Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.63 seconds)
State vs Rajender on 30 January, 2024 cites

Sukhbir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 20 February, 2002

There is no doubt in our minds that the incident took place without premeditation and the time gap between the heated exchange of words and the second incident of stabbing is only of 2-3 minutes, which clearly indicates that it was a sudden fight and there was no time for the tempers to have cooled so as to allow in the concept of premeditation. The tempers had not cooled and, therefore, in our view, the stabbing incident has to be regarded as in the course of a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. 15. A similar situation had arisen in the case of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 327. In that case also there was no enmity between the parties. The occurrence had taken place when Sukhbir Singh got mud splashes on account of sweeping of a street by Ram Niwas and a quarrel ensued. The deceased slapped the Appellant for no fault of his. The quarrel was sudden and on account of the heat of passion. The accused went home and came armed in the company of others without telling them of his intention. The time gap between the quarrel and the fight was a few minutes only. The Supreme Court observed that it was, therefore, probable that there was insufficient lapse of time between the quarrel and the fight which meant that the occurrence was sudden within the meaning of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC."
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 245 - Full Document

Tayyab vs State Nct Of Delhi on 21 November, 2013

In Tayyab v. State NCT of Delhi, MANU/DE/4258/2013 : 2014 (1) JCC 271 the accused persons had hot talks with the deceased on the issue of money, when the accused rushed to his house to bring a chhura, with which he had inflicted the stab injury on the body of the deceased, Signature Not Verified CRL.L.P. 529/2022 Page 9 of 14 Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:05.02.2024 15:38:36 this Court had converted the conviction from one under Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC, observing that:
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - K Gambhir - Full Document

Smt. Sandhya Jadhav vs State Of Maharashtra on 31 March, 2006

38. All the essentials of Exception 4 to Section 300 stand satisfied. The offence was committed in a sudden fight having been erupted between the deceased and respondent Arjun; which was pacified, however, there was no Signature Not Verified CRL.L.P. 529/2022 Page 13 of 14 Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:05.02.2024 15:38:36 time to allow cooling of tempers. Within a couple of minutes, the respondent Arjun returned alongwith respondent Loliya armed with a danda and a knife. Now neither the danda was recovered nor Ex.P-1 was identified as the knife used by the respondent Arjun. The deceased protested and the fight resumed and in the heat of passion, the respondent Arjun took out a knife, which was procured in the little time between the two incidents, and gave a solitary blow on the abdomen of the deceased while the respondent Loliya immobilized him. Had there been any premeditation, the respondent Arjun might have stabbed the deceased in the first altercation or at a vital part. Finally, it cannot be said that the respondents had acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Accordingly, the offence punishable under Section 302 was not made out [See Sandhya Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 4 SCC 653 (paragraphs 8 - 9)].
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 55 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next