Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.35 seconds)Section 354A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 95 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 339 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sajid Balekhan Mujawar vs The State Of Kerala on 21 September, 2023
In Avinash v. State of
Kerala [2021 (6) KHC 357, this Court considered the
ingredients of Section 294(b) IPC. It will be better to
extract the relevant portion of the above judgment:
Ranjit D. Udeshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 August, 1964
This test has been uniformly followed in India. The
Supreme Court has accepted the correctness of the
test in Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra AIR
1965 SC 881 at 887.
Sangeetha Lakshmana vs State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2008
9. Similarly in Sangeetha Lakshmana v. State
of Kerala [2008 (1) KHC 812, also this Court considered
the same contention. The relevant portion of the same is
extracted hereunder:
Joseph @ James vs State Of Kerala on 4 July, 2011
14. What remains is Section 323 IPC. Admittedly
the defacto complainant fell down. According to the
petitioner, she fell down because she tried to pass through
a narrow place, and at that time, there was a push from
the petitioner. Whatever that may be, the injury
sustained to the 2nd respondent is minor. If the offence
alleged under Sections 341, 294(b) and 354A IPC are not
CrlM.C..No.7694/2016
17
attracted, it is doubtful whether Section 323 IPC alone,
which is a non-cognizable offence, will stand in the light of
the decision of this Court in James Jose v. State of
Kerala [2019 (3) KHC 531]. But Section 95 IPC says that
nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is
intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to
cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person
of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such
harm.