To constitute the offence of cheating intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was offered. (Ajay Mitra Vs State of M.P. & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 77 (S.C.)

Ingredients of the provision of S.28 IPC are :  (1) causing one thing to resemble another thing; (2) intending by means of that resemblance to practice deception, or (3) knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby the practised – Thus, if one thing is made to resemble another thing and the intention is that by such resemblance deception would be practised or even if there is no intention but it is known to be likely that the resemblance is such that deception will thereby be practised there is counterfeiting. (K.Hashim Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 635 (S.C.)

Common intention – A person may be constructively liable for an offence which he did not actually commit by reason of: (1) the common intention of all to commit such an offence (Section 34); (2) his being a member of a conspiracy to commit such an offence (Section 120A); (3) his being a member of an unlawful assembly, the members where of knew that an offence was likely to be committed (Section 149) – Section 34 is framed to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish between the acts of individual members of a party or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them. The reason why all are deemed guilty in such cases is, that the presence of accomplices gives encouragement, support and protection to the person actually committing the act. The provision embodies the common-sense principle that if two or more persons intentionally do a thing jointly it is just the same as if each of them had done it individually. (Krishnan & Anr. Vs State Rep. By Inspector of Police) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 281 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 181 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Common intention – Applicability of S.34 depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case – No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the applicability or non-applicability of S.34 – For applicability of the section it is not necessary that the acts of several persons charged with commission of an offence jointly, must be the same or identically similar – The acts may be different in character, but must have been actuated by one and the same common intention in order to attract the provision. (Krishnan & Anr. Vs State Rep. By Inspector of Police) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 281 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 181 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Common intention – Direct proof of common intention is seldom available – Such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances – To prove common intention prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of mind of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34, be it pre-arranged or on the spur of moment – It must necessarily be before the commission of the crime – The true contents of the Section is that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position in law is just the same as if each of them has done it individually by himself. (Anil Sharma & Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 90 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Common intention – Direct proof of common intention is seldom available – Such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances. (Raju Pandurang Mahale Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 189 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Common intention – Exhortation “Maro….Maro” – By itself is not enough to prove common intention on the part of accused. (Idrish Bhai Daudbhai Vs State of Gujarat) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 666 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Common intention – Factum of appellants coming armed with deadly weapons to the field where the deceased and his party were harvesting the crop itself shows that the appellants did share common intention. (Daulat Trimbak Shewale & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 256 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Common intention – For applying S.34 it is not necessary to show some overt act on the part of the accused. (Hari Ram Vs State of U.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 198 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Common intention – For applying S.34 it is not necessary to show some overt act on the part of the accused. (State of M.P. Vs Deshraj & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 231 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Common intention – Furtherance – Means advancement or promotion. (Dani Singh & Ors.  Vs  State of Bihar ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Common intention – Implies pre arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the pre arranged plan – To constitute common intention it is necessary that intention of each one of them is known to rest of them and shared by them – Common intention not to be confused with similar intention –  Common intention may develop at spot – Depends on facts and circumstances of each case – Can be inferred from act, conduct and other relevant circumstances – Mere presence would not make a person liable u/s 34 IPC. (Dani Singh & Ors.  Vs  State of Bihar ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Common intention – It being essentially a state of mind it is very difficult to produce direct evidence to prove such intention – It has to be inferred from the act like, the conduct of the accused or other relevant circumstances of the case – Inference can be gathered by the manner in which the accused arrived at the scene, mounted the attack, determination and concert with which the attack was made, from the nature of injury caused by one or some of them – It can further be inferred from the subsequent conduct after the attack – Even an illegal omission on the part of such accused can indicate the sharing of common intention – Totality of circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion whether the accused had the common intention to commit an offence of which they could be convicted. (Ramesh Singh @ Photti Vs State of A.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 674 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Common intention – Joint liability – Prosecution has to establish by evidence that there was plan or meeting of mind of all the accused persons to commit offence – Direct proof of common intention is seldom available – Intention can be inferred from the circumstances. (Harbans Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 570 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Common intention – Once it is found that a criminal act has been committed by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for the criminal acts as if it were done by him alone. (Saravanan & Anr. Vs State of Pondicherry) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 745 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Common intention – Prior concert and prearranged plan is its foundation – Two of four accused caused injuries on the back of deceased whereas two other caused injuries on the head and only head injuries were found fatal but circumstances indicated common intention and conviction with aid of S.34 calls for no interference. (Krishnan & Anr. Vs State Rep. By Inspector of Police) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 281 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 181 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Common intention – Proof – Prosecution must establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of mind of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of S.34, be it pre-arranged or on the spur of moment but it must be before the commission of the crime. (Raju Pandurang Mahale Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 189 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Common intention – Prosecution has to establish by evidence, direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of mind of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of S.34, be it prearranged or on the spur of moment, but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime – True contents of the provision are that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position in law is just the same as if each of them has done it individually by himself. (Babulal Bhagwan Khandare Vs State of Maharashtra) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 503 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Common intention – Three accused came together – Only one of them had grudge against deceased – Two accused caught hold hands of deceased and third accused stabbed the deceased on vital parts – Two accused did not prevent third accused from attacking – This leads to an irresistible and in inescapable conclusion that the accused persons had shared the common intention. (Ramesh Singh @ Photti Vs State of A.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 674 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Common intention – To attract the provision two facts have to be established (1) common intention (2) participation of the accused in commission of the offence – If the above two ingredients are satisfied even overt act on the part of some of the persons sharing in the common intention is not necessary. (Hamlet @ Sasi & Ors. Vs State of Kerala) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 333 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Common intention – To bring home charge of common intention prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of mind of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34, be it pre-arranged or on the spur of moment; but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime. (Girija Shankar Vs State of U.P.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 291 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Common intention – To bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of mind of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34, be it pre-arranged or on the spur of moment; but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime. (Hari Ram Vs State of U.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 198 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Common intention – To bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of mind of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34, be it pre-arranged or on the spur of moment; but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime. (State of M.P. Vs Deshraj & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 231 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Common intention – (i) To attract the applicability of Section 34 IPC prosecution is under an obligation to establish that there existed a common intention which requires a prearranged plan because before a man can be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another, the act must have been done in furtherance of the common intention of all (ii) Common intention can be formed previously or in the course of occurrence and on the spur of the moment (iii) Common intention arising at any time prior to the criminal act, can be proved by circumstantial evidence (iv) The ‘act’ referred to in the later part of S.34 means the ultimate criminal act with which the accused is charged of sharing the common intention (v) The essence of S.34 is simultaneous consensus of the mind of persons participation in the criminal action to bring about a particular result (vi) Mere distancing himself from the scene cannot absolve the accused. (Lallan Rai & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 438 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 48 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Conviction for offence by applying S.34 IPC in absence of charge cannot be said to be fatal by itself. (State of Andhra Pradesh Vs K.Srinivasulu Reddy & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 646 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Conviction for murder with aid of S.34 – Appellant exhorted other accused to fire at the deceased and other accused fired shot by his fire-arm – Though carrying weapon, appellant did not fire at anyone – Two other accused acquitted – Benefit of doubt extended to appellant. (Nirmal Singh & Anr. Vs State of Bihar) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 24 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Exhortation can constitute common intention in certain circumstances –  Appellant exhorted his companion to fire at deceased – Shot fired at deceased which killed him – Applicability of S.34 IPC – Deceased was tried for murder of uncle of appellant – Accused who fired shot was tried for murder of son of deceased – Parties well known to each other – Held, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, there is no doubt about the applicability of S.34 IPC – It was pursuant to the common intention of both that shot was fired resulting in death. (Damodar Vs State of U.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 960 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Four accused – All the four did not come together – Held, for the applicability of the provision it is not material how the accused converge on the place of occurrence – What is material for the applicability of the provision is their common intention. (State of Madhya Pradesh  Vs Mansingh & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 277 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 559 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Ingredients – Common intention in the sense of a pre arranged plan between the two  and person sought to be so held liable had participated in some manner in the act constituting the offence – Unless common intention and participation are both present section 34 cannot apply – Actual presence at the scene of incident not necessary in all cases. (Dani Singh & Ors.  Vs  State of Bihar ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – Murder – Common intention – Appellant caught hold of waist of deceased, took him towards nulla and threw him on ground and then co-accused inflicted iron rod blows five times – Appellant did not try to prevent co-accused from assault or exhibited any intention that co-accused should discontinue the attack – Held, offence would be deemed to be committed by both accused in prosecution of common intention. (Dayal & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 403 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – On exhortation of one appellant second appellant fired gun shot – Conviction of third appellant, who accompanied other two, with aid of S.34 IPC – Third appellant had carried no weapon and no overt act attributed to him except that he accompanied other two – Conviction of third appellant set aside. (Binod Prasad Vs State of Bihar) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 640 (Patna)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.34 – With the aid of section 34 a person can be made liable for an action of an offence not committed by him but by another person with whom he shared the common intention as section 34 recognises the principle of vicarious liability in criminal jurisprudence. (Ganga Paswan & Anr. Vs State of Bihar) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 593 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.34, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 341 – Prosecution of eight accused – Coming together of all not established – Unlawful object to kill B who lay herself down on J not developed at any point of time prior to actual occurrence – Incident not occurring in manner as described by prosecution – Origin of occurrence withheld – Injuries caused not consistent with shot fired from distance of 30 feet – Not sufficient evidence as to participation of accused K, G, L, B and H1 – Eye witnesses creditworthy as regards involvement of M, H2 and J – All of these accused sharing common intention to commit murder of B and to cause injuries to K – Accused M and J held guilty u/ss 34, 302 and 307 – Accused H2 held guilty u/s 302 IPC – All other acquitted on benefit of doubt. (Kamal & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 156 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.34, 149 – Common intention & common object – Distinction – Common intention denotes action in concert and necessarily postulates the existence of a pre-arranged plan implying a prior meeting of the minds, while common object does not necessarily require proof of prior meeting of minds or preconcert – Though there is substantial difference between the two sections, they also to some extent overlap and it is a question to be determined on the facts of each case whether the charge under section 149 overlaps the ground covered by section 34. (Chittarmal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 191 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.34, 149 & 96 – Free fight – Ss.34 & 149 IPC are inapplicable – Each individual is responsible for his own acts – There is no constructive or vicarious liability for the act of another. (Majid Khan & Ors. Vs State of M.P.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 308 (M.P.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.34, 201, 302 – Appeal against conviction – Circumstantial evidence – No conclusive evidence of accused and deceased being last seen together – Statement of witnesses on point of extra judicial confession full of contradictions on material aspects – Witness to whom extra judicial confession made having no intimacy with accused as such there is no reason to make confession to such witnesses – Alleged recovery of weapon of offence not proved to be made at instance of accused – None of these circumstances proved against accused – Conviction set aside. (Harbansh & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 469 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.34, 302/34 – Absence of charge u/s 34 IPC – Accused can be convicted for the offence under S.302 read with S.34 provided facts and circumstances show that there existed common intention and the accused committed the act with such intention. (Karnam Ram Narsaiah & Ors. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 472 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.52 – Good faith – A thing shall be deemed to be done in “good faith” where it is in fact done honestly whether it is done negligently or not. (Mangtu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 623 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.57 – Life imprisonment – Is to be treated as imprisonment for life. (Chacko Vs State of Kerala) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 239 (Kerala) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.80 and 304-A – Accused picking gun, unlocked it and put the cartridges and fired from close range – Neither section 80 nor Section 304-A attracted – Accused convicted u/s 304 Part II. (Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar  Vs  State of Maharashtra ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 782 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.80 – Burden of Proof – Presumption is against the accused who pleads exception u/s 80 – Burden of proof lies on accused. (Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar  Vs  State of Maharashtra ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 782 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.80 – Scope and Ambit – Requirement – Primordial requirement of section 80 is that the act which killed other person must have been done with proper care and caution – Care and circumspection taken by accused must be one taken by prudent and reasonable man – Where act of the accused is itself criminal in nature protection u/s 80 is not available. (Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar  Vs  State of Maharashtra ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 782 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.84 – For applicability of the provision elements necessary are: (i) the accused was of unsound mind at the time of commission of the act; and (ii) by reason of unsoundness of mind, the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was  doing what was either wring or contrary to law. (Vidhya Devi Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 366 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.84 – Insanity – Burden of proof – AIR 1984 SC 1563 followed wherein held: (1) Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence with the requisite mens rea  and the burden of proving that always rests upon the prosecution (2) There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down in Section 84 – Burden of proof upon him is no higher than that which rests upon a party in civil proceedings, that is, to prove this defence by a preponderance of probabilities; (3) That even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the Court by the accused or by the prosecution, may raise a reasonable doubt as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the accused and in that case the Court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden resting on the prosecution has not been discharged. (Smt.Rukhsana (In Jail) Vs State of U.P.) