Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy vs State Of A.P on 18 August, 2006
22. Upon close scrutiny of the evidence of the aforesaid three eye witnesses, no such material inconsistency is found in their evidence so as to doubt their basic version that all the four appellants had first assaulted complainant Bapoolal (PW-17) and when his son Parvat Singh and brother rushed to rescue him, they were also attacked and assaulted by the four appellants resulting into the instant death of Parvat Singh and various injuries on the body of complainant Bapoolal (PW-17) and Ram Singh (PW-19). The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses cannot be rejected merely on the ground, as also reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2006 AIR SCW page 4143, that they are interested or related witnesses. Similarly, their evidence cannot be discarded merely for want of any independent corroboration, particularly when their evidence stood substantially corroborated from the medical evidence.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Naveen Chandra vs State Of Uttranchal on 27 November, 2006
29. It has been further observed by the Apex Court in the case of Naveen Chandra (supra) that right of private defence is essentially a defensive right circumscribed by the governing statue i.e. I.P.C., available only when the circumstances clearly justify it. It should not be allowed to be pleaded or availed as a pretext for a vindictive, aggressive or retributive purpose of offence. It is a right of defence, not of retribution, expected to repel unlawful aggression and not as retaliatory measure.
Takhaji Hiraji vs Thakore Kubersing Chamansing & Ors on 2 May, 2001
31. As regards the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the appellants, it has been reiterated by the Apex Court in three judges' Bench decision rendered in the case of Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersingh Chamansingh and Ors. that it cannot be held as a matter of law or invariably a rule that whenever the accused sustained an injury in the same occurrence, the prosecution is obliged to explain the injury and on the failure of the prosecution to do so the prosecution case should be disbelieved.
State Of Bihar vs Mathu Pandey & Ors on 23 April, 1969
38. The citations referred by learned Counsel for the appellants State of Bihar v. Nathu Pandey and Ors. Ranbaj Singh v. State of Punjab have turned on different facts and are of no avail to the appellants in the instant case.
1