Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Saleem @ Chamaru And Anr on 13 July, 2005
21. Dr. Yadav who examined Fateh Mohammad also found as many as 19 injuries on his body including two stab wounds and six incised wounds and injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon. Moreover, injuries were fresh at the time of examination. Thus, I find that there is no delay in medical examination of the injuries also. I further find that two brothers were seriously attacked upon by the appellants, who used firearm as well as sharp edged weapon in causing the injuries. Dr. Yadav mentioned in the injury report of Nazim Khan that his condition was dangerous and he was shifted to Aligarh, Fateh Mohammad was also shifted to Aligarh next day for better treatment. Keeping in mind the number, nature, seat of injuries and weapon used in causing the injuries to both the brothers by appellants, it can safely be had that appellants clearly intended to kill Fateh Mohammad and his brother Nazim, who rushed to rescue him on the fateful night. I have no doubt at all in my mind that appellants made an attempt to commit murder of Fateh Mohammad and his brother Nazim. It. has been held recently by Supreme Court of India in State of M.P. v. Saleem. 2008 SCC (Crl.) 1329 that it is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. Therefore, an accused charged under Sections 307 I.P.C. cannot be acquitted merely because the. injuries inflicted on the victim were In the nature of a simple hurt
Sarju Prasad vs State Of Bihar on 20 August, 1964
In Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar , it was observed in para 6 that mere fact that the injury actually inflicted by the accused did not cut any vital organ of the victim, is not by itself sufficient to take the act out of the purview of Sections 307.
State Of Maharashtra vs Balram Bama Patil And Ors. on 1 February, 1983
22. This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil , Girija Shanker v. State of U.P. , and R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka.
Girija Shankar vs State Of U.P on 4 February, 2004
22. This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil , Girija Shanker v. State of U.P. , and R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka.
R. Prakash vs State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2004
22. This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil , Girija Shanker v. State of U.P. , and R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka.
1