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 647 (Allahabad)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.84 – Insanity – Burden of proof – Lies upon the accused. (Evidence Act, 1872, S.105). (Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 642 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.84 – Insanity – Following circumstance show that accused was of unsound mind and entitled to benefit of S.84 IPC viz. (1) The appellant has a family history – his father was suffering from psychiatric illness; (2) Cause of ailment not known – hereditary plays a part; (3) Appellant was being treated for unsoundness of mind since 1992 – Diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia; (4) Within a short span, soon after the incident from 27th June to 5th December, 1994, he had to be taken for treatment of ailment 25 times to hospital; (5) Appellant was under regular treatment for the mental ailment; (6) The weak motive of killing of wife – being that she was opposing the idea of the appellant resigning the job of a Police Constable; (7) Killing in day light-no attempt to hide or run away. (Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 642 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.84 – Insanity – If an act is committed out of extreme anger and not as a result of unsoundness of mind, accused is not entitled to the benefit of exception as contained in S.84 IPC. (Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 642 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.84 – Insanity – Paranoid schizophrenia – What is? – Analysed. (Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 642 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.84 – Insanity – State of mind of accused at the time of commission of the offence is to be proved so as to get the benefit of the exception. (Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 642 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.84 – Insanity – To claim defence on the ground of insanity it must be proved that at the time of committing the act accused was labouring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong or contrary to law. (Vidhya Devi Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 366 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.84 – Lunatic – Conviction for offence of murder – Appellant at the time of commission of offence was of unsound mind – Subsequent to commission of crime also civil surgeon found him to be lunatic – Conviction cannot be maintained – Appeal allowed and accused acquitted. (Motiram Maroti Dhule Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 492 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.84 – Person not of sound mind – Four type of such persons are: (i) an idiot; (ii) one made non compos by illness; (iii) a lunatic or madman; and (iv) a drunkard i.e. one who is drunk. (Vidhya Devi Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 366 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.84 – Principles governing applicability of the provision are: (a) every type of insanity is not legal insanity; the cognitive faculty must be so destroyed as to render one incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law; (b) the Court shall presume the absence of such insanity; (c) the burden of proof of legal insanity is on the accused though it is not as heavy as one the prosecution to prove an office; (d) the Court must consider whether the accused suffered from legal insanity at the time when the offence was committed; (e) in reaching such a conclusion, the circumstances which preceded, attended or followed the crime are relevant considerations; and (f) the prosecution in discharging its burden in the face of the plea of legal insanity has merely to prove the basic fact and rely upon the normal presumption of law that everyone knows the law and the natural consequences of his act. (Vidhya Devi Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 366 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.84 – Unsoundness of mind – A legal insanity which requires that cognitive faculties of the accused are such that he does not know what he has done or what will follow from his act. (Atrup Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 646 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.84 – Unsoundness of mind – At the time of commission of offence –  In order to ascertain whether accused was insane at the time of commission of the offence, it is relevant to consider the state of such person’s mind immediately preceding as well as subsequent to the commission of the offence – State of mind before and after the act is relevant though not conclusive. (Vidhya Devi Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 366 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.84 – ‘Schizophrenia’ – It is one of the types of insanity. (Vidhya Devi Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 366 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.84, 302 – Murder – Plea of insanity – After arrest accused dashed his head against iron bars of prison and a case was registered but the plea of insanity was rejected – Plea of insanity negatived on the ground (1) Accused entered into place of incident concealing the axe under his clothes and after inflicting injury on the head he fled away; (2) After his arrest accused disclosed that he had hidden the axe under the soil near the hill and on the basis of his disclosure statement the axe got recovered from the said place by the I.O.; (3) Explanation of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was that he is falsely implicated in the case because of group rivalry and the prosecution witnesses deposed against him as his relations with them were inimical and all the questions put to appellant were properly answered by him – Held, all these circumstances show that the accused was not insane, his cognitive faculties were not lost and he was not incapable of knowing the nature of his act. (Atrup Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 646 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.84, 302, 304 Part II – Self incriminating FIR by accused of having killed his wife – Defence of insanity not sufficient to rebut presumption of sanity – Relations between accused and deceased were cordial as stated by neighbours – Non confessional part of FIR admissible in evidence enlightening conduct of accused – Pant and shirt of accused stained with human blood – Six incriminating circumstances against accused conclusively pointing towards his guilt – Incident an outcome of sudden spurt of temper – Single hammer blow on head not stated by doctor to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death – Accused convicted u/s 304 Part II. (Ajay Singh Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 54 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.84, 302, Evidence Act, 1872, S.3 – Attempt to murder – Unsoundness of mind – To claim exemption from criminal liability on this ground, it must be shown that unsoundness of mind existed at material time of commission of offence – Evidence of doctor that accused was treated for schizophrenia and epileptic fits some years prior to incident and also subsequently during trial is not sufficient to absolve accused from criminal liability where direct evidence of eye witnesses shows that accused was not acting under schizophrenia or epileptic automatism – Accused enraged by lodging of complaint with police against him, waylaying complainant and inflicted grievous hurt with lethal weapon – When it is not proved that insanity existed at time of commission of act, conviction has to be upheld. (Venkatesh alias Tiger Venkatesh alias English Venkatesh Vs State ) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 173 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.85 – Intoxication – Self inflicted – Benefit of S.85 IPC is not available – To avail benefit of the provision it must be proved that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will. (Imtiaz Ahamed alias Imtiaz Pasha Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 217 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.88 & 89 – Corporal punishment by a teacher to student – When a criminal offence – If a teacher out of fury and excitement, inflicts injuries which is harmful to the health of a tender aged student, it cannot be accepted as a right conferred on such a teacher to inflict such punishment, because of the express or implied authority granted by parents of that student – However, when a teacher gave beatings on the gluteal region, only to make a student adhere the standards of school, the same is done with bona fide intention and teacher does not commit any criminal offence. (Abdul Vaheed  Vs State of Kerala) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 775 (Kerala)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.91 – Self defence – Court can consider such a plea on basis of material available even if accused fails to plead it – Burden is upon accused to establish such plea. (Mitra Prasad Rai Vs State of Sikkim) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 601 (Sikkim)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.96, 304 – Right of private defence – Deceased taking possession of sheep belonging to accused – In a sudden quarrel accused gave injuries – Deceased fell down – Deceased again gave a blow on neck – Held, accused exceeded right of private defence – Accused convicted under S.304 Part I and sentenced 10 years. (Sekar @ Raja Sekharan Vs State rep. by Inspector of Police, T.Nadu) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 676 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.96, Evidence Act, 1872, S.105 –  Private defence – Not required to be proved by calling evidence – It can be established by reference to circumstances transpiring from the prosecution evidence itself. (Sekar @ Raja Sekharan Vs State rep. by Inspector of Police, T.Nadu) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 676 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.96, Evidence Act, 1872, S.105 – Private defence – Burden of proof – Is on the accused and the burden stands discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis of the material on record. (Sekar @ Raja Sekharan Vs State rep. by Inspector of Police, T.Nadu) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 676 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.96, Evidence Act, 1872, S.105 – Private defence – The defence pleaded must be a reasonable and probable version satisfying the Court that the harm caused by the accused was necessary for either warding off the attack or for forestalling any further reasonable apprehension, from the attacker. (Sekar @ Raja Sekharan Vs State rep. by Inspector of Police, T.Nadu) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 676 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.96 – Murder – Right of private defence – Nothing is an offence which is done in exercise of right of private defence – ‘Right of private defence’ is not defined – Provision merely indicates that nothing is an offence which is done in exercise of such right – Whether in a particular set of circumstances, a person legitimately acted in the exercise of the right of private defence is a question of fact to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case – No test in the abstract for determining such a question can be laid down. (Babulal Bhagwan Khandare Vs State of Maharashtra) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 503 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.96 – Private defence – In a given case, Court can consider it even if the accused has not taken it, if the same is available to be considered from the material on record. (Sekar @ Raja Sekharan Vs State rep. by Inspector of Police, T.Nadu) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 676 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.96 – Private defence – Number of injuries is not always a safe criterion for determining the aggressor – Prosecution not to explain injuries sustained by accused if injuries are minor. (Laxman Singh Vs Poonam Singh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 667 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 558 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.96 – Private defence – Right of private defence is purely preventive and not punitive or retributive – It is not a right to take revenge nor is a right of reprisal. (Mohammed Nazim Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 340 (Rajasthan)  

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.96, 97 & 100, Evidence Act, 1872, S.105 – Private defence – If circumstances show that the right of private defence was legitimately exercised, it is open to Court to consider plea of self defence – Court can consider it even if accused does not assert such a defence – Accused can prove right of self defence by reference to circumstances transpiring from the prosecution evidence itself – Burden of establishing plea of self defence is on the accused and the burden stands discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis of material on record. (Laxman Singh Vs Poonam Singh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 667 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 558 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.96, 97 and 100 – Private defence – Principles : (1) Number of injuries is not always a safe criterion for determining who the aggressor was; (2) Right commences, as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to body arises from an attempt, on threat, to commit the offence although the offence may not have been committed but not until there is that reasonable apprehension – The right lasts so long as the reasonable apprehension of the danger to the body continues; (3) Person apprehending death or injury cannot weigh in golden scales in the spur of moment in the heat of circumstances, the number of injuries required to disarm the assailants. (V.Subramani & Anr. Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 407 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.96 to 100, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 and 304 Part I – Private defence – Bandh activists wanted accused to close mill – Altercation took place – Bandh activists by using explosives put mill and property on fire – Accused resorted to fire with gun causing death of two activists and injuring others – Held, accused acted in private defence – Conviction set aside. (James Martin Vs State of Kerala) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 183 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.96 to 100 – Right of private defence – Burden of proof is on accused who sets up the plea of self defence – To prove right of private defence it is not necessary to call evidence – Right of private defence can be proved by reference to circumstances transpiring from the prosecution evidence – Defence must be a reasonable and probable version satisfying the Court that the harm caused by accused was necessary for either warding off the attack or for forestalling the further reasonable apprehension from the side of he accused – Burden is discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis of material on record. (James Martin Vs State of Kerala) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 183 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.96, 304 Part II, 323, 447 – Private defence – Land dispute – Accused asserting that field belongs to them and they will not allow complainant party to plough field – After several verbal aggression accused started assault on complainant party – Attacks not premeditated – Plea of right of self defence accepted – Acquittal upheld. (Laxman Singh Vs Poonam Singh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 667 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 558 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.97 – Private defence – It has to be established that the accused persons were under such grave apprehension about the safety of their life and property that retaliation to the extent done was absolutely necessary. (Chacko @ Aniyan Kunju & Ors. Vs State of Kerala) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 48 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.97, 100 – Private defence – Right of causing death – Right of private defence extends to causing death if there is reasonable apprehension that death or grievous hurt would be the consequence of the assault. (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Ramesh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 462 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.97, 99 – Private defence of property – Deceased set a hut on fire – Accused reached there and gave a lathi blow on head of deceased resulting in his death – Held, accused is not entitled to right of private defence of property as gave the blow at the stage when act of fire had already taken place. (Jugan Vs State of M.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 613 (M.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.97 and 99 – Private defence of property  – Plea of – Can be raised for the first time in appeal – If accused does not plead self-defence, it is open for the High Court to consider such a plea if same arises from the material on record – Accused can get benefit of right of private defence of property on the basis of evidence led by prosecution. (Jugan Vs State of M.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 613 (M.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.97 to 102 – Private defence – Not necessary to plead that action was done in self defence – If the circumstances show that the right of private defence was legitimately exercised, it is open to Court to consider such a plea – Court can consider it if available from the material on record even in absence of such a plea by accused –  To prove plea of self defence burden is on accused – Accused can establish his plea of right of private defence by reference to circumstances transpiring from the prosecution evidence itself – Where right of private defence is pleaded, the defence must be a reasonable and probable version satisfying the Court that the harm caused by the accused was necessary for either warding off the attack or for forestalling the further reasonable apprehension from the side of the accused – Burden of establishing the plea of self defence is on the accused and the burden stands discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis of the material on record. (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Ramesh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 462 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.97 to 102 – Private defence – Number of injuries is not always a safe criterion for determining who the aggressor was – Right commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt, or threat, or commit the offence, although the offence may not have been committed but not until there is that reasonable apprehension – The right lasts so long as the reasonable apprehension of the danger to he body continues. (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Ramesh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 462 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.97 to 102 – Private defence – Right of – Right to defend does not include a right to launch an offensive, particularly when the need to defend no longer survived. (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Ramesh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 462 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.97 to 102 – Private defence – Right whether available or not – Injuries received by the accused, the imminence of threat of his safety, the injuries caused by the accused and the circumstances whether the accused had time to have recourse to public authorities are all relevant factors to be considered. (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Ramesh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 462 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.97 to 105 – Private defence – Availability of right – Relevant considerations are injuries received by accused, the imminence of threat to his safety, the injuries caused by the accused and the circumstances whether the accused had time to have recourse to public authorities. (Shriram Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 619 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.100, 304 Part I – Decreased threw bricks upon accused whereas he went inside house and brought his gun and fired shots in self defence – Held, there was no occasion for accused to use gun – Accused exceeded his right of private defence – Accused is liable for conviction u/s 304 Part I IPC. (Shingara Singh Vs State of Haryana & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 68 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.100 and 302 – Right of self defence – Mere statement of accused u/s 313 – Not sufficient to raise plea of self defence – Conviction upheld. (Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.100 – Private defence – Force used while exercising right of private defence to avert the threat shall not exceed – However, it cannot be said how much force is required for averting a particular assault – Facts of the case as spoken to by the witnesses have to be evaluated to consider whether one had exceeded right of private defence. (Kuriachan Joseph alias Kuriachan Vs State of Kerala) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 250 (Kerala)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.100 – Private defence – Right of – Both parties came armed and indulged in free fighting – It resulted in injuries on both sides – As both parties had come prepared to fight, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether any of them was entitled to right of private defence –  Culpability of accused to be determined by reference to their individual acts. (Kewal Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 160 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.100, 88, 302/149, 148 – Murder – Self defence – Assault exceedingly vindictive and maliciously excessive – – Accused not entitled to right of private defence. (Bathusingh & Ors. Vs State of M.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 549 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.100, 88, 302/149, 148 – Murder – Self defence – Right of private defence is essentially one of defence or self protection and not a right of reprisal or punishment – It is subject to the restrictions indicated in S.88 which are so important as the right itself. (Bathusingh & Ors. Vs State of M.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 549 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.101 to 105 – Self defence – Right of –  Plea of right comprises the body or property (i) of the person exercising the right; or (ii) of any other person; and the right may be exercised in the case of any offence against the body, and in the case of offence of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, and attempts at such offences in relation to property – S.99 lays down the limits of the right of private defence – Ss.96 and 98 give a right of private defence against certain offences and acts – Right given u/ss 96 and 98 and 100 to 106 is controlled by S.99 – To claim a right of private defence extending to voluntary causing of death, the accused must show that there were circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous hurt would be caused to him – Burden is on the accused to show that he had a right of private defence which extended to causing of death – Ss.100 and 101 IPC define the limit and extent of right of private defence. (Babulal Bhagwan Khandare Vs State of Maharashtra) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 503 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.102, 105 – Private defence – Commencement and continuance – Right commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt, or threat, or commit the offence, though offence may not have been committed but not until that there is reasonable apprehension – Right lasts so long as the reasonable apprehension of the danger to the body continues. (Laxman Singh Vs Poonam Singh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 667 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 558 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.102 & 105 – Private defence – Of body and property – The right commences, as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt, or threat, or commit the offence, although the offence may not have been committed but not until that there is that reasonable apprehension – The right lasts so long as the reasonable apprehension of the danger to the body continues. (Shriram Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 619 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.103 – Private defence of property – Extending to causing of death – Not available in case of trespass in respect of open land. (Jassa Singh Vs State of Haryana) AIR 2002 S.C. 520

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.104, 325/34 – Crop sown by accused in disputed field and accused asked PW2 not to remove the crop – Incident took place in the field and fracture injury caused on both hands of PW2 – Accused had right of private defence of property in causing grievous hurt to PW2 – Conviction set aside. (Devi Singh & Anr. Vs State of M.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 455 (M.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.105 – Private defence of property – Commences when a reasonable apprehension of danger to property commences – In the instant case the right commenced when the complainant party entered the property and the right continued as long as the complainant party remained on the property and the trespass continued. (Sita Ram & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 517 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.107 – Abetment – A person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. (Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 647 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.107 – Abetment – Ingredients – Includes instigating any person to do a thing or engaging with one or more person in any conspiracy for the doing of a thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing, or intentional aid by any act or illegal omission to the doing of that thing. (Hans Raj  Vs.  State of Haryana ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 351 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.107 – Abetment – May be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid – A1 instigated other accused who way laid two deceased and caused them injuries by stone picked up from way side – Other accused convicted u/s 304 Part I IPC and A1 convicted u/s 304 Part I r/w 109 IPC. (Goura Venkata Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 112 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.105, 304 Part II – Trespass on land of accused – Accused stabbed the deceased with spear in chest – Held, accused exceeded right of private defence – Accused could have stopped the deceased from trespassing by inflicting lesser injury on legs – Only house trespass may give right to cause death – Accused is guilty of offence u/s 304 Part II. (Sita Ram & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 517 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.109 – Abetment – Ist petitioner charged with offences u/ss 493 & 376 IPC – No offence committed by him under the said sections – Petitioners 2 to 4 (brother and parents of lst petitioner) cannot therefore be said to have abetted those offences. (Suram Kiran Kumar Reddy Vs State of A.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 308 (A.P.)  

