| Topics |
Headnote |
Judgement |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
|
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 302, 307, 34 & 120-B — Life imprisonment by trial Court — modified by High Court to the one already undergone —Held, in the case of a life imprisonment, meaning thereby the entirety of one's life — High Court order set aside. (Para 33) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
CrPC — S 438 — Pre-arrest bail — IPC — Ss 376, 313, 504, 506 r/w 34 — Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989— Sections 3(1), (w)(i)(ii) & 3(2) (Va) — FIR under — Appellants accused are brothers of the main accused — No involvement of the Appellants-accused in the offence u/s 376 and under the Atrocities Act— no criminal record — not abused or misused the interim protection — police had completed the investigation and chargesheet is filed — Pre-arrest bail granted. (Para 6 & 7) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 302, 307, 34 & 120-B — Consecutive life sentences by trial Court — consecutive life sentences cannot be awarded as humans have only one life — Held, sentences in both the cases shall run concurrently. (Para 33) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
CrPC — S 211 — Charge —non framing of — IPC — Ss 302, 34 & 120-B — charge framed simpliciter for offence u/s 302 and not for offence punishable u/s 302 r/w 34 or Sec. 302 r/w 120 B — No evidence has been produced in this regard — main accused convicted u/s 302 — conviction of co-accused u/s 302 set aside. (Para 16) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 96 to 106 & 300 — Right to private defence —cannot be claimed by the accused, if disproportionate harm has been caused, while defending himself or any other person— However, if the accused has not caused disproportionate harm— then the benefit of Exception II to Section 300 of IPC can be given to the accused. (Para 12) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 96 to 106 & 304 Part I — Right to private defence — Accused chose to shoot on a vital part of the body of the aggressor —Held, the accused could have avoided the vital part of the deceased — No absence of good faith in exercise of right of private defence — Held, having regard to the situs of the injury (i.e. the chest of the deceased) — the accused has exceeded the power given to him in law — offence committed by the accused appellant will fall u/s 304 Part I of the IPC. (Para 12) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 148 & 149 — out of six accused of the "unlawful assembly", five acquitted of the charges u/s 148/149 — no appeal by the State against this part of the order, — Held, the High Court was not justified in convicting the appellant under Section 148/149IPC. (Para 16) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 148 & 149 — out of six accused of the "unlawful assembly", five acquitted of the charges u/s 148/149 —It is not the case of prosecution that even though these six accused persons were acquitted of the charges framed u/s 148/149 IPC — yet there were some more unknown persons present other than five named accused persons and, therefore, the appellant could still be convicted under Section 148/149 as a member of an unlawful assembly with such unknown persons notwithstanding the acquittal of five accused persons. (Para 18) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 302 & 201— Murder & disappearance of evidence — conviction under — no evidence of involvement of co-accused in the murder — co-accused had knowledge that deceased had been murdered and their dead bodies were dumped in the septic tank in the backyard of their house and yet, they did not disclose that fact with an intention to (SC)reen the main accused — acquitted from offences u/s 302 convicted u/s 201. (Para 17) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 302/201 — conviction under — Motive alleged — theft of sheep — not proved — Held conviction cannot be sustained, more so, when the motive attributed for the murder has been theft of the sheep, and the accused-appellant has been acquitted of the charge of theft. (Para 10) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 284 — Culpable negligence — Administering steroid — Held, medicine administered is well recommended by the medical profession and approved by the Drug Department —no case has been made out to issue process u/s 284 — order & complaint quashed. (Para 11) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 284 — Culpable negligence — Essential ingredients — If a person has custody of any dangerous substance — suffice itself to impose upon him a duty of being careful and he is criminally responsible if he negligently omits to take such order with the substance as is suffice to guard against any public danger from such substance to human life. (Para 11) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 284 — Culpable negligence — Scope — Held, what is punishable under Section 284 of IPC is that a person in possession of a poisonous substance should have negligently omitted to take such order with it as is suffice to guard against any probable danger to human life from such substance. (Para 11) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 302/201 — Circumstantial evidence —recovery of the dead body of the on the basis of the confession of the accused— Held, this only circumstance by itself may not be sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused —Acquittal. (Para 9) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 302 —Circumstantial evidence — case based on —links in the chain of circumstances not established — The possibility that the occurrence may have taken place in some other manner cannot be completely ruled out—benefit of doubt —Acquittal. (Para 18) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 302 — Murder — Offence of — Sentence modified by High Court to already undergone — Held, minimum sentence is ‘life imprisonment’—the High Court could not have modified the sentence to the one already undergone. (Para 25) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
Interpretation of Statute — IPC — S — 304A — Expression 'rash or negligent act' — has to be read as qualified by the word 'grossly'— Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab — relied. (Para 11) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 337 — Negligence — on the part of a medical professional — Held, A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence — A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional — Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab — relied. (Para 11) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 337 — Medical Negligence — So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed— Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab — relied. (Para 11) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 337 — Negligence — Failure of taking precautions — Essential ingredients — Held, what has to be seen is whether those precautions were taken which the ordinary experience of men has found to be sufficient — a failure to use special or extraordinary precautions which might have prevented the particular happening cannot be the standard for judging the alleged negligence— Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab — relied. (Para 11) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 337 — Negligence — Criminal Jurisprudence — Assessing the standard of care, while assessing the practice as adopted — Held, standard of care is judged in the light of knowledge available at the time of the incident, and not at the date of trial— Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab — relied. (Para 11) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 337 — Negligence — Failure to use some particular equipment — the charge would fail if the equipment was not generally available at that particular time at which it is suggested it should have been used— Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab — relied. (Para 11) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 337 — Negligence by a professional — A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings — (i) either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed — or, (ii) he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess— Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab — relied. (Para 11) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 379 — Theft property — Identification mark —no specific identification mark — Nothing is brought on record to show that the alleged Theft property recovered from the accused carried any distinct identification mark so as to identify it. (Para 8) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 498 - A, 323, 504 & 506 r/w 34 — Demand of `25 lakh — allegation of — applicants distance relatives of the husband — residing separately at different places — Held, it is not possible for 10 to 11 accused persons to demand Rs.25 lakhs from the complainant in one voice — vague allegations —statement of the complainant and the alleged act appears to be inherently improbable. (Para 5) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 376 — Rape — Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act — Sec. 3 (1) (x) — Failure of the prosecution — to prove that prosecutrix had not given consent for the sexual intercourse — Inordinate unexplained delay in FIR — further delay has been caused in respect of Atrocities Act also —When it was clear to prosecutrix that accused will not perform marriage with her — why she did not approach Police immediately — evidence of prosecutrix does not inspire confidence — Case not proved beyond reasonable doubt — conviction set aside —Acquittal. (Para 18 & 19) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 376 — Rape — Conviction under — Age of prosecutrix — 24 years — FIR after 1 year — staying alone — serving in marketing department of a Company — Held, that means she was independent and it can be presumed that she was having knowledge as to what she is good or bad to her— consenting party — Acquittal. (Para 13) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 376 — Rape — Prosecutrix was not knowing accused prior to the day on which she met him — She stated that after she met the accused, she went with him on the representation that he will purchase the detergent powder at his quarter— she was selling detergent door to door— Held, It is impossible that without any basic inquiry, she would have gone with him— Acquittal. (Para 13) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 376 — Rape — Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant facts — Statement of prosecutrix —Resistance by prosecutrix — She does not say that she had resisted the accused in any manner —fatal to prosecution. (Para 14) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 376 — Rape — Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant facts — Statement of prosecutrix — threat by accused — What threat was given, where exactly she was in the house, whether there was anybody in the house, etc. is not disclosed —fatal to prosecution. (Para 14) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 376 — Rape — Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant facts — Statement of prosecutrix — She has not stated that after taking her inside the house, the said person had latched the door —fatal to prosecution. (Para 14) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 376 — Rape — Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant facts — Conduct of prosecutrix — She is also silent on what conversation took place between them, immediately after entering the house —fatal to prosecution. (Para 14) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 376 — Rape — Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant facts — Conduct of prosecutrix — Statement of prosecutrix — no explanation about why she should allow the person to close the door of the house, if at all it was closed —fatal to prosecution. (Para 14) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 376 — Rape — Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant facts — Conduct of prosecutrix — Even after that person had allegedly demanded sexual favour to her and she had refused it, why she should remain in the house and why she had not attempted to come out of the house—fatal to prosecution. (Para 14) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 376 — Rape — Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant facts — Conduct of prosecutrix — When she was not knowing the person including his name, his background, regarding his family, etc why she would have believed in his statement —fatal to prosecution. (Para 14) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 376 — Rape on the promise to marry — Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant facts — Conduct of prosecutrix — Statement of prosecutrix — She has not stated as to what was her reaction after that person promised her to marry—Prosecutrix does not say that she believed in the promise to marry given by accused— She has left missing links — Acquittal. (Para 14) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 376 — Rape — Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Subsequent conduct of prosecutrix — If everything had taken place without her consent, then why she did not lodge complaint on that day itself or within a reasonable period from that day — No reason assigned for the same — Held, it is hard to believe such prosecutrix on the point of rape. (Para 14) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 376 — Repeated Rape — statement of the prosecutrix — no previous acquaintance — Held, when both of them were unknown to each other, how accused had established contact with her on subsequent occasions? — not stated that accused had taken her address, mobile number, etc. — each time when such act was allegedly done — she had a right to lodge complaint — Not explained as to why she had not lodged it— All the time she is stated to have not given consent — Then why she was going with accused or responding to his call — unnatural conduct — Acquittal. (Para 15) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 376 — Rape under threat — type of threats not explained— Only vague statement to that effect is made— Acquittal. (Para 15) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 376 — Repeated Rape on the promise to marry — Conduct of prosecutrix — Prosecutrix does not say whether each time she believed in his so called promises — She has not stated that since promise to marry was given, and she believed, though initially she had not consented, she kept relations with accused — She does not say that at some point of time she had tried to gather details about accused and his family and also told her details — She has not stated that after the alleged act was done, she wanted to marry accused — If she had no intention to marry with him, why she was responding to him — she allowed the accused to commit rape on her for a period of 8-9 months — Held, prosecutrix is not telling a true story — Acquittal. (Para 15) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 376 — Rape — Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act — Sec. 3 (1) (x) — Prosecutrix has not come with a case that accused had knowledge about her caste and therefore, had decided to ravish her and sexually exploit her— Acquittal. (Para 17) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 376 — Rape — DNA report — showed that the prosecutrix and accused are the biological parents of the child born to prosecutrix— Burden of proof — Held, the said report ipso facto does not presume that prosecutrix would have been raped — Prosecution should rule out the possibility of consensual sex in this case. (Para 18) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 302, 307, 34 & 120-B — Life imprisonment by trial Court — with a direction that he shall not be considered for grant of remission till he undergoes the actual sentence of 30 years — cap of 30 yrs. removed by High Court — Held, the order of the High Court removing the cap of 30 years is not correct and that portion has to be set aside — life sentence with 30 years’ cap without remission awarded by the trial court is upheld. (Para 32) |
PDF |