Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.33 seconds)
Haji Hamid Khan And Anr vs State on 6 June, 2011 cites

Dashrath Singh vs State Of U.P on 13 August, 2004

"XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX Though Section 105 of the Evidence Act enacts a rule regarding burden of proof but it does not follow therefrom that the plea of private defence should be specifically taken and if not taken shall not be available to be considered though made out from the evidence available in the case. A plea of self defence can be taken by introducing such plea in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or in the statement of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. or by adducing defence evidence. And, even if the plea is not introduced in any one of these three modes still it can be raised during the course of submissions by relying on the probabilities and circumstances obtaining in the case as held by this Court in Vijayee Singh's case (supra). It is basic criminal jurisprudence that an accused cannot be compelled to be examined as a witness and no adverse inference can be drawn against the defence merely because an accused person has chosen to abstain from the witness box.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 93 - P V Reddi - Full Document

Jagrup Singh vs State Of Haryana on 7 May, 1981

Even Mr. Rangam learned Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu could not very seriously contend that the appellant intended to commit murder of Sampat. His submission was that at any rate appellant when he wielded a weapon like a knife and gave a blow on the chest, a vital part of the body, must have intended to cause that particular injury and this injury is objectively found by the medical evidence to be fatal and therefore Part III of Section 300 would be attracted. On this aspect, the decisions are legion and it is not necessary to recapitulate them here merely to cover idle parade of familiar knowledge. One can profitably refer to Jagrup Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 1981 Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1982 ; Kulwant Rai v. State of Punjab AIR 1982 and Hari Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1983.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 137 - D A Desai - Full Document

Jagtar Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 3 December, 1971

To this list two more cases can be added Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab 1983 Cri LJ 852 and Ram Sunder v. State of U.P. Crl. A. No. 555/83 decided on 24-10-83. Having regard to the ratio of each of these decisions, we are satisfied that even if exception I is not attracted the requisite intention cannot be attributed to the appellant. But in the circumstances herein discussed he wielded a weapon like a knife and therefore he can be attributed with the knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause death. In such a situation he would be guilty of committing an offence under Section 304 Part II of the Penal Code. Having regard to the circumstances of the case a sentence of 5 years would be quite adequate.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 200 - K K Mathew - Full Document
1   2 Next