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.109, 120-B and 302 – Murder – Abetment and conspiracy – Distinction as to – Offence of conspiracy is a bare agreement to commit an offence – It is made punishable u/s 120-B IPC – Offence of abetment created under the second clause of S.107 requires that there must be something more than mere conspiracy – There must be some act or illegal omission in pursuance of that conspiracy. (Ranganayaki Vs State by Inspector of Police) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 564 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.113-B, 302 – Acquittal of accused u/s 302 IPC – Presumption u/s 113-B of Evidence Act does not stand automatically rebutted. (Alamgir Sani Vs State of Assam) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 65 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.115, 120-B – Conspiracy – P.W. overheard the accused persons of a conspiracy to murder a person and his sons due to previous enmity – Matter reported to police two months later – No explanation for delay – Prosecution supported by most convenient witness used by police on different occasions – Conviction set aside – Cash amount recovered from them restored. (Amrik Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab)  2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 616 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468 & 471 – Charges under – Manager of Bank forging Drafts – Other accused receiving amount thereunder – Material on record constituting ground to presume that accused committed offence – Trial on such charge cannot mean harassment – No case for quashing charges. (Rajendra Kumar Jain Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 514 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.120-B, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, S.5(2) r/w S.5(1)(d) – Investigation by CBI – Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has power of superintendence and view progress of investigation conducted by CBI – CBI however is not required to obtain approval of CVC for filing charge-sheet in Court. (Union of India Vs Prakash P.Hinduja & Anr.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 205 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.120-B – Conspiracy – For the offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established – Express agreement need not to be proved –  Evidence as to the transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful act is not sufficient – A conspiracy is a continuing offence which continues to subsist till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice of necessity – During its subsistence whenever any one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts, he would be held guilty under S.120-B of the Act. (Damodar Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 567 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 361 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.120-B – Criminal conspiracy – Charge – General evidence or some connecting link or factors in the evidence collected with the police are sufficient to frame charge. (Rajendra Kumar Jain Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 514 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.120-B – Criminal conspiracy – Direct evidence is rarely available and the same can be inferred from the proved circumstances – Before such an inference is drawn, the facts established must rule out any likelihood of innocence of the accused – If there are circumstances compatible with the innocence of the accused person, the prosecution will fail – A clear link has to be established and the chain has to be completed from the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution otherwise it is too risky to accept a part of the link as a complete one and to base conviction on the basis of such incomplete evidence. (Shambhoo Sharan Pandey & Anr. Vs State of U.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 48 (All.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.120-B – Criminal conspiracy – Elements of criminal conspiracy are (a) an object to be accomplished, (b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish the object, (c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby, they become definitely committed to cooperate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means, and (d) in the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act. (K.Hashim Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 635 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.120-B – Criminal conspiracy – Prosecution has to prove – (1) that the accused agreed to do or cause to be done an act; (2) that such act was illegal or was to be done by illegal means; and (3) that some overt act was done by one of the accused in pursuance of the agreement. (Shambhoo Sharan Pandey & Anr. Vs State of U.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 48 (All.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.120-B – Criminal conspiracy – Prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agree to do or cause to be done illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication –  Offence of criminal conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act by unlawful means – So long as such a design rests in intention only, it is not indictable – When two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act in itself, and an act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra capable of being enforced, if lawful, punishable if for a criminal object or for use of criminal means. (K.Hashim Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 635 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.120-B – Criminal conspiracy – To prove criminal conspiracy there must be evidence direct or circumstantial to show that there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence – Where the factum of conspiracy is sought to be inferred from the circumstances, the prosecution has to show that the circumstances give rise to a conclusion or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence – A few bits here and few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of crime of criminal conspiracy. (Mohd. Hanif & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 235 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.120-A, 120-B, Evidence Act, 1872, S.10 – Criminal conspiracy – Can be proved by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or both – Inference can be drawn from circumstances – Fact that accused had met other accused several times immediately prior to commission of murder is relevant fact to draw inference that they conspired together to commit murder which they committed –  Conspiracy to commit offence is itself offence and person can be separately charged with respect to such conspiracy. (Basappa alias Basavaraj Vs State Through Gandhi Chowk Police, Bijapur) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 798 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.120-B, 201, 302, 364, 379 – Conviction – Appeal against – Circumstantial evidence – PW 23 not able to identify accused either at identification parade or in Court – Facts disclosed by PW 5 not finding place in his report or in his statement to police – Deceased last seen in company of accused not established – PW1 and PW 25 declared hostile – PW 10 denying that accused brought jeep for repairs at his shop – Fact that accused pointed out place of murder not established – Disclosure statement, if any, not leading to any recovery – Recovery of stephny not proved and thus recovery doubtful – Links in chain of circumstances missing – No case made out for conviction in absence of corpus delicti – No evidence to connect accused with crime – Conviction set aside. (Surajbhan Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 628 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.120-A, 302 – Murder – Conspiracy – Main accused who hatched the conspiracy and who had motive to kill the deceased discharged – That matter attained finality – No purpose would be served in proceeding with the case against remaining accused. (Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Akhilesh Singh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 413 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.141, 149 and 302 – Common Object – Unlawful Assembly – Common Intention – U/s 149 prior concert and a common meeting of minds before attack not required – Whether there were five or more person and whether they had common objects as specified under section 141 are the key ingredients to convict accused with the help of section 149 – Common object may be formed at any stage by all or a few members of the assembly even during the course of incident at spot – It may be modified or altered or abandoned at any stage – It may be formed by all or few members at any stage and others members may join it subsequently. (Charan Singh & Ors.  Vs.  State of Uttar Pradesh ) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 564 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 533 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.143, 384 & 120-B, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 – Collection of goonda tax from shopkeepers – However, no evidence of any victim – Total evidence was that of police officials – Held, when there is absolutely no evidence of any victim about the offence committed by the petitioner, the charge sheet does not stand as such the same quashed. (Anoop Kumar Vs State of U.P. & Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 298 (Allahabad)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.144, 148, 302, 326 and 324/149 – Acquittal – Appeal against – Free fight between two groups – All the injured prosecution witnesses except PW 1 turned hostile and did not support prosecution case – Injuries on person of accused including one accused having suffered grievous injury remained unexplained – No material to show what happened to counter case – Some material to show that it was prosecution party who came to shop of accused No.5 and was armed with deadly weapons – Acquittal order calls for no interference. (State Vs Unni) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 88 (Kant.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.147, 148, 149, 302, 506 – Appeal against conviction – Weapon of offence not recovered – Discrepancy between version of FIR and statement of witnesses – In FIR no specific role assigned to any of the accused – No inimical relations between deceased and accused which may lead them to commit murder – Complete chain of evidence missing – Conviction set aside. (Lallu @ Naresh & Anr. Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 255 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.147, 148, 302/149 and 307/149 – Conviction by trial Court –  High Court maintained conviction of one accused and that too u/s 326 IPC – Accused armed with deadly weapons sword, axe and lathis with an object to kill PW-1 chased deceased who tried to escape from house of PW-1 and assaulted him and committed his murder – PW-1 was then assaulted and his left arm severed and treating him dead ran away – Prosecution version amply established by evidence of eye witnesses – Nature of injuries, weapons used and manner of assault, all accused are liable in terms of S.149 IPC – Gruesome nature of attack demonstrated by injuries noticed on body of deceased – Conviction u/s 302/149 IPC recorded by trial Court should not have been disturbed and was liable to be restored – Offence u/s 307/149 is also liable to be restored. (State of Maharashtra Vs Kashirao & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 414 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.147, 148, 307, 364, 302/149 – Deceased alongwith son travelling in bus – Twelve accused came in car, got bus stopped and deceased forcibly taken in car – PW 1 son was inflicted injuries when he tried to resist – Motive was that accused had contested election against accused party – Next day body of deceased found with injuries and one hand severed – Conviction of A1 and A2 u/s 364 and 302 and A1 to A7 u/s 148 and A8 to A14 u/s 147 IPC – Appeal against – Contention that no evidence that A1 and A2 committed murder – A3 to A14 were acquitted in respect of abduction for reasons that there was no consistency in evidence of PW1 as against them but there was consistency in his evidence as against A1 and A2 – Once it is established that there was abduction of deceased by accused if deceased was found murdered within short time after abduction, irresistible presumption is that accused had murdered deceased – No interference with order of conviction. (Kumar @ Kumarasamy & Ors. Vs State) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 714 (Madras)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.147, 148, 323, 325 and 447 – Possession delivered in execution of Civil Court decree – Prosecution case of committing trespass over such land stands falsified – Even if injuries are caused then the same are in exercise of right of private defence qua their land – Acquittal calls for no interference. (State of H.P. Vs Amar Singh) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 159 (H.P.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.147, 149, 302 – Deceased first dragged and then thrown into well – Nothing to affect credibility of PWs 4, 8 and 10 – Delay of few hours in recording statements of witnesses no serious infirmity in prosecution case – Evidence of these witnesses wholly reliable – Accused not explaining incriminating circumstances but totally denying from them – Eye witnesses having no animosity against accused – Ocular evidence of P.Ws.4 and 6 corroborating PWs 8 and 12 as also other circumstances – Conviction upheld. (Bhanwari & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 114 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.147, 323, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 – Essential ingredients of offence u/s 147 completely missing – Prosecution case not inspiring any confidence in view of the fact that the complainant has neither sustained any injury nor specific overtact has been assigned to the petitioners – Proceedings quashed. (Ganpatlal & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 647 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.147, 302/149 – Murder – Eleven accused – Acquittal by trial Court – Conviction of six by High Court – Murder while deceased was grazing cattle in field – PW1 nephew and PW2 brother of deceased eye witnesses – Trail Court found presence of eye witnesses doubtful and noticing contradictions between ocular evidence and medical evidence acquitted all accused of offence – Conduct of PW1 hiding himself behind a tree and not joining PW2 and PW6 who were there in nearby field was unusual which creates doubt of his presence on spot – Material contradictions between evidence of these witnesses and medical evidence – Doubt in regard to place of incident as victim had sustained amputation of hand at wrist but no blood found on spot where body was found lying – Trial Court’s view that prosecution has not established guilt of accused beyond doubt was correct – Conviction of appellant set aside. (Ramsewak & Ors. Vs State of M.P.) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 354 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.147, 302/149 – Murder – Eleven accused – Acquittal by trial Court – Conviction of six by High Court – Murder while deceased was grazing cattle in field – PW1 nephew and PW2 brother of deceased eye witnesses – Trail Court found presence of eye witnesses doubtful and noticing contradictions between ocular evidence and medical evidence acquitted all accused of offence – Conduct of PW1 hiding himself behind a tree and not joining PW2 and PW6 who were there in nearby field was unusual which creates doubt of his presence on spot – Material contradictions between evidence of these witnesses and medical evidence – Doubt in regard to place of incident as victim had sustained amputation of hand at wrist but no blood found on spot where body was found lying – Trial Court’s view that prosecution has not established guilt of accused beyond doubt was correct – Conviction of appellant set aside. (Ramsewak & Ors. Vs State of M.P.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 100 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.148, 149, 302, 304 Part II, 323, 325, 449 – Mutual fight ensued between the parties – There was no common object – Ss.148 and 149 not attracted – Prosecution failed to establish charge u/ss 325, 323 and 449 IPC beyond reasonable doubt – Material contradictions in statements of prosecution witnesses – Conviction of ‘K’ altered from S.302 to that u/s 304 Part II – All others acquitted. (Kajod Singh & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 16 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.148, 149, 302, 304 Part II, 323 & 325 – Conviction of nine accused – Well in dispute and electricity motor lying therein belonged to accused – Complainant party was the aggressor – Accused also sustaining injuries and prosecution not explaining injuries on the person of accused – Genesis of incident rendered doubtful – Accused ‘H’ and ‘K’ held liable to be convicted u/s 304 Part II IPC and all other accused acquitted. (Jaleb Khan & Ors. Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 33 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.148, 149, 304 Part II, 325 – Appeal against conviction – Injuries by blunt object – Most of injuries simple – No grievous injury on vital part – Grievous injury only on legs or forearms – Death after 7 days – Conviction u/s 304 Part II not justified – PWs.2, 3 and 14 turning hostile – PWs 6 and 7 not present on spot but made as eye-witnesses but they did not intervene – FIR lodged after two days – Allegation in FIR that accused “U” had assaulted deceased with kulhari but no injury caused by sharp weapon found on body of deceased – PW 8 also not truthful witness – Dying declaration not genuine but manipulated by PW 12 – Investigation not impartial and amounted to misconduct on part of I.O. – Conviction set aside. (Dalu & Ors. Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 655 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.148, 149, 448/149, 364/149 and 302/149 – Appellant A1 with A2 and five others armed with knife and sticks entered the house of deceased, beat him and took him away in auto rickshaw and later dead body of deceased was found lying behind house of A1 – Trial Court found A1 and A2 having assaulted deceased and A1 was convicted u/s 302 IPC and A2 for other offences and A3 to A3 not identified by witnesses were acquitted – High Court upheld conviction – Sister of A1 and wife of deceased committed suicide 2/3 days before incident – PW2 mother of deceased, eye witnesses gave consistent evidence of incident – Evidence of eye witnesses cannot be rejected merely because they are related – Blood stained weapon of offence i.e. knife and wooden reaper recovered pursuant to confession of accused – Sequence shows that there was no delay in lodging FIR – Conviction not liable to be interfered. (Ravi Vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 679 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.148, 149, 448/149, 364/149 and 302/149 – Appellant A1 with A2 and five others armed with knife and sticks entered the house of deceased, beat him and took him away in auto rickshaw and later dead body of deceased was found lying behind house of A1 – Trial Court found A1 and A2 having assaulted deceased and A1 was convicted u/s 302 IPC and A2 for other offences and A3 to A3 not identified by witnesses were acquitted – High Court upheld conviction – Sister of A1 and wife of deceased committed suicide 2/3 days before incident – PW2 mother of deceased, eye witnesses gave consistent evidence of incident – Evidence of eye witnesses cannot be rejected merely because they are related – Blood stained weapon of offence i.e. knife and wooden reaper recovered pursuant to confession of accused – Sequence shows that there was no delay in lodging FIR – Conviction not liable to be interfered. (Ravi Vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 16 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.148, 302 r/w 149, 325 r/w 149, 323 r/w 452 r/w 149, 436 r/w 149 – Conviction of nine persons – Affirmed by High Court without reappraisal of evidence – Appeal to Supreme Court – Complainant party and accused party related but inimical – FIR lodged late though police station was nearby – Version of PW 2 found to be an improvement on the basis of medical evidence – Prosecution story found suppressed and unreliable – Injuries on person of accused serious in nature not explained – Prosecution has failed to establish its case – Appeal allowed. (Raghunath Vs State of Haryana & Ors.