Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.35 seconds)Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Article 1 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 2 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Brij Bhukhan And Ors. vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 9 November, 1956
In this respect learned A.P.P. has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Brij Bhukhan v. State of U.P. (supra) wherein it has been held that although the medical evidence does not say that any one of the injuries on the body of the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, yet it is open to the Court to look into the nature of the injuries found on the body of the deceased and infer from them that the assailants intended to cause death of the deceased. A reference to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 21st Edition at page 331, shows that ruptures usually involve the right lobe and in rupture of the liver death occurs immediately from shock and haemorrhage or it may occur within 48 hours. Thus the injuries to the vital organs like brain and liver resulting in haemorrhage would be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the submission of the learned advocate for the appellant in this behalf.
Gurdeep Singh vs Jaswant Singh And Others on 4 March, 1992
5. Learned Advocate for the appellants has urged before us that the evidence led by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the offence of murder, nor the said evidence is sufficient to rope in accused/appellants No. 2 to 8 for the offence of murder on the basis of common intention. Learned Advocate for the appellants has further urged that at any rate no case under section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. is made out against appellant No. 3 to 8, since no overt act is attributed to the said appellants in so far as murder of Ramkrishna and assault on Nirmala P.W. 2 is concerned. Learned Advocate for the appellant has taken us through the evidence of various witnesses in order to illustrate his submissions and we shall deal with the submissions in this respect while dealing with the evidence of various witnesses. It is also urged by the learned Advocate for the appellant that even in case of appellant No. 1, the doctor who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Ramkrishna has no where stated that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is also submitted that no offence under section 326 I.P.C. is disclosed in respect of the assault on Nirmala P.W. 2 and likewise no offence under section 325 I.P.C. is disclosed in so far as the assault on P.W. 5 Manohar is concerned. On the question of common intention, reliance has been placed on a number of judgments of the Apex Court in Tholan v. State of Tamil Nadu , Gurdeep Singh v. Jaswant Singh 1993 S.C.C.(Cri.) 278.