Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs State Of M.P on 1 May, 2002
Reliance was placed on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Sanju v. State of Madhya Pradesh , to say that the expression 'abet' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. According to the Supreme Court presence of a mental state or mensrea, therefore, was necessary concomitant of instigation. The court had noted that it is common knowledge that words used in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with any intention. Such words are said in a fit of anger and emotion.
Roop Kishore Madan vs State on 14 December, 2000
8. Counsel submitted that taken together, the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses showed serious infirmities and deficiencies; the allegation about the petitioners being instrumental in the cruelty inflicted on the deceased and their conduct, in view of statements recorded in that regard, were unreliable. It was submitted that there was no instigation on the part of the accused person as the act of deceased could be an act of frustration or shame on having been exposed. It was argued that the complainant himself was questioning the deceased and that the case is squarely covered within the four corners of the decision in Roop Kishore Madan v. State 2001(1) JCC (Delhi), 75. It was submitted that the trial court failed to see this aspect, and erred in distinguishing that authority.
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 348 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1