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 290 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.148, 304 Part I r/w S.149 – Deceased assaulted severely by five accused – PW3 who was accompanying him saw the occurrence – On hearing about assaults, informant, elder brother of deceased and PW2, wife of deceased went to he spot – FIR lodged immediately in which names of five accused indicated – High Court held that witnesses on whose evidence prosecution relied on were not truthful witnesses – Perusal of High Court’s judgment revealed that it was based more on surmises and conjectures – Some of the conclusions were contrary to record – No delay in lodging FIR – Judgment of acquittal recorded by High Court is not sustainable. (Chanakya Dhibar (Dead) Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 743 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.148, 342, 396, 397, 398, 458 – Conviction – Identification parade conducted after 29 days but same not fatal – Recovery and identification of ornaments proved – Accused Om Parkash came with pistol without concealing his identity – No explanation how accused came in possession of ornaments – Conviction sustained. (Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 254 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Applicability of the provision requires deep scrutiny and detailed and specific proof for holding that the accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly with a common object with particular reference to the part played by each of the accused persons who constituted the unlawful assembly. (Kailash Kumar @ Kalji & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 310 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Common object of an unlawful assembly can be gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms used by them and the behaviour of the assembly at or before scene of occurrence. (State of Rajasthan Vs Nathu & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 35 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Common object of unlawful assembly – Can be gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms used by them and the behaviour of the assembly at or before scene of occurrence. (State of U.P. Vs Kishan Chand & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 337 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Common object – Does not require prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack – An unlawful object can develop after the accused assembled – The existence of the common object of the unlawful assembly has to be ascertained in the facts and circumstances of each case.  (Oorkaval Perumal & Ors. Vs State rep. By Inspector of Police) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 180 (Madras)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Common object – Has to be distinguished from the common intention – There is no question of common intention in S.149 of the Code – When no injury is inflicted pursuant to the common object to kill the deceased, but caused only when provoked by one of the witnesses, the members of the unlawful assembly cannot be held guilty for the commission of the offence of murder. (Sukhan Raut & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 582 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Common object – Is different from common intention – In the former no prior consent is required, nor a prior meeting of minds before the attack would be required whereas an unlawful object can develop after the people get there and there need not be a prior meeting of minds. (Shri Gopal & Anr. Vs Subhash & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 37 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Common object – Is different from ‘common intention’ as it does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack – It is enough if each has the same object in view and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that object – ‘Common object’ of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language and utterances of the members composing it, the nature of arms carried, and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances – It may be gathered also from the course of conduct adopted by and behaviour of the members of the assembly at or before the actual conflict – What the common object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the behaviour of the members at or near the scene of the incident – It is not necessary under law that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common object, the same must be translated into action or be successful – An assembly which was not unlawful when it was assembled, may subsequently become unlawful – It is not necessary that the intention or the purpose, which is necessary to render an assembly an unlawful one comes into existence at the outset – Time of forming an unlawful intent is not material – An assembly which, at its commencement or even for some time thereafter, is lawful, may subsequently become unlawful – In other words it can develop during the course of incident at the spot co-instante. (Madan Singh Vs State of Bihar) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 283 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Common object – May be formed by express agreement after mutual consultation, but that is by no means always necessary – It may be formed at any stage by all or a few members of the assembly and the other members may just join and adopt it – Once formed, it need not continue to be the same – It may be modified or altered or abandoned at any stage. (Madan Singh Vs State of Bihar) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 283 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Common object – Mere presence in unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he is actuated by that – Object has to be common to persons who compose the assembly – Distinction between common object and common intention – Common object of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing it and from consideration of all the surrounding circumstances – It may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly – Determination of object of the unlawful assembly at a particular stage is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the behaviour of the members at or near the scene of the incident – Section 149 consists of two parts – Where offence was committed to accomplish the common object and that offence was such as members knew was likely to be committed – No overt role was ascribed to a specific accused would not mean non-application of S.149 IPC. (Bhargavan & Ors. Vs State of Kerala) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 63 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Common Object – Object means the purpose and design and in order to make it common it must be shared by all.  (Dani Singh & Ors.  Vs  State of Bihar ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Common object – Whenever any offence is found committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or when the members of that assembly knew that the offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of that abject then every person, who at the time of committing of that offence is a member of that group, will also be vicariously held liable and guilty of that offence. (Oorkaval Perumal & Ors. Vs State rep. By Inspector of Police) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 180 (Madras)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Identity of four out of presence of five persons established – S.149 is applicable – It is not required that all five persons must be identified – Requirement to establish is presence of five persons with a common intention of doing an act. (Ram Dular Rai & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 80 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – In case of a sudden mutual fight between the two parties, there can be no question of invoking the aid of Section 149 for the purpose of imposing constructive criminal liability on an accused – Accused in such a case can be convicted only for the injuries caused by him by his individual acts. (Budha @ Siris Kumar Bose & Ors. Vs State of Orissa) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 506 (Orissa) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Large number of persons present – In such a case, it is safe to convict only those persons against whom overt act is alleged with aid of S.149 IPC – This is a rule of caution and not rule of law. (Nagarjit Ahir etc. Vs State of Bihar) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 115 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – To attract the provision it is not necessary that an overact must be committed by all the accused persons – What is necessary is formation of an unlawful assembly and knowledge of the persons thereof about consequences arising from doing an act which amounts to offence. (Shri Gopal & Anr. Vs Subhash & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 37 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Unlawful Assembly –  Common object – Determination of common object – Object is entertained in human mind and it being a mental attitude no direct evidence can be available and like intention has to be gathered from act which person commits and result thereof – It can reasonably be collected from nature of assembly, arms it carries and behaviour at or before or after the scene of incident. (Dani Singh & Ors.  Vs  State of Bihar ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Unlawful Assembly – Common object – Common intention – Are different from each other – Distinction – Common object does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack – If five or more person with same object in view act as an assembly to achieve that object would attract section 149. (Dani Singh & Ors.  Vs  State of Bihar ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Unlawful Assembly – Common object – Formation – Can be formed at any stage by all or a few members of assembly and other members may just join or adopt – Once formed it need not continue to be the same – Effect of section 149 may be different on different members of the same assembly – It can develop during the course of incident at the spot eo instanti. (Dani Singh & Ors.  Vs  State of Bihar ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Unlawful Assembly – Common Object – If common object is not proved person cannot be convicted with the aid of section 149. (Dani Singh & Ors.  Vs  State of Bihar ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Unlawful assembly – Common object – It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that unless an overt act is proved against a person, who is alleged to be a member of unlawful assembly, it cannot be said that he is a member of such an assembly – The only thing required is that he should have understood that the assembly was unlawful and was likely to commit any of the acts which fall within the purview of S.141 – The word ‘object’ means the purpose or design and, in order to make it ‘common’, it must be shred by all. (Sunil Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 164 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Unlawful assembly – Common object – Mere presence of accused in unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by common object – Member of assembly should be aware of object and concur in it – For determining common object, conduct of each member of assembly before and at the time of attack and thereafter, motive for crime, weapons used are some of the relevant considerations – Offence would also fall within purview of provision if offence was such as members knew was likely to be committed. (State of Maharashtra Vs Kashirao & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 414 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Unlawful assembly – Common object – Mere presence in an unlawful assembly does not render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set out in section 141 – It is not necessary that common object may be formed by express agreement – It may be formed at any stage by all or a few members of the assembly and other members may just join and adopt it – Once formed, it need not continue to be the same – It may be modified or altered or abandoned at any stage. (Sunil Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 164 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Unlawful Assembly – Common object – Offence must be connected immediately with common object. (Dani Singh & Ors.  Vs  State of Bihar ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Unlawful Assembly – Common object – Presence – Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there is common  object and that object is one of those set out in section 141. (Dani Singh & Ors.  Vs  State of Bihar ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Unlawful assembly – Common object – Though no hard and fast rule can be laid down under the circumstances from which the common object can be culled out, it may reasonably be collected from the nature of the assembly, arms it carries and behaviour at or before or after the scene of incident. (Bikau Pandey & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 649 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Unlawful assembly – Common object was only to cause injuries and in course of incident one of accused inflicted knife blow which caused death of one of the victims – Only such accused for his individual act can be convicted for murder and rest of accused cannot be made liable with help of S.149 IPC. (Babukhan & Anr. Vs State of M.P.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 228 (M.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Unlawful assembly – Definite roles not ascribed to the accused – It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove which of the members of the unlawful assembly did which or what act – Mere presence in the unlawful assembly may fasten vicariously criminal liability u/s 149 IPC. (Chanakya Dhibar (Dead) Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 743 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Unlawful assembly – Evidence established that accused formed an unlawful assembly common object of which was to kill deceased – Acquittal of accused who actually fired shot at deceased, would not wipe out application of S.149 IPC. (Chanda & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 328 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Unlawful Assembly – How to ascertain formation of unlawful assembly – Question of fact – Depends on facts and circumstances of each case – Acts and language of members – Course of conduct of assembly – Nature of assembly – Arms carried by members – Behaviour of members at or near scene of the incident to be seen. (Dani Singh & Ors.  Vs  State of Bihar ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Unlawful assembly – If it had common object it is not necessary that all persons forming the unlawful assembly must be shown to have committed some overt act for the purposes of incurring the vicarious liability for the offence committed by a member of such unlawful assembly. (Sukhan Raut & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 582 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Unlawful assembly – It is not really necessary to determine as to which of the accused persons forming part of the unlawful assembly inflicted what particular or specific injury in the course of the occurrence – Actual conviction of less than five, or that, case projected certain one or more persons as having inflicted injury but the same could not be proved to have been committed by him or that such persons were acquitted for some reason or other does not in any manner prejudice the case of the prosecution or the liability of others who formed the unlawful assembly to be convicted for having carried out the object by merely being the members of the unlawful assembly, as long as the participation of others in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly remained sufficient substantiated.  (Chanda & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 328 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Unlawful assembly – Liability of other members – Rests upon the fact whether other members knew before hand that the offence actually committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object – Such knowledge may reasonably be collected from the nature of the assembly, arms or behaviour at or before the scene of action – If such knowledge may not reasonably be attributed to other members of the assembly, then their liability for the offence committed during the occurrence by a person who was not initially a member does not arise. (Budha @ Siris Kumar Bose & Ors. Vs State of Orissa) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 506 (Orissa) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Unlawful assembly – Liability of other members – Rests upon the fact whether other members knew before hand that the offence actually committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. (Sukhan Raut & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 582 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Unlawful assembly – Members of an unlawful assembly are vicariously liable where it is proved that the offence is committed in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly which the members of the unlawful assembly knew that such offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of the object of the unlawful assembly. (Sukhan Raut & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 582 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Unlawful assembly – Mere presence of an accused in unlawful assembly cannot render him liable unless there was common object and he was actuated by that common object – Where common object of an unlawful assembly is not proved, accused persons cannot be convicted with the help of S.149 IPC. (Chanakya Dhibar (Dead) Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 743 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Unlawful assembly – Murder by more than five persons – Definite roles not attributed to accused – Section 149 applies – Not necessary to prove which of the members of the unlawful assembly did which or what act. (Ram Dular Rai & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 80 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Unlawful assembly – Of less than five members – There can be unlawful assembly of less than five members if there is material to come to the conclusion that apart from those named accused there were also others who were unnamed but who were members of such assembly and shared the common object of that unlawful assembly. (Hamlet @ Sasi & Ors. Vs State of Kerala) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 333 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Unlawful Assembly – Overt act – Not necessary to prove a overt act against the accused – Accused being a member of unlawful assembly attracts conviction for acts of such unlawful assembly. (Dani Singh & Ors.  Vs  State of Bihar ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Unlawfully assembly – Once a person is found to be member of unlawful assembly and participates in commission of an offence in prosecution of common object of that unlawful assembly, he cannot escape liability by plea that he did not cause serious injury. (Rajendran & Anr. Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 186 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.149 – Vicarious liability of the members of unlawful assembly arises where the offence is committed by another member or members of unlawful assembly if the commission of such offence is the common object of that assembly or if the members of the unlawful assembly knew that the offence of the nature committed was likely to be committed though the common object may be something different. (Shiva Shankar Pandey & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 240 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.149, 34, 302 – Common object and common intention – Non availability of S.149 IPC is no bar in convicting accused under S.302 read with S.34 if the evidence discloses commission of an offence in furtherance of the common intention of all of them. (Chittarmal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 191 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.149, 34 – Common intention – Failure to charge the accused u/s 34, who stood charged u/s 149 IPC – Would not result in any prejudice to them – Accused could be convicted for major offence read with S.34 IPC. (Malhu Yadav Vs State of Bihar) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.149, 141 – Common object is different from common intention – Common object does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack – It is enough if each has the same object in view and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that object – ‘Common object’ of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing it, and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances – It may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly – What the common object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the behaviour of the members at or near the scene of the incident – It is not necessary that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common object, the same must be translated into action or be successful – An assembly which was not unlawful when it was assembled, may subsequently become unlawful – It is not necessary that the intention or the purpose, which is necessary to render an assembly an unlawful one comes into existence at the outset – Time of forming an unlawful intent is not material. (Chanda & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 328 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.149, 301 – PW1 was intended victim – All accused chased and assaulted deceased – It was a case of transfer malice – Accused are liable to be convicted u/s 302/149 IPC. (State of Maharashtra Vs Kashirao & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 414 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.149, 141 – Common object is different from common intention – Common object does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack – It is enough if each has the same object in view and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that object – ‘Common object’ of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing it, and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances – It may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly – What the common object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the behaviour of the members at or near the scene of the incident – It is not necessary that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common object, the same must be translated into action or be successful – An assembly which was not unlawful when it was assembled, may subsequently become unlawful – It is not necessary that the intention or the purpose, which is necessary to render an assembly an unlawful one comes into existence at the outset – Time of forming an unlawful intent is not material. (Ram Dular Rai & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 80 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.149, 302, 353, 326, 414, TADA Act, 1987, S.3(4)- Several persons present at the house of  accused – Huge arms and ammunition found – Raid by police – On seeing police party, firing at police started –  Counter firing causing death of a person – Held, S.149 rightly applied – Principles of invoking and application of the provision reiterated. (Madan Singh Vs State of Bihar) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 283 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.149, 141 – Common object is different from common intention – Common object does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack – It is enough if each has the same object in view and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that object – ‘Common object’ of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing it, and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances – It may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly – What the common object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the behaviour of the members at or near the scene of the incident – It is not necessary that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common object, the same must be translated into action or be successful – An assembly which was not unlawful when it was assembled, may subsequently become unlawful – It is not necessary that the intention or the purpose, which is necessary to render an assembly an unlawful one comes into existence at the outset – Time of forming an unlawful intent is not material. (Sunil Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 164 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.149, 302 – Murder – Common intention – Deceased caught the accused while committing theft of standing crop – Co-accused attacked the victim in order to secure release of accused – Not a case of pre-mediated murder – Common intention cannot be attributed to attract S.149 IPC – Accused to be convicted after adjudging guilt of each accused with reference to death of  victim. (Malhu Yadav Vs State of Bihar) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.149, 302 – Unlawful assembly – Common intention – Murder by four persons and others remained present with guns – Common intention attributed to all – Their actions preceding and succeeding the assault indicate the existence of a common intention to do an act as stipulated in S.149 IPC – Section 149 IPC applies. (Ram Dular Rai & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 80 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.149 and 302 – Common Object – Definite roles – Not necessary to attribute specific acts to each accused – Conviction to follow if accused is proved to be part of unlawful assembly. (Charan Singh & Ors.  Vs.  State of Uttar Pradesh ) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 564 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 533 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.149 and 302 – Common Object – Evidence – Proof – Direct evidence not available as it is entertained in human mind – Common object of unlawful assembly can be gathered from the nature of the assembly arms used by them and the behaviour of the assembly at or before the scene of occurrence – Has to be deduced from facts and circumstances of each case. (Charan Singh & Ors.  Vs.  State of Uttar Pradesh ) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 564 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 533 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.149 and 302 – Common Object – Unlawful Assembly – Expression ‘in prosecution of common object’ – Scope and Ambit – Must be strictly construed as equivalent to ‘in order to attain the common object’ – Must be immediately connected with the common object by virtue of the nature of the object. (Charan Singh & Ors.  Vs.  State of Uttar Pradesh ) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 564 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 533 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.149 and 302 – Unlawful Assembly – Presence – Liability – Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by the common object and that object is one of those mentioned in Section 141 – No conviction when common object is not proved. (Charan Singh & Ors.  Vs.  State of Uttar Pradesh ) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 564 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 533 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.161, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.300, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, S.5(1)(d) & 5(2) – Public servant – Corruption case – Acquittal due to invalid sanction for prosecution – Accused cannot be tried again after obtaining valid sanction – No one can be vexed twice for the same offence as it will be double jeopardy. (Bant Singh Vs The State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 348 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.161, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, 1947 : S.5(1)(d), –   Patwari – Receipt of illegal gratification of Rs.100/- –  Special Court acquitted but High Court reversed acquittal –  Stand of accused that he collected Rs.100/- as loan from complainant – Found reasonable by Special Court but not by High Court – Held, High Court was not justified in reversing the acquittal. (Punjabrao Vs State of Maharashtra)  2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 93 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.161, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 : S.5(1)(d) – Illegal gratification – Explanation for receipt of the alleged amount – Not disclosed to Investigating Officer at the time of seizure – By itself not sufficient to throw away the explanation offered by the accused. (Punjabrao Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 93 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.161, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 : S.5(1)(d) – Illegal gratification – Explanation for receipt of the alleged amount – Question to be considered is whether explanation can be said to have been established – Accused is not required to establish his defence by proving beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution, but can establish the same by preponderance of probability. (Punjabrao Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 93 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.171-E, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 – Charge framed u/s 171-E – No legal evidence on record to show that the petitioner has accepted any illegal gratification from any person with the object of inducing him to exercise his electoral right – Only evidence is that of co-accused which is not admissible in law – Continuing of proceedings will tantamount to abuse of process of law – Charge quashed. (Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 649 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.174, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.195 – Sub Inspector neither appeared nor produced case diary when so ordered by Magistrate – Magistrate took cognizance of offence u/s 174 IPC – As trial Court instead of filing a complaint took cognizance himself and that too, without affording opportunity to petitioner to show cause, as such order taking cognizance set aside. (Shiv Lal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 80 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.174 – Witness – Failing to appear inspite of bailable warrants – Witness could not appear due to his election duties – Absence not deliberate – Cognizance taken after more than 1-1/2 years from date of commission of offence – Error in counting limitation from date of complaint – Proceedings quashed. (Dr.Dhanroop Chand Mathur Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 166 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.182, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.195 – False complaint made to Superintendent of Police  who forwarded the complaint to SHO who registered FIR – On investigation complaint was found to be false – SHO filed complaint against accused – Held, it is the Superintendent of Police to whom false grievance is alleged to have been made by the accused who can file complaint and not the SHO. (Randhir Vs State of Haryana & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 648 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.182 – Lodging false report – FIR lodged – Police filed cancellation report after investigation – Police filing calendera for lodging false report – Petitioner thereafter filed application for taking cognizance alleging that cancellation report is wrong as no proper investigation was conducted by police – Said application allowed –  Calendera filed by police quashed as it cannot be said that the petitioner has lodged false FIR. (Sadhu Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 383 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.182, 192 – Age of prosecutrix mentioned as 18 years in an affidavit filed alongwith application for bail – In course of hearing prosecutrix mentioned her age 17 years and some months and not 18 years – Advocate proceeded against for advising her to state her age falsely – Held, if a person comes to swear an affidavit and wants to mention a particular fact the Counsel is not supposed to hold an enquiry regarding that fact and only thereafter help him swear an affidavit as the primary responsibility always remains upon the person who swear an affidavit – Proceedings quashed. (New Delhi Bar Association (Regd.) & Ors. Vs National Capital Territory of Delhi, Government of Delhi) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 428 (Delhi)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.191, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 – Complaint u/s 191 registered in 1983 and charge framed in 1993 – Recording of evidence not commenced even after lapse of 18 years – Proceedings in complaint case quashed. (Madhukar Vishwanath Sonawane Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 238 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.193, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.340 – False evidence given in Court – Complaint for perjury – To be lodged only in those cases where it appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely – There must be a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and the Court should be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge. (Badan Singh & Anr. Vs R.K.Sondhi & Anr.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 283 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.193, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.340 – False evidence given in Court – Court concerned has to record a finding that lodging of complaint is expedient in the interest of justice. (Badan Singh & Anr. Vs R.K.Sondhi & Anr.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 283 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.193, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482, Income Tax Act, S.276-C(1), 227 and 278-B – Income-tax return – Concealment of income – Penalty imposed and criminal complaint filed – Penalty quashed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on a finding that there is no concealment of income by the assessee – Prosecution cannot be sustained in view of the order passed by the Tribunal – Criminal proceedings quashed. (M/s Ajay Tent House & Ors. Vs Income Tax Officer) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 227 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.193 & 195, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.340, 195 – Perjury – Court cannot directly order prosecution – Court after holding preliminary inquiry if comes to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case and there is reasonable probability of conviction, should make a complaint in writing and forward to the first class Magistrate having jurisdiction. (Ram Kishore Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 195 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.197 – False death certificate – Issued by Sarpanch on  basis of certificate to same effect issued by prior Sarpanch – Accused cannot be said to be aware that he was issuing false certificate – Certificate issued in good faith – Conviction set aside. (Mangtu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 623 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.197 – Proof of facts necessary for convict u/s 197 are: (i) that the document in question purports to be a certificate; (ii) that such certificate is required by law to be given or signed, or that it related to some fact of which such certificate is by law admissible in evidence; (iii) that such certificate is false; (iv) that it is false in a material point; (v) that the accused issued or signed the same; (vi) that he, when doing so, knew or believed, such certificate to be false. (Mangtu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 623 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.198A, 147 and 323 r/w S.149, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Ss.3, 4 – Dowry demand – Mal-treatment – Demand of scooter, colour T.V. and VCR – This fact not disclosed in a subsequent petition filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. – Held, in absence of plausible explanation an inference can be drawn that since there was no demand of dowry items like colour T.V. etc. it was not so recited in the application for maintenance allowance. (State of U.P. Vs Sushil Kumar Jain) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 375 (Allahabad) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.198A, 147 and 323 r/w S.149, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Ss.3, 4 – Dowry demand – Mal-treatment – Place of occurrence – Alleged to be at Khatauli – However in a subsequent petition filed for reimbursement of price of gift items place of occurrence mentioned to be at Delhi – This clearly blasts the prosecution theory. (State of U.P. Vs Sushil Kumar Jain) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 375 (Allahabad) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.198A, 147 and 323 r/w S.149, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Ss.3, 4 – Dowry demand – Mal-treatment – Two letters showing that there were some other issues as bone of contention between wife and husband as well as his family – Dowry was manufactured – Husband and in-laws had suspicion upon chaste character of wife – Wife accused of being a bad character and even it was alleged that child in her womb was not that of her husband – It was on account of this allegation that she was even threatened of being divorced – Wife herself admitted that her husband had indicted her of unchaste character – It is thus evident that not dowry but suspected bad character of wife was the main cause of strained relationship. (State of U.P. Vs Sushil Kumar Jain) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 375 (Allahabad) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.201, 304-B, 498-A & Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, S.4 – Dowry death – Without waiting the arrival of the family members of the deceased dead body was cremated – Undue haste in which the dead body was consigned to flames indicates that accused caused disappearance of evidence of offence with the clear intention of screening himself from legal punishment – Accused rightly found guilty of offence u/s 201 IPC. (Bhagirathi Subudhi Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 60 (Ori.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.201 – Expression  “whoever causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear” includes the evidence as to by whom the offence was committed. (Himanshu Moorjani Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 401 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.201 – Husband and wife sleeping in the same room  but his sister sleeping in a separate room – Dead body of  wife found in the kitchen – Sister acquitted  under  section 302 IPC – No evidence that sister had knowledge of the dead body –  Conviction under section 201 set aside. (Sou.Vijaya @ Baby Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 714 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.201 – Ingredients of offence under Section 201 are (i) that an offence has been committed; (ii) that the accused knew or had reason to believe the commission of such an offence; (iii) that with such knowledge or belief he – (a) caused any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, or (b) gave any information relating to that offence which he then knew or believed to be false; (iv) that he did so as aforesaid with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. (Sou.Vijaya @ Baby Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 714 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.201 – Mere presence of accused at the house or at the cremation ground or their relationship with her husband – Do not attract the provision of S.201 IPC – It has to be proved that accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been committed and with the requisite knowledge and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment caused the evidence thereof to disappear or gave false information respecting such offence knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false. (Wattan Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 202 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.201 – To establish the charge under Section 201 IPC, it is essential to prove that an offence has been committed and mere suspicion that it has been committed is not sufficient. (Wattan Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 202 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.201 – Utmost important ingredient for applicability of the provision is that it must be actually proved that the principal offence is committed, the evidence of which the accused has been charged with causing disappearance and in absence thereof criminal liability under S.201 IPC is not attracted. (Nitin Jairam Gadkari Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 76(Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.201/34 – Murder – Causing disappearance of evidence – Appeal against conviction – No material on record to show that appellant or any one of them set fire to the dead body or the deceased – Conviction quashed. (Krushna Pradhan @ Krushna Chandra Pradhan & Ors. Vs State of Orissa) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 292 (Orissa)  

