the
courts below.
Onkarnath Singh And Ors vs The State Of U. P on 15 April, 1974
In Onkarnath Singh v. State of U. P., [1975] 3 SCC 276
this Court has reiterated its view as expressed in Bankey
Lal v. State of U.P., [1971] 3 SCC 184 and Bhagwan Tana
Patil v. State of Maharashtra, [1974] 3 SCC 536 that the
entire prosecution case cannot be thrown overboard simply
because the prosecution witnesses do not explain the
injuries on the person of the accused. Thereafter, it was
observed as follows:
Bankey Lal And Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 4 February, 1971
In Onkarnath Singh v. State of U. P., [1975] 3 SCC 276
this Court has reiterated its view as expressed in Bankey
Lal v. State of U.P., [1971] 3 SCC 184 and Bhagwan Tana
Patil v. State of Maharashtra, [1974] 3 SCC 536 that the
entire prosecution case cannot be thrown overboard simply
because the prosecution witnesses do not explain the
injuries on the person of the accused. Thereafter, it was
observed as follows:
Bhagwan Tana Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 October, 1973
In Onkarnath Singh v. State of U. P., [1975] 3 SCC 276
this Court has reiterated its view as expressed in Bankey
Lal v. State of U.P., [1971] 3 SCC 184 and Bhagwan Tana
Patil v. State of Maharashtra, [1974] 3 SCC 536 that the
entire prosecution case cannot be thrown overboard simply
because the prosecution witnesses do not explain the
injuries on the person of the accused. Thereafter, it was
observed as follows:
Jagdish vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 February, 1979
In Jagdish's case, the High Court believed the
prosecution witnesses and accepted the prosecution case that
the injuries found on the deceased were very severe which
resulted in his death and this Court agreed with the view
taken by the High Court in convicting the appellant under
section 302 IPC.
Munshi Ram And Others vs Delhi Administration on 27 November, 1967
The accused may take the plea of the right of private
defence which means that he had inflicted injury on the
deceased or the injured
13
person in exercise of his right of private defence. In other
words, his plea may be that the deceased or the injured
person was the aggressor and inflicted injury on the accused
and in order to defend himself from being the victim of such
aggression, he had inflicted injury on the aggressor in the
exercise of his right of private defence. As has been held
in Munshi Ram's case (supra) the burden of establishing the
plea of private defence is on the accused and the burden can
be discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in
favour of that plea on the basis of the material on record.
It, therefore, follows that simply because the accused has
received injuries in the same occurrence, it cannot be taken
for granted that the deceased or the injured person was the
aggressor and consequently, he had to defend himself by
inflicting injury on the deceased or the injured person.
State Of Gujarat vs Bai Fatima & Anr on 19 March, 1975
In the context of the above facts, this Court made the
observation that it is open to the court to consider the
plea of private defence even though the same does not find
place in the statement under section 342 Cr. P.C.
The next case that has been relied upon by Mr. Garg is
that of State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima, [1975] 3 SCR 993 in
that case, on behalf of the appellants the decision in
Munshi Ram's case (supra) was relied
12
upon in regard to the question of the plea of private
defence. In rejecting the contention of the accused, this
Court pointed out that not only the plea of private defence
was not taken by the accused in their statements under
section 342 Cr. P.C., but no basis for that plea was laid in
the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses or by
adducing any defence evidence. As regards the injuries
sustained by one of the accused, this Court observed as
follows: