Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Surinder Kumar vs Union Territory, Chandigarh on 8 March, 1989
"20. To invoke this Exception 4, the requirements that are to
be fulfilled have been laid down by this Court in Surinder
Kumar v. UT, Chandigarh [(1989) 2 SCC 217 : 1989 SCC
(Cri) 348], it has been explained as under :(SCC p. 220, para
Arumugam vs State Rep.By Inspector Of ... on 13 October, 2008
21. Further in Arumugam v. State [(2008) 15 SCC 590 :
Rambir vs State Of Nct Delhi on 6 May, 2019
(18) Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of above
principles of law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court, it is
quite vivid that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant
to cause death of the deceased, but only on account of brief quarrel
and under heat of passion on a petty dispute that deceased used to call
that accused-appellant is involved in black-magic/witchcraft, the
appellant assaulted deceased by means of burnt firewood, due to
which he sustained grievous head injuries and died, as such, there was
no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of the
deceased and only because of a petty dispute, out of sudden anger and
in heat of passion, the appellant assaulted deceased and caused his
death. However, looking to the injuries sustained by deceased, as
recorded by Dr. Umesh Shrivastava (PW-06), which have been caused
on his head, the appellant must had knowledge that such injuries
inflicted by him on the body of the deceased would likely to cause his
death, as such, this is a case which would fall within the purview of
Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC, as the act of the appellant herein
completely satisfies the four necessary ingredients of Exception 4 to
Section 300 IPC i.e. (i) there must be a sudden fight; (ii) there was no
premeditation; (iii) the act was committed in a heat of passion and (iv)
the appellant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or
CRA-1066-2013
Page 13 of 13
unusual manner and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under
Section 302 of IPC can be altered/converted to Section 304 (Part-II) of
IPC.
Sukhbir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 20 February, 2002
(12) The Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of
Haryana1 has observed as under:-
Section 175 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Gurmukh Singh vs State Of Haryana on 25 August, 2009
(13) The Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v. State of
Haryana2 has laid down certain factors which are to be taken into
consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused
with reference to Section 302 or Section 304 Part II of IPC, which state
as under :-