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.201, 302 – A3 found carrying dead body of a child who was murdered after kidnapping to appease deities for reward – Accused can be convicted u/s 302 – Life imprisonment awarded by setting aside death penalty. (Kalpana Mazumdar Vs State of Orissa) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 363 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.201 and 304-B – Dowry Death – Husband and his uncle cremated the dead body without informing relatives of wife and police, about the death – Uncle of the husband living nearby – Wife was not admitted in any hospital – Parents and police not informed – It shows that everything was done in clandestine and secret manner – Circumstances show that his uncle was party to secret disposal of dead body – Knowledge attributable – Conviction upheld. (Dhian Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 278 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.212, 216, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 –  Harbouring of offender –  Accused came to his house after committing an offence – Mother of accused not knowing the commission of offence by accused – No offence of harbouring of offender is made out. (Rajbala Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 537 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.217, 218, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.197 – FIR – Non registration by SHO – Offence u/s 217/218 IPC is not made out – Moreover SHO cannot be prosecuted without sanction from authority. (Vijay Kumar Vs Ramesh Kumar) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 636 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.220(3), Arms Act, 1959, S.27(3) – Accused firing at and killing deceased – Act is one punishable under IPC as well as Arms Act – He can be charged with and tried at one trial for each of such offence – To say that simultaneous trial for offences under IPC and Arms Act is not permissible – Is improper. (Surendra Singh Rautela Vs State of Bihar) AIR 2002 S.C. 260

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.228-A – Rape case – Judgment – In a judgment of rape case the name of the victim should not be indicated keeping in view the social object of preventing social victimization or ostracism of the victim. (State of Karnataka Vs Puttaraja) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 567 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.279, 304-A – Rash and negligent driving – Deceased was taking rest underneath the trolley when bus hit the tractor trolley and deceased came down under the tyre of trolley and died at the spot – Star witnesses did not say that accused was driving the bus rashly or negligently – I.O. not examined – Acquittal upheld. (State of Punjab Vs Balbir Singh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 396 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.279, 337, 338 and 304-A r/w Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Ss.134 and 187, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.378(1) and (3) – Rash and negligent driving – Vehicle driven at a speed of 60 kmph on a road of 24 feet width with footpath margin of 6 feet on either side inside town limit – Speed not reduced inspite of board put up at spot warning drivers that road curves to right with down gradient and advising them to go slow – Driver losing control over vehicle, dashing against two persons walking on katcha road on left side and thereafter veering to right side and toppling – Death of two passengers in vehicle and injuries to 13 others – Driver failed to exercise reasonable care and caution as against other users of road – Amounts to culpable negligence – Order of acquittal liable to be set aside. (State of Karnataka Vs Madivalappa Fakirappa Kodliwad) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 400 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.285, 286 & 304, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.227, 228 – Fire in laboratory and a worker working at Distillator machine died – Deceased had put oil in machine and there were fumes which were inflammable – Contention that allegations could attract offence of rash and negligent act u/s 304-A IPC – There was no fire extinguisher where explosive substances were stored and room in which distillation unit was installed was blocked by the unit – Word “Act” includes intentional doing as well intentional non-doing – Prima facie there was material against accused to frame charge u/s 304 IPC. (Narendra Vs State of Raj.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 294 (Raj.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.292 – Obscenity – Reasonable tolerance is main criteria which is to be considered in respect of obscenity. (Mamta Kulkarni Vs Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 505 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.292 & 293 – Accused gave an obscene book to a minor containing photographs in compromising position – It is an offence u/s 292 IPC. (Pawan Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 768 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.294, Cinematograph Act, 1952, S.7 – Screening obscene films – Offence u/s 294 IPC and S.7 of Cinematograph Act – Seizing and sealing theatre – Sealing and seizing the theatre is not authorised in law – At the stage of investigation Police do not have any power to seize the cinema theatre or projector – Writ petition allowed. (P.Kullaiah Swamy Vs Sub-Inspector of Police, Jammalamadugu Urban Police Station, Cuddapah) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 613 (A.P.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.294 – Cabaret dance – For applicability of the provision of S.294 IPC “annoyance to others” is a pre-requisite –  Issue of “obscenity or indecency per se” will not arise until and unless there is evidence on record to show that a person at a given time witnessing a particular obscene act was actually annoyed or not. (Narendra H.Khurana & Ors. Vs Commissioner of Police & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 453 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.294 – Cabaret dance – Portion of hotel earmarked for persons opting to pay a particular amount for viewing cabaret dance – Such portion of hotel does not cease to be public place merely because entry is restricted by purchase of tickets. (Narendra H.Khurana & Ors. Vs Commissioner of Police & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 453 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.299 and 300 – Culpable Homicide and Murder – Scope and Ambit – Culpable Homicide is genus and murder is specie – All murder is culpable Homicide but not vice versa – There are three degree of Culpable Homicide – First gravest form defined as murder in section 300 – Second degree is punishable under first part of section 304 – Third is punishable u/s 304 second part. (Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar  Vs  State of Maharashtra ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 782 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.299 and 300 – Culpable homicide and murder – Difference – Distinction lies between a bodily injury likely to cause death and a bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death – The difference between clause (b) of S.299 and clause (3) of S.300 is one of degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury – It is the degree of probability of death which determines whether a culpable homicide is of the gravest, medium or the lowest degree. (Chacko @ Aniyan Kunju & Ors. Vs State of Kerala) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 48 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.299 and 300 – Culpable Homicide and Murder – Scope and Ambit – Distinction between two. (Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar  Vs  State of Maharashtra ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 782 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300, Evidence Act, 1872, S.3 – Witness not disclosing fact for days – By itself not a ground to discard his evidence – Different persons react differently to a given situation – There is no rule of human reaction on basis of non-conformity wherewith piece of evidence may be discarded. (Jinnappa Pareesh Hulakund Vs State of Karnataka) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 95 (Kant.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300, Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.3, 45 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Enmity between two brothers over sharing of properties – Deceased present in house of accused at time of incident – Accused bringing gun and firing at deceased causing death – Theory of accidental fire in course of scuffle set up in defence – Not acceptable as trigger of gun was not of such nature as to go off accidentally as shown by ballistic experts – Hand wash of accused disclosing gun residues in his hands – Manner in which gun was used, nature of injury caused, part of body aimed at, distance from which shot was fired, are circumstances which point towards guilt of accused. (C.T.Ponnappa alias Chuppi Vs State) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 144 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300, Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.3, 134 – Sole eye witness who was accompanying deceased at time of incident –  Corroborated by evidence of doctor who had conducted autopsy and further corroborated by other witnesses – Conviction based on such evidence is to be held proper. (Jinnappa Pareesh Hulakund Vs State of Karnataka) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 95 (Kant.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300, Evidence Act, 1872, S.24 – Murder of wife – Extra judicial confession made orally to witness who lodged FIR – No mention of extra judicial confession in FIR by witness but disclosed by him subsequently in his deposition before Court – Non disclosure of extra judicial confession at earliest point of time casts serious doubt of credibility of witness – Such extra judicial confession, held, cannot, be acted upon without same being corroborated from independent source. (State by Madhugiri Police Vs Puttarnagappa) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 324 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300, Evidence Act, 1872, S.8 – Murder – By husband of his estranged wife who had left him and was living with her parents – Fact that deceased wife had some time before her death, had secured order for maintenance in her favour and that she had also filed complaint of offence of bigamy against her husband, establishes motive of husband to finish her off –  It is immaterial whether motive attributed to accused is too remote or inadequate to fix charge of murder when there is direct, clear and convincing evidence of crime. (Jinnappa Pareesh Hulakund Vs State of Karnataka) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 95 (Kant.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300, Evidence Act, 1872, S.300 – Murder – Dying declaration – Injuries caused could not have been caused by a single person – Overt act attributed to accused in dying declaration was only of slapping deceased – Dying declaration disregarded as regards other person named in declaration – Caste of accused given in dying declaration also wrong – Dying declaration could not be made sole basis of conviction. (Bhupan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) AIR 2002 S.C. 820

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300, Exception 4 – Help of exception can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender’s having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed – To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. (Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak Vs State of Gujarat) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 164 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300, Exception 4 – Help of exception can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender’s having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed – To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. (Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak Vs State of Gujarat) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 362 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, S.3 – Murder – Death of young housewife within her house – Medical evidence that death was homicidal and not suicidal – No evidence, either direct or circumstantial –  Suspicion, however, grave cannot be a substitute for proof through evidence beyond reasonable doubt which is requirement to sustain conviction – Held, in absence of such evidence, accused to be given benefit of doubt – Order of acquittal not to be interfered with. (State by Mico Layout Police Station Vs Devaraj alias Ramashankarappa) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 693 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, S.3 – Murder – Injuries suffered by accused on a vital part of the body – Injuries suffered serious and could not be self inflicted – Failure of prosecution to explain injuries – Plea of self defence not taken by accused – Held, omission on part of accused to take plea of self defence does not relieve burden of prosecution to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt and order of acquittal not to be interfered with. (State by Hukeri Police Vs Bhimraj Ramappa Naik) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 37 (Kant.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 – Absence of plea that case falls under any of the exceptions – Court can still record finding to that effect if there is material available on record to bring the offence under any of the exceptions to S.300 IPC. (Sukhwinder Singh Vs State of Sikkim) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 731 (Sikkim)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 – Allegation that husband on account of marital discord committed murder of wife by dousing her with petrol and setting her ablaze – Mother of deceased, eye witness, made material improvements in her evidence to prove her presence in house of deceased – Fact that said eye witness suffered no injury in process of protecting her daughter from burning to death, further enhances the suspicion as to her presence at time of incident – Except mother no other person had seen accused present at the scene of occurrence – No incriminating evidence such as material like burns or even soot from the burning of body to which accused must have suffered standing close, was noticed in the person or the clothes of accused – Mere fact that husband is not proved to be a good husband or father would not ipso facto lead to conclusion that he committed the murder – Conviction of accused not proper. (Hasan Murtza Vs State of Haryana) AIR 2002 S.C. 762

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 – Conviction – Appeal against – Accused gagged the mouth of her wife, tied her hands, poured kerosene and set her on fire – Deceased succumbed to burn injuries after 25 days – Court did not found any reason to disbelieve her statement made at hospital – Her statement to police treated as complaint and not as dying declaration – PWs 1 and 11 saw accused running away from scene of offence immediately after incident – Plea of alibi not proved by accused even by preponderance of probabilities –  Evidence of doctor coupled with evidence of PWs.1 and 11 prove conclusively that death is homicidal – No illegality in judgment of Courts below – Appeal dismissed. (Ameerjan Vs State of Karnataka) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 178 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 – Culpable homicide is murder if act which causes death is done with the intention of causing death or is done with the intention of causing a bodily injury and injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death – It is not necessary that the offender intended to cause death, so long as the death ensues from the intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. (Prakash Chand Vs State of H.P.) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 113 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 – Culpable homicide is murder when (a) that the act which causes death is done with the intention of causing death or is done with the intention of causing a bodily injury; and (b) that the injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death – It must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury which, in the ordinary course of nature, was sufficient to cause death. (Augustine Saldanha Vs State of Karnataka) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 746 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 – Evidence of a person that he rushed to the spot on learning from another person that accused had killed his wife with sharp weapon – Deposition of such witness is only hearsay evidence – Omission to examine persons said to be present on spot and eye-witnesses, not only deprives evidence of its corroborative material, but also gives ground to raise adverse presumption against prosecution – Accused, held, is entitled to benefit of doubt. (State by Madhugiri Police Vs Puttarnagappa) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 324 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Accused and deceased last seen together on the day of incident and that accused was seen running away from scene of offence –  No evidence that accused had weapon with him or that his clothes were bloodstained  or any other evidence that could link the accused with the offence – Sickle, alleged to be weapon of offence recovered but not at the instance of accused – None of these circumstances taken either singly or together, is sufficient – Several links in chain of circumstances missing – Order of acquittal confirmed. (State of Karnataka Vs Basappa Avvannappa Chigari) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 118 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 – Murder – Conviction can be based on mere recovery of sword at instance of accused when all other evidence produced by prosecution is disbelieved. (Bhupan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) AIR 2002 S.C. 820

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 – Murder or suicide – Accused strangulating his wife and hanging her dead body by plastic wire to give impression to be a case of suicide – Circumstantial evidence – Failure of accused to establish his claim of alibi – Strained relations between accused and deceased – His presence at place of occurrence at relevant time – In view of these circumstances which negate his innocence, conclusion arrived by trial Court that he is guilty of murder, is well founded. (Eswarappa alias Doopada Eswarappa Vs State of Karnataka) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 03 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 – Occular and medical evidence – Discrepancy – Eye witness stating that accused fired first at deceased and then at a witness – One ye witness further stating that deceased was hit at back of his head – Version given by eye witness not tallying with medical evidence – Discrepancy is minor – It is difficult to state exact location where the bullet hit when firing takes place all of a sudden – Such discrepancy on other hand lend assurance to credibility of evidence – Accused liable to be convicted. (Brij Lal Vs State of Haryana) AIR 2002 S.C. 291

