Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.74 seconds)Section 364A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 391 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 343 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Vikram Singh @ Vicky & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 2015
b) In Vikram Singh @ Vicky v. Union of India 1, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that Section - 364A of IPC did not merely cover
acts of terrorism against the Government or Foreign State but it also
1
. (2015) 9 SCC 502
23
KL,J & SKS,J
Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
covered cases where the demand of ransom is made not as a part of a
terrorist act but for monetary gains for a private individual.
Shaik Ahmed vs State Of Telangana on 28 June, 2021
In Shaik Ahmed v. State of Telangana 2,
the Apex Court considered the essential conditions incorporated in
Section - 364A of IPC, more particularly, the second condition which
begins with conjunction and two parts of the second condition and that
third condition begins with the word 'or'. Paragraph Nos.13, 14, 15
and 16 are relevant and, therefore the same are extracted below:
Ravi Dhingra vs The State Of Haryana on 1 March, 2023
e) The Apex Court reiterated the said principle, more
particularly the ingredients of Section - 364A of IPC in Ravi Dhingra
v. State of Haryana 3.
Lachhman Ram And Ors. vs State Of Orissa on 1 March, 1985
a) In Lachhman Ram v. State of Orissa 4, on examination of
the facts therein, the Apex Court held all the accused persons
committed dacoity in the houses of the complainant one after the other
and looted and took away various kinds of property in the nature of
watches, ornaments, etc. All the accused were held guilty under
Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code.