Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Dilawar Singh vs State Of Delhi on 5 September, 2007
9. It is essential to observe also to the effect that as observed in
"Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Delhi" AIR 2007 Supreme Court 3234
the word offender envisages individual liability and not any
constructive liability.
Ashfaq vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 10 December, 2003
The use of weapon by
offender for creating of terror in the mind of the victim is sufficient
and it need not be further shown to have been actually used for
cutting, stabbing or shooting as the case may be, which is in
reiteration of the observations in the case "Ashfaq Vs. State Govt. of
NCT of Delhi" AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1253.
Section 390 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 398 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Phool Kumar vs Delhi Administration on 13 March, 1975
CRL.A. 684/2005 9 of 12
and relate back to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
"Phool Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration" AIR 1975 Supreme
Court 905 which lays down specifically to the effect that the term
offender under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is confined
to the offender who uses any deadly weapon and use of a deadly
weapon by one offender at the time of committing robbery cannot
attract Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for imposition of
the minimum punishment for another offender who had not used any
deadly weapon and that there is a distinction between 'uses' as used
under Section 397 & 398 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and that
Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 connotes something more
than being armed with a deadly weapon.