Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.21 seconds)

Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 October, 2001

No doubt that the word "instigate" used in Section 107 IPC has been explained by this Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh ((2001) 9 SCC 618) to say that where the 11 accused had, by his acts or omissions or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an instigation may have to be inferred. In other words, instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of the case. All cases may not be of direct evidence in regard to instigation having a direct nexus to the suicide. There could be cases where the circumstances created by the accused are such that a person feels totally frustrated and finds it difficult to continue existence.''
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 847 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Netai Dutta vs State Of West Bengal on 28 February, 2005

3. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that prima facie on the facts and evidence as adduced by the prosecution in the case, no offence under Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the applicants/accused as there is no evidence on record to show that the applicants in any manner instigated, aided or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Netai Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal [(2005) 2 SCC 659] and Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. [(2002) 5 SCC 371] and contended that the applicants have not committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the applicants have played any part or any role in any conspiracy which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 277 - T Chatterjee - Full Document
1   2 Next