Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.50 seconds)
Indramani Yadav And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 27 April, 2023 cites

Swaran Singh vs State Of Punjab on 26 April, 2000

"14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in "any place within public view". What is to be regarded as "place in public view" had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh V. State. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression "public place" and "in any place within public view". It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view. The Court held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 195 - R Pal - Full Document

Khuman Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 August, 2019

In another judgment reported as Khuman Singh V. State of M.P., this Court held that in a case for applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the fact that the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste would not be enough to inflict enhanced punishment. This Court held that there was nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant only because the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste. The Court held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 112 - R Banumathi - Full Document
1   2 Next