Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.79 seconds)Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Virsa Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 11 March, 1958
The test laid down in Virsa Singh case [Virsa
Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465], for the
applicability of clause Thirdly is now ingrained in our legal
system and has become part of the rule of law.‟
The Division Bench also further held that the decision in
Virsa Singh case [Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958
SC 465] has throughout been followed as laying down the
guiding principles. In both these cases it is clearly laid down
that the prosecution must prove (1) that the body injury is
present, (2) that the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature to cause death, (3) that the accused intended to
inflict that particular injury, that is to say it was not
accidental or unintentional or that some other kind of injury
was intended. In other words clause Thirdly consists of two
parts. The first part is that there was an intention to inflict
the injury that is found to be present and the second part
that the said injury is sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature. Under the first part the
prosecution has to prove from the given facts and
circumstances that the intention of the accused was to cause
that particular injury. Whereas under the second part
whether it was sufficient to cause death, is an objective
enquiry and it is a matter of inference or deduction from the
particulars of the injury. The language of clause Thirdly of
Section 300 speaks of intention at two places and in each
the sequence is to be established by the prosecution before
the case can fall in that clause. The „intention‟ and
„knowledge‟ of the accused are subjective and invisible
states of mind and their existence has to be gathered from
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Rayavarapu Punnayya & Another on 15 September, 1976
67. This Court after taking into consideration the law
laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court more particularly in the
case of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya
(supra) and Anbazhagan (Supra) wherein the difference
has been carved out in between Section 299 IPC, Section
Jai Prakash Wadhwa And Ors. vs Lt. Governor, Delhi Admn. And Anr. on 15 January, 1997
[Jai Prakash v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1991) 2 SCC 32]
,para 12, this Court held as under: (SCC p. 41)
"12.
Keshub Mahindra vs State Of M.P on 13 September, 1996
46. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Keshub Mahindra v. State
of M.P. reported in (1996) 6 SCC 129 has been pleased to
hold as under paragraph 20 which reads hereunder as :-