Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.30 seconds)Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Rayavarapu Punnayya & Another on 15 September, 1976
In the case of State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya, reported in (1976) 4 SCC
382, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that whenever a court is confronted with the
question whether the offence is murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, on
the facts of the case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The
question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act
by doing which he has caused death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the
act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether the act
of the accused amounts to culpable homicide as defined in section 299. If the answer to this
question is prima facie found in affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of section
300 of the Penal Code, is reached. This is the stage at which the court should determine
whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case with the ambit of any of the four
Page No.# 25/26
clauses of the definition of murder contained in section 300. If the answer to this question is
in negative the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable
under first or second part of section 304, depending, respectively, on whether the second or
third clause of section 299 is applicable. If the question is found in the positive, but the case
comes, within any of the exceptions enumerated in section 300, the offence would still be
culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under the first part of section 304 of
the Penal Code.
Abdul Waheed Khan @ Waheed And Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 August, 2002
30. Placing strong reliance on the aforesaid decision, this Court in Abdul Waheed Khan
v. State of A.P., (2002) 7 SCC 175, observed as follows:
Virsa Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 11 March, 1958
In the case of Virsa Singh (supra), in paragraphs 16 & 17, it was observed and held
as under:
Ruli Ram And Anr vs State Of Haryana on 17 September, 2002
31. The aforesaid principles have been consistently applied by this Court in several
decisions. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of this Court in Ruli
Ram v. State of Haryana, (2002) 7 SCC 691; Augustine Saldanha v. State of Karnataka,
(2003) 10 SCC 472; State of U. P. v. Virendra Prasad, (2004) 9 SCC 37; Chacko v. State
of Kerala, (2004) 12 SCC 269; and S. N. Bhadolkar v. State of Maharasthra, (2005) 9
SCC 71.
Augustine Saldanha vs State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2003
31. The aforesaid principles have been consistently applied by this Court in several
decisions. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of this Court in Ruli
Ram v. State of Haryana, (2002) 7 SCC 691; Augustine Saldanha v. State of Karnataka,
(2003) 10 SCC 472; State of U. P. v. Virendra Prasad, (2004) 9 SCC 37; Chacko v. State
of Kerala, (2004) 12 SCC 269; and S. N. Bhadolkar v. State of Maharasthra, (2005) 9
SCC 71.