Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 294 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 July, 1991
14. Qua the contention of ld. defence counsel that PW-3 Bharam Pal
failed to mention the name of the offender who caused injuries to his mother, it is
well observed in Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of MP (1991) 3 SCC 626
that where there is long time gap between examination-in-chief and cross-
examination and contrary versions are stated by a witness, then it is apparent
that witness has been won over by the accused and for this reason, the
statement in cross-examination is to be discarded.
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Mr. Lachhman P. Udhani, Mr. Deepak L. ... vs Redington (India) Ltd., Represented By ... on 25 April, 2006
In a case reported as P.P. Vs. N.S. Murthy, 1973 Crl.L.J.
1238 (AP), it is well observed that the accused, a shopkeeper in a sudden
quarrel hit his wife with an iron weight of 200 grams which resulted in her death.
The medical evidence showed that the injury was of a simple nature and there
was no evidence that the deceased died of shock caused by the injury. He was
held liable only under Sec. 323 IPC and not under Sec. 304 IPC. In the case in
hand, it is also clear from the record that injured sustained injuries only with a
single blow of danda. Nature of injury is opined as "simple". Besdies the above,
weapon of offence has also not been recovered or got recovered. Hence, in view
of the observations made in the above reported case, court is of the view that
present case falls within the ambit of Sec. 323 IPC only.
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1