Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.42 seconds)
Hari Narayan Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 March, 2023 cites

Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 October, 2001

No doubt that the word œinstigate used in Section 107 IPC has been explained by this Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh ((2001) 9 SCC 618) to say that where the accused had, by his acts or omissions or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU the deceased was left with no other option except to commit Signing time: 04-03-2023 suicide, an instigation may have to be inferred. In other words, SOODAN PRASAD 10:07:14 AM instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of the 10 case. All cases may not be of direct evidence in regard to instigation having a direct nexus to the suicide. There could be cases where the circumstances created by the accused are such that a person feels totally frustrated and finds it difficult to continue existence.'' Therefore, it is clear that a person can be said to have instigated another person, when he actively suggests or stimulates him by means of language, direct or indirect. Instigate means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 847 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander & Anr on 13 September, 2012

Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.' 1 6 . Therefore, the issue that arises for our consideration is whether any of the aforesaid clauses namely firstly alongwith explanation 1 or more particularly thirdly with Explanation 2 to Section 107 is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case so as to bring the present case within the purview of Section 306 IPC.' The Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapur Vs. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has held as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 1303 - S Kumar - Full Document

Netai Dutta vs State Of West Bengal on 28 February, 2005

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that prima facie o n the facts and evidence as adduced by the prosecution in the case, no offence under Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner/accused as there is no Signature Notevidence Verified on record to show that the petitioner in any manner instigated, aided or Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD provoked the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioner Signing time: 04-03-2023 10:07:14 AM 3 has relied upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Netai Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal [(2005) 2 SCC 659] and Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. [(2002) 5 SCC 371] and contended that the petitioner has not committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the petitioner has played any part or any role in any conspiracy which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 277 - T Chatterjee - Full Document
1   2 Next