Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.51 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 34 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Virsa Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 11 March, 1958
25. We know from the decision of the Supreme Court
in the case of Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab that whether there is an intention to
commit a particular offence is always a question of
fact. It is the totality of the circumstances which
prompts the court to try such a conclusion. The
Supreme Court went in detail as to under what
circumstances Section 300 "Thirdly" can be pressed
into service. In paragraph 12 Supreme Court had given
the following guidelines:-
Santosh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 1975
In the case of
Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975) SCC 727
there was a serious riot in which large number of
persons were involved. They attacked with sharp
weapons and three persons died of the wounds. One of
the question before the Supreme court was as to
whether in the peculiar facts offence under Section
302 or 304 would be drawn. The Supreme Court held:-
Jaspal Singh @ Pali vs The State Of Punjab on 8 October, 1996
28. Similarly in the case of Jaspal Singh v. State
of Punjab the Supreme Court held that
nature of offence does not depend merely on location
of the injury caused by the accused. Intention of the
person causing injury has to be gathered from a
careful examination of all the fats and the
circumstances.
State Of Gujarat vs Mohan Bhai Raghbhai Patel And Another on 25 April, 1990
Identical was the view expressed by
the Supreme court in the case of State of Gujarat v.
Hari Bhai Keshva Bhai Patel 1990 SCC (Crl.) 606. It
was held that injury was sufficient to cause death in
the ordinary course and the findings of the High Court
that it was offence punishable under Section 304 Part
I were set aside but keeping in view the inordinate
delay that has occurred further sentence has not been
imposed.