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception 1 and Exception 4 – In both the exceptions there is absence of premeditation – However in case of Exception 1 there is only that heat of passion which clouds men’s sober reasons and urges them to deeds which they would not otherwise do – There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1 but the injury done is not the direct consequence of that provocation – In fact Exception 4 deals with cases in which notwithstanding that a blow may have been struck, or some provocation given in the origin of the dispute or in whatever way the quarrel may have originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties puts them in respect of guilty upon equal footing. (Sachchey Lal Tiwari Vs State of Uttar Pradesh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 321 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception 4  – Undue advantage – As used in the provision means ‘unfair advantage’. (Parkash Chand Vs State of H.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 190 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception 4 – Exception 4 is applicable if death is caused (1) without premeditation (2) in a sudden fight (3) without the offender’s having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner and (4) the fight must have been with the person killed – To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. (Sridhar Bhuyan Vs State of Orissa) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 324 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception 4 – Exception 4 is applicable if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender’s having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed – To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. (Sachchey Lal Tiwari Vs State of Uttar Pradesh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 321 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception 4 – Fight – Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down – A fight is a combat between two and more persons whether with or without weapons – It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel – It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. (Sridhar Bhuyan Vs State of Orissa) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 324 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception 4 – For applicability of Exception 4 it has to be established that the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. (Sridhar Bhuyan Vs State of Orissa) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 324 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception 4 – For applicability of the provision it has to be established that death was caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight: (c) without the offender’s having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner: and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed – To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. (Ghapoo Yadav & Ors. Vs State of M.P.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 671 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception 4 – For applicability of the provision it has to be established that death was caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight: (c) without the offender’s having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner: and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed – To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. (Ghapoo Yadav & Ors. Vs State of M.P.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 345 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception 4 – For applicability of the provision it has to be established that the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. (Sachchey Lal Tiwari Vs State of Uttar Pradesh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 321 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception 4 – For bringing in operation of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC it has to be established that the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. (Parkash Chand Vs State of H.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 190 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception 4 – Four requirements are to be satisfied to bring applicability of Exception 4 i.e. (1) It was a sudden fight; (2) There was no premeditation; (3) The Act was in a heat of passion; and (4) The assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. (Sukhdev Singh Vs Delhi State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 658 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception 4 – Gun shot from a distance of about 35 feet – Distance is always not determinative about the intention or knowledge of accused, the factual background has to be considered taking into account the nature of injuries sustained, the weapon used and such other relevant factors. (Prakash Chand Vs State of H.P.) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 113 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception 4 – Heat of passion – Requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down. (Parkash Chand Vs State of H.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 190 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception 4 – Murder – Applicability of Exception 4 of S.300 – Help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender’s having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusal manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed – To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. (Babulal Bhagwan Khandare Vs State of Maharashtra) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 503 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception 4 – Murder – Verbal exchange between accused and deceased which led to sudden fight – Accused gave blows on vital parts of unarmed persons with such brutality that their internal organs came out – Abdomen of two deceased ripped open – No material to suggest that accused apprehended danger of any kind – Exception 4 to S.300 IPC not applicable. (Babulal Bhagwan Khandare Vs State of Maharashtra) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 503 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception 4 – Provision is applicable if death is caused (1) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender’s having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed – To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned must be found. (Prakash Chand Vs State of H.P.) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 113 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception 4 – Quarrel between the deceased and accused – Verbal altercation took place between the accused and deceased as dog of accused had entered the kitchen of the deceased – Accused took out his gun and fired a shot from a distance of 35 feet and it hit on chest of deceased who died on spot – Distance is always not determinative about the intention or knowledge of accused – Factual background has to be considered taking into account the nature of injuries sustained, the weapon used and such other relevant factors – Proper conviction of accused would be u/s 304 Part I IPC and not u/s 302 IPC – Sentence of 10 years imprisonment awarded. (Prakash Chand Vs State of H.P.) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 113 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception 4 – Sudden fight – For applicability of Exception 4 it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation – It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner – Expression ‘undue advantage’ as used in the provision means ‘unfair advantage’. (Sridhar Bhuyan Vs State of Orissa) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 324 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception 4 – Sudden fight – Implies mutual provocation and blows on each side – Homicide committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed on one side. (Prakash Chand Vs State of H.P.) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 113 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception 4 – Sudden fight – Implies mutual provocation and blows on each side – Homicide then committed is not clearly traceable to unilateral provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed on one side – There is no previous deliberation or determination to fight – A fight suddenly takes place, for which both parties are more or less to be blamed – It may be that one of them starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own conduct it would not have taken the serious turn it did – There is then mutual provocation and aggravation, and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter. (Sachchey Lal Tiwari Vs State of Uttar Pradesh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 321 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception 4 – Sudden fight – Implies mutual provocation and blows on each side. (Parkash Chand Vs State of H.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 190 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception 4 – To attract Exception 4 of S.300 IPC,  number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. (Kozhi @ Karuppasamy Vs State) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 380 (Madras) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception 4 – To attract exception 4 of S.300 IPC four ingredients must be satisfied and they are as follows:- (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. (Kozhi @ Karuppasamy Vs State) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 380 (Madras) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception I – Accused fired a gun shot which hit  one PW and second shot hit the deceased who  collapsed – Accused was Personal Security Officer and he did not tell his master that gun went off accidentally – Held, that accused was the assailant and section 300 Exception I is not applicable. (Sukhdev Singh Vs Delhi State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 658 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception I – Grave and sudden provocation – Two questions which require affirmative answer are : (1) Would the reasonable man have lost his self-control and (2) Would he then have retaliated as the offender did? (Sukhdev Singh Vs Delhi State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 154 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception I – Grave and sudden provocation – Two questions which require affirmative answer are : (1) Would the reasonable man have lost his self-control and (2) Would he then have retaliated as the offender did? (Sukhdev Singh Vs Delhi State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 658 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception I and Sections 97 to 102 – Exchange of hot words between accused and deceased – Deceased attacked the accused and caused some minor injuries – Accused fired gun shot and killed the deceased – Trial Court rightly convicted the accused under section 302 IPC – High Court was not justified to alter the conviction to S.304 Part I IPC. (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Ramesh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 462 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exception I and Sections 97 to 102 – Murder – Right of private defence – Nothing is an offence which is done in exercise of the right of private defence – However expression ‘right of private defence’ is not defined – Whether in a particular set of circumstances, a person legitimately acted in the exercise of the right of private defence is a question of fact to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Ramesh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 462 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Exceptions – Grave and sudden provocation – Cause of quarrel is not relevant nor is it relevant who offered the provocation or started the fight. (Sukhdev Singh Vs Delhi State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 658 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Fourth Exception – Murder – Help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused  (a) without premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without offender’s having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner and; (d) the fight must have been with the person killed – To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients must be found. (Ravi Kumar Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 511 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.300 Thirdly – To bring a case under S.300 “Thirdly” prosecution must prove : First it must establish quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present – Secondly Nature of the injury must be proved – These are purely objective investigations – Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended – Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature – This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender. (Thangaiya Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 436 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.300, 149 – Murder – Lease land – Dispute leading to murder of Sarpanch and another in two separate incidents – Both murders committed by ten persons – First incident in agricultural field where many witnesses were present but only two relatives of deceased examined – Two accused armed with gun while others with gandasis caused injuries to deceased – Belied by medical evidence – In second incident which was sequel to first incident and happened within 10 minutes of first only 4 accused were alleged to have participated – No explanation as to whether other accused have gone – Recovery of gandasis from accused not proved – One gandasi injury on body of Sarpanch – Casts doubt about presence of all accused at place of incident – Some of accused held entitled to benefit of doubt. (Jassa Singh Vs State of Haryana) AIR 2002 S.C. 520

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.300, 201 – Murder and concealment of dead body – Deceased while returning back after completing funeral rituals of his mother attacked by accused persons armed with bhala – Persons accompanying deceased threatened by accused and deceased could not be saved – Accused thereafter took dead body of deceased in a boat and threw it in a river – Decomposed head and some bones recovered from the river – Clear and convincing evidence of prosecution witnesses to prove motive for crime – No infirmity found in investigation – Conviction u/s 302/34 and S.201 – No interference. (Hari Badan Rai & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 870 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.300, 302 – Accused armed with deadly weapons like axe, knife, sticks and stones assaulting unarmed person without any sudden or grave provocation and causing his death – Act amounts to murder. (Karbasappa & Ors. Vs State Through Narona Police Station) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 332 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.300, 302 & 304 – Murder – In course of quarrel between accused and deceased, accused asked his son to bring axe from house, and on getting axe in his hand, hit deceased indiscriminately on head and other vital parts of body, resulting in instant death of deceased – Act of accused is not one that was done on spur of moment with no premeditation – Act was done with intention to cause death of deceased – Conviction with sentence of life imprisonment, is proper. (Boraiah alias Pujari Boraiah Vs State ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 490 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.300, 304 Part II, Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.3 & 45 – Refusal to pay agreed commission – Accused picked up wooden reaper available on spot and hitting deceased on his ear, resulting in his death on way to hospital – Evidence of eye witnesses conclusive but medical evidence not so – Rejection of evidence of eye witnesses on ground that village in which incident took place had no electricity and that eye witnesses could not have seen the occurrence – Rejection of evidence on such ground not proper – Since incident happened on spur of moment and evidence on record sufficient to infer that accused intended to cause death or to cause such bodily injury which was likely to cause death, accused is held guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable u/s 304 Part II IPC. (State of Karnataka Vs Raju) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 254 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.300, 304 Part II and 326, Evidence Act, 1872, S.45 – Murder – Stab injuries – Failure of doctor who conducted post mortem to certify that injuries are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death – Conviction u/s 326 – Held, omission of doctor to give such certificate cannot be a ground for not forming its own opinion on basis of description of injuries given in medical report – However, in view of the fact that accused and others involved in brawl were under influence of alcohol and that overt act of accused was though with knowledge that stabbing is likely to cause death, but without intention to cause death – Proper conviction must be under S.304 Part II and not under S.326 of IPC. (State  Vs Gurappa alias Gurava) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 706 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.300, 304-A, 498-A and 34, Evidence Act, 1872, S.32 and 113-B – Dowry death – Charge of murder – Dying declaration – Recorded by police constable 12 days before death – No certificate from doctor regarding condition of patient to make such declaration – No explanation as to why declaration in form required under law could not be obtained – Such dying declaration cannot be relied upon – In absence of reliable evidence, accused, held, are entitled to benefit of doubt – Order of acquittal cannot be interfered with. (State  Vs Mallesha) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 522 (Kant.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.300, 307 – Two eye witnesses – One turned hostile – Evidence of one who was injured corporated by other prosecution witnesses and medical evidence – His testimony cannot be rejected merely because another inmate of the car who was also an eye witness to incident had not supported the prosecution case. (Surendra Singh Rautela Vs State of Bihar) AIR 2002 S.C. 260

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.300, 309, Evidence Act, 1872, S.45 – Death – Homicidal or suicidal – Dead body found hanging by plastic wire one end of which tied to roof of house – Two ligature marks on neck of dead body, one surrounding neck evidencing strangulation by rope or wire resulting in fracture of thyroid cartilage and instant death and other mark caused by hanging dead body by plastic wire – One mark ante mortem and other post mortem – Held, death was homicidal and not suicidal. (Eswarappa alias Doopada Eswarappa Vs State of Karnataka) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 03 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.300, 498-A and 34, Evidence Act, 1872, S.32 – Dying declaration – Declarant with burn injuries brought to hospital and at time of admission cause of burns recorded as “accidental” – Subsequent recording of dying declaration before 24 hours of death, implicating her husband and her mother-in-law as persons who set her on fire – Charges framed on basis of dying declaration – Dying declaration not containing doctor’s certificate that declarant was mentally fit and balanced to make such statement – Evidence of independent witnesses suggesting that declaration may not be true – Held, where evidentiary value of dying declaration has been watered down considerably, in absence of any other evidence to corroborate it, such dying declaration cannot be made sole basis of conviction. (State By Circle Police Inspector, Ranebennur Vs Basavaraj & Anr.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 192 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.300, Exception 4, 302, 304 Part II, Evidence Act, 1872, S.3 – Accused visiting house of deceased to demand return of money – Quarrel arose – In course of quarrel accused causing fatal injuries with knife on shoulder and neck of deceased – Knife not recovered – No material to show that accused brought knife along with him – Crime committed without premeditation – Act though done with knowledge that it was likely to cause death but without intention to cause death – Conviction altered from S.302 to S.304 Part II – Sentence reduced from life imprisonment to seven year RI and fine of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to daughter of deceased. (Prakash Vs State) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 37 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, 149 – Murder – Unlawful assembly – If death is caused in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly, it is not necessary to record a definite and specific finding as to which particular accused out of the members of the unlawful assembly caused the fatal injury – Once an unlawful assembly has come into existence then each member of the assembly becomes vicariously liable for the criminal act of any other member of the assembly committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. (State of Rajasthan Vs Nathu & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 35 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, 304 Part I – After a scuffle accused inflicted one knife blow on abdomen of deceased – Deceased died after three days of incident – Case falls under Exception 4 to S.300 IPC – Knife blow inflicted on vital organ showed accused had intention to kill accused – Offence falls u/s 304 Part I, IPC and not u/s 302 IPC – Sentence of 10 years awarded with fine. (Rajendrasinh Bahadursinh Zala Vs State of Gujarat) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 423 (Gujarat)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, 304 Part I – Dispute over irrigation of field – Deceased persisted in removing blockage of Nali – Appellant who was already having a pistol took it out and fired a shot – Injury caused on neck – No previous malice to suggest appellant had intention to commit murder – It was exchange of hot talks which infuriated appellant and immediately inspired him to open fire – Offence falls under Section 304 Part I IPC. (Sheo Chandra Singh Vs State of U.