Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.23 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Palvinder Kaur vs The State Of Punjab(Rup ... on 22 October, 1952
'14. This Court in Palvinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab has held
that in order to establish the charge under Section 201 IPC, it is
essential to prove that an offence has been committed; mere suspicion
that it has been committed is not sufficient. It has to be proved that the
accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been
committed, and with the requisite knowledge and with the intent to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 30-10-2025
17:00:49
16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54528
screen the offender from legal punishment caused the evidence thereof to
disappear or gave false information respecting such offence knowing or
having reason to believe the same to be false.'
In that case also, there was no proof about the knowledge of the
accused as regards commission of an offence and only because they
were present at the cremation ground was not found to be sufficient for
arriving at a conclusion that they were guilty of commission of an
offence under Section 201 of the Penal Code."
Section 376A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
11. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely
implicated. It is submitted that since chain of circumstances is not complete,
finding of acquittal can be recorded in favour of the appellants as is the law laid
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra).
Tattu Lodhi @ Pancham Lodhi vs State Of M.P on 16 September, 2016
16. It is submitted that looking to the tender age to the accused, possibility
of his reformation and gaining maturity cannot be ruled out. Therefore, in light
of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tattu Lodhi @ Panchham
Lodhi (supra) and so also that of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajkumar Vs. State
of M.P. (2014) 5 SCC 353, if conviction cannot be altered to acquittal, then
atleast sentence be altered from Death Penalty to Life Imprisonment.
M.P Electricity Production Company vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 April, 2016
Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) 4 SCC 393 where young age of accused
and possibility of his reformation and rehabilitation and also probability of not
committing similar crime was taken into consideration not to be a threat to the
society in view of single isolated incident and there being no criminal history of
the appellant to convert Death Penalty to Life Imprisonment.
Rajkumar vs State Of M.P on 25 February, 2014
16. It is submitted that looking to the tender age to the accused, possibility
of his reformation and gaining maturity cannot be ruled out. Therefore, in light
of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tattu Lodhi @ Panchham
Lodhi (supra) and so also that of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajkumar Vs. State
of M.P. (2014) 5 SCC 353, if conviction cannot be altered to acquittal, then
atleast sentence be altered from Death Penalty to Life Imprisonment.