Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
Parashuram Ganapatrao Pise vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 April, 2026 cites

Kala Singh @ Gurnam Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 21 September, 2021

4. The counsel also submitted that Court has to take note of nature of injuries, no weapon was used and there was no any intention to take away the life. The incident is nothing but a case of sudden fight. The deceased had not sustained any fracture according to the evidence of the medical expert. When such being the case, the trial Court fails to take note of the fact that case comes within the purview of Section 300 exception. The counsel in support of his argument relies upon -5- CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025 the judgment of the Apex Court dated 21.09.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 11140-111141/2019 (Kala Singh alias Gurnam Singh Vs. State of Punjab. The counsel brought to notice of this Court the discussion made by the Apex Court in paragraph number 9 wherein an observation is made that "it is clear from the evidence and other material placed on record that there was no intention to kill the deceased. It is clear from the evidence on record that scuffle had taken place on the spur of the moment and a sudden fight had taken place in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. It was not a pre-meditated one and as there was no intention on the part of the appellant and co-accused either to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the High Court ought not to have convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part I of IPC. In absence of any intention on the part of the appellant, we are of the view that it is a clear case where the conviction of the appellant is to be modified to one under Section 304 Part II IPC by maintaining the conviction for the offence of Section 201 of IPC".
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 16 - R S Reddy - Full Document

Uday Singh vs State Of U.P on 4 September, 2002

5. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the discussion made in paragraph number 10 of the judgment referred supra wherein the judgment in Uday Singh V. State of U.P. reported in (2017) 11 SC 807 paragraph No. 6 was referred to say that "it was only in a fight, hand to fist, that both Gainda Singh and the appellant had held at the neck of the deceased, Shishupal Singh with such force as to ultimately result in strangulation and his death. It is very difficult to conceive as to how much pressure was applied either by Gainda Singh or the appellant on the deceased's neck so as to cause death". The counsel also brought to notice of this court that further discussion was made that "the action is because of the sudden unarmed fight nor can we conclude that the appellant had an intention to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death". The counsel would submit that the Apex Court modified the conviction for 304 Part II as against 302 IPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1