Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.39 seconds)Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Munshi Ram And Others vs Delhi Administration on 27 November, 1967
State of Madhya Pradesh (1971 (3) SCC 244 : (AIR 1971 SC 1857),
this Court had observed that right of self-defence should not be
construed narrowly because it is a very valuable right and has a
CRA No.957/2000 7
social purpose. (Also see: Munshi Ram and Ors. v. Delhi
Administration (AIR 1968 SC 702); The State of Gujarat v. Bai
Fatima and Anr. (AIR 1975 SC 1478) and Salim Zia v. State of Uttar
Pradesh (AIR 1979 SC 391).
Aliyarkunju Shajahan vs State Of Kerala And Anr. on 28 February, 2002
15. It was held in Shajahan and Ors v. State of Kerala and Anr AIR 2007 SC
(Supp) 186 that in case of Right of private defence, burden of proof lies on
the accused, but It stands discharged by showing preponderance of
probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis of material on record.
Sikandar Singh & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 9 July, 2010
17. Similar view has been taken in Sikandar Singh and Ors v. State of Bihar AIR
2010 SC 3580. Para 25 of this judgement is as under:
State Of Gujarat vs Bai Fatima & Anr on 19 March, 1975
State of Madhya Pradesh (1971 (3) SCC 244 : (AIR 1971 SC 1857),
this Court had observed that right of self-defence should not be
construed narrowly because it is a very valuable right and has a
CRA No.957/2000 7
social purpose. (Also see: Munshi Ram and Ors. v. Delhi
Administration (AIR 1968 SC 702); The State of Gujarat v. Bai
Fatima and Anr. (AIR 1975 SC 1478) and Salim Zia v. State of Uttar
Pradesh (AIR 1979 SC 391).
Nisar Khan @ Guddu And Ors. vs State Of Uttaranchal [Alongwith ... on 25 January, 2006
In Para 11 of judgement passed by High Court of Judicature At Allahabad
in Mangal Khan and Ors. V. State (Criminal Appeal No. 1029 of 1958
judgement dated 13-11-1959) it was held that
G. K. Krishnan Etc. Etc vs The State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Etc on 12 November, 1974
23. Reversing the judgement of the Madras High Court in the case of Krishnan
v. State of T.N. 2006 AIR SCW 4185 Hon'ble Apex Court acquitted the
CRA No.957/2000 9
accused considering that the evidence of eye-witnesses showing that the
accused acted in exercise of right of private defence. The Court considered
that there was a quarrel between the parties. The accused was neither
armed with any weapon when he came to the spot nor he brought anything
from his house after the quarrel started. His action in hitting the deceased
on his head by taking a stick lying on ground was a reflex action to save
himself from the attack by the deceased and his son. Evidence probablising
defence version that deceased and his son had hit the accused with sticks
on his head and blows landed on his elbows when he raised his hands to
protect his head, and that at that stage, the accused picked up one of
thorny sticks which were lying at spot and hit the deceased, to protect
himself and not with the intention of killing him. In such circumstances the
Apex Court acquitted the accused.