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 508 (Allahabad)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, 304 Part II, 324, 34 – Single knife below on abdomen of deceased – Accused after short scuffle at shop of deceased going home and coming back with knife – Deceased caught hold of co-accused – No premeditation – Co-accused sharing common intention to cause injury with sharp weapon – Accused convicted u/s 304 Part II – Co-accused convicted u/s 324 read with S.34 IPC. (Ajay Singh & Anr. Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 649 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Constitution  of India, 1950 – Article 72 and 161 –  Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 366 – Mercy Petition –  – Death Sentence – All  material  facts  including  mitigating factors not  placed  before Governor – Mercy petition rejected without there being proper consideration of all relevant factors – Governor was deprived of the opportunity to exercise his powers in a fair and just manner – Directions issued for  fresh consideration of mercy petition. (Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana  Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 720 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – S.154 – FIR – Delay in lodging – Conclusion of trial court that FIR was ante dated on the basis of evidence of PW who was illiterate and rustic lady – Minor variance in statement recorded long after occurrence – Not sufficient to conclude that FIR was ante dated. (Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.156 –  Murder of six persons – SSP alleged to be not conducting investigation fairly and thoroughly due to political influence – Allegation of involvement of Minister also – Investigation entrusted to Additional Director General of Police to instil confidence in minds of complainant party – In a case where six murders have taken place, the Police is duty bound to conduct the investigation in such a manner so as not to arouse any suspicion in the mind of the complainant party. (Nau Nihal Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 12 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.209 – Charge u/s 307 IPC – Death of victim after a month – Framing of charge u/s 302 IPC – Contention that death could not be said as a consequence of injuries caused – Held, cause of death can be determined on broad probabilities – Time gap between date of injuries and date of death is not material and what is material is the cause of death – Post-mortem report shows that seat of ante mortem injuries was the same as mentioned in injury report – No interference is called for. (Satish Rai & Anr. Vs State of U.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 432 (Allahabad)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.293(4) – Gun shot – Report of FSL signed by Junior Scientific Officer (Ballistic) – A Junior Scientific Officer is an officer enumerated in Section 293(4) – Court to accept the document without examining the author. (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Mast Ram) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 766 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.374 – Non appealing accused – Conviction of appealing accused unsustainable – Case of non appealing accused on same footing – Benefit of decision must be extended to non appealing accused inspite of fact that he had not challenged conviction which had attained finality. (Pawan Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.378 – Murder – Appeal against acquittal – Possibility of two views – Supreme Court not to interfere in decision of High Court unless decision of High Court found to be vitiated by perversity, wrong legal approach or non consideration of material evidence. (State of Maharashtra Vs Sanjay) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 603 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, S.12 – Juvenile – Aged 15 years – Girl aged 13 years set on fire as she refused to develop love affairs with him and have wrong things with him – Accused not involved in any other crime and residing with his family – His release will not bring him in bad company or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger – Merely because he is alleged to have committed a heinous crime, it cannot be said that his release will defeat the ends of justice –  Accused ordered to be released on bail. (Baljinder alias Bantu Vs U.T.Chandigarh) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 332 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 – Murder – Bail – Opinion of Board of Doctors that death caused by myocardial infraction and not on account of external injuries caused in the ordinary course of circumstances – Prima facie offence u/s 302 does not appear to have been made out – Even if there was common intention the same was to cause beating and not to cause death – Petitioners directed to be released on bail. (Robin Singh Vs State (NCT of Delhi)) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 897 (Delhi)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 – Name of petitioner (mother of accused) not in FIR – No other evidence to connect her with offence – Criminal proceedings against her quashed. (Rajbala Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 537 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.8, 21 & 27, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.154 – FIR lodged by accused himself and gave details as to how the incident in question took place – Trial Court held the part of facts disclosed in FIR as admissible and not confessional in nature and relying upon the same besides motive and other evidence convicted the accused – Held, the only admissible circumstances in FIR were the motive of the crime, relationship of accused with his sister PW 6, her presence in the house at the time of commission of crime and presence of blood stains on the clothes of accused seized by the police when accused had gone to lodge FIR – Rest of the contents of FIR being confessional in nature could not be used against the accused – In the circumstances conviction and sentence set aside. (Bandu Yedu Metkari Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 592 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Evidence Act, 1872, S.9 – Murder – Test identification parade – Accused named in FIR but PW did not name him before police – No test identification parade held – PW examined in Court after 2-1/2 years and identified the accused in Court – Held, accused cannot be convicted on belated identification. (Dana Yadav @ Dahu & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 706 (S.C.) : 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 145 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.24, 27 – Murder of wife – Conviction – Extra judicial confession – Father of the victim deposed that accused used to torture his daughter and despite his intervention accused did not mend his ways – His evidence corroborated by other witnesses – Statement in Court by three witnesses that the accused told each of them about killing his wife – They corroborated each other on material particulars – Recovery of iron bar at the instance of accused was yet another circumstance giving credence to the testimony of main witness – Conviction of accused, upheld. (Chindhu Salkaram Ladke Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 236 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.27, 8 – Missing report of Taxi driver – Taxi recovered in Punjab – Body of deceased found lying in a canal after about 1-1/2 months – At the instance of accused tyre lever, allegedly weapon of offence and some personal articles of deceased like one stereo speakers, towel, shawl, torch and seven cassettes recovered – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Circumstances from which guilt of accused is to be drawn should be proved by cogent evidence and circumstances so proved should form a complete chain to point to guilt of accused – Recovery of tyre lever not supported by two recovery witnesses – No evidence that tyre lever was used as weapon of offence – Trial Court erred in taking confessional statement of accused admissible beyond its admissibility u/s 27 Evidence Act – Trial Court also erred in holding confessional statement admissible u/s 8 of Evidence Act being previous and subsequent conduct – No satisfactory evidence regarding recovery of personal effects of deceased or that it really belonged to deceased – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Gurdev Singh Vs State of H.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 701 (H.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Evidence Act, 1872, S.30 – Murder – Extra judicial confession by accused that he alongwith co-accused committed murder – Accused subsequently absconded and declared PO – Extra juidcial confession made by accused cannot be admitted in evidence as he was not tried alongwith other co-accused – Extra judicial confession could have been taken into consideration only when that accused was tried alongwith co-accused. (Hardeep Singh Sohal Vs State of Punjab through CBI) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 255 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Evidence Act, 1872, S.32, Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Dying declaration – Conviction solely on that basis – Dying declaration before Judicial Magistrate – Statement of Magistrate that deceased was in fit condition to make statement – No certificate of doctor to this effect though he was available – Held, dying declaration could not be relied up – Conviction set aside. (Panchdeo Singh Vs State of Bihar) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 602 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Evidence Act, 1872, S.32 – Murder – Oral dying declaration – Circumstances shrouding dying declaration in mystery – Deceased after incident taken to private hospital – No record produced nor doctor examined even on fact whether deceased was conscious – Deceased shifted to other hospital and she died within 2-1/2 hours of occurrence – Medical record pertaining to that hospital also not produced and thus no evidence whether deceased was conscious or not – Conviction cannot be sustained and the same set aside. (G.M.Ravi @ G.Purushotham Vs State of A.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 84 (A.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.134, 3 – Two eye witnesses – One changed his version – Conviction rightly based on evidence of single witness who was found clear, cogent and trustworthy. (Sunil Kumar Vs The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 524 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, S.4 – Death sentence – Plea of accused that he was juvenile on the date of commission of offence entertained by Supreme Court for the first time. (Zakarius Lakra & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 137 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, Ss.20, 64 and 2(k), Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, S.3 – Juvenile – Murder – Accused at that time was above 16 years but below 18 years and thus was not a juvenile under old Act but came within definition of juvenile under New Act – Provisions of S.20 of new Act will apply – If Court finds that juvenile has committed an offence then instead of passing any sentence, he will be forwarded to Board which shall pass orders in accordance with provisions of new Act. (Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 272 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Juvenile Justice Act (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, S.4, Constitution of India, Article 32 – Death sentence – Review petition that accused was a juvenile on the date of commission of offence also dismissed by Supreme Court – Petition under article 32 of Constitution of India is not maintainable – Accused can file curative petition. (Zakarius Lakra & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 137 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, S.3 – Murder – Motive – By itself is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. (Hardeep Singh Sohal Vs State of Punjab through CBI) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 255 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, 1987, S.5 – Attack from a distance of 100 feet – Having regard to the topography of the area, it is highly doubtful if it was possible to identify the attackers. (Simon & Ors. Vs State of Karnataka) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 111 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Accused, 20 in number, way laid two deceased and assaulted them with stones picked up from way side – No evidence that any particular injury was intended which resulted in death – Accused however could be attributed with intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death – Conviction recorded u/s 304 Part I and sentence of 10 years imprisonment awarded. (Goura Venkata Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 112 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Accused a constable – Asked by his senior as to why he was absent from his place of duty – Accused killed his senior by SLR after 20 minutes – Deceased did not utter any humiliating or slang words to the deceased which could have constituted grave and sudden provocation – Accused cannot succeed in his plea that out of grave and sudden provocation he was deprived of self control and committed murder and that offence would fall under exception 1 to S.300 IPC. (Sukhwinder Singh Vs State of Sikkim) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 731 (Sikkim)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Accused abducted deceased who was travelling with his son PW 1 from a bus and committed murder – PW 1 was injured when he resisted – Evidence of PW 1 found consistence and acceptable – PW 2 to PW 4 and other eye witnesses turned hostile – Does not mean that evidence of PW 1 was to be rejected. (Kumar @ Kumarasamy & Ors. Vs State) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 714 (Madras)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Accused fired from his double barrel gun and killed deceased at the spot – Enmity between family members of complainant and accused due to litigation – PWs 1 and 2 eye witnesses to the occurrence – Trial Court accepted their version – Medical evidence at variance with ocular evidence regarding time of death not fatal – Medical science is not yet so perfect as to determine exact time of death – Defective investigation as gun not sent for forensic test not solely a ground for acquittal – Delay in lodging FIR explained – In infirmity in conclusions of Courts below in rejecting plea of alibi – No scope for reappraisal of evidence and interference with concurrent finding of facts – Conviction sustainable. (Ram Bali Vs State of Uttar Pradesh) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 590 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Accused not seen by PW1 inflicting sword blow on deceased – PW9 denying fact that he lodged FIR – Recovery of sheath of sword from house not belonging to accused – Sheath not proved to be connected with sword – Prosecution successful in establishing facts only of accused being present on spot with sword and blood stains on his clothes and deceased lying injured on ground – Deceased being wife of accused, facts established as above not sufficient to connect accused with crime – Conviction set aside. (Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 98 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Accused taking bullock cart through fields of deceased – Accused took out an axe from cart and hit deceased on occipital region which resulted in depressed fracture of skull bone – Testimony of two injured eye witnesses corroborated by other witnesses accepted – Conviction by High Court in an appeal against acquittal – Intention to kill deduced solely on basis of severity of injury inflicted with dangerous weapon – There was no premeditation or prearranged attack – After attack appellant himself offered beedi to victim  which shows that appellant did not reconcile himself to situation that had happened – Appellant cannot be imputed with intention to cause death – Doctor opined cause of death as injury to vital organ, brain and lungs – Only injury attributed to appellant was injury on occipital region – No evidence that head injury by itself has caused instantaneous death – Conviction converted to one u/s 304 Part II and sentence of 5 years imprisonment and fine of Rs.7,000/- awarded – Out of find Rs.6,000/- to be paid as compensation to wife. (Shivappa Buddappa Kolkar @ Buddappagol Vs State of Karnataka & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 389 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Acquittal – Appeal against – Charge of murder against husband – Evidence of last seen not clinching – Accused had fallen in love and had married the deceased against wishes of his parents – Accused had no motive to commit murder – Appeal dismissed. (State of Karnataka Vs M.V.Mahesh) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 33 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Appeal against acquittal – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – High Court found circumstances either not established or insufficient to prove the case – As to the most important circumstance namely the recovery of dead body at the instance of accused – Evidence on record discloses that a part of the dead body was exposed and had come out from the grave and was visible and secondly that even before the body was exhumed, a large number of persons had already collected there which itself establishes that the fact was known to everyone in the village and that body was not really got discovered at the instance of the accused – No reason to disturb the finding of High Court. (State of Kerala & Ors. Vs V.Baby) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 627 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 805 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Appeal against conviction – Evidence of PW1 clear, cogent and consistent – Appellant is the paternal uncle of the witness – No axe to grind against him – No enmity nor strained relations between him and his uncle – Testimony of PW1 found corroboration with testimony of P.W.7 – Evidence of PW3 with whom appellant made extra judicial confession found to be true and voluntary – No interference in order of conviction. (Amrush Barla Vs State of Orissa) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 717 (Orissa) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Appellant assaulted deceased while he was sleeping in verandah of his house – PW1 and PW3, hearing shouts for help came and saw appellant assaulting deceased – Incident took place at 4 a.m. and FIR lodged at 5.15 a.m. – Merely because PW3’s name did not figure in FIR case does not become suspicious – No discrepancy in medical evidence and ocular evidence except in respect of injury No.1 where there is some confusion and that did not dilute prosecution case – No interference with conviction. (Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak Vs State of Gujarat) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 362 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 164 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Appellant causing death of one ‘P’ due to strained relations – Incident witnessed by 3 eye witnesses – Medical evidence corroborating their testimony – Courts below finding appellant guilty u/s 302 IPC – Held, there is no reason to doubt veracity of any of the eye witnesses – Appeal dismissed. (Podapati Malakondaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 94 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Appreciation of evidence – Hospital record mentions that burn injuries  suffered in an accident – Accused present in the house – Did not attempt to extinguish the fire – Accused accompanying the deceased to the hospital – IO found a pump stove and a plastic kerosene tin and he did not notice any marks of burning on the floor of the room or cot inside the house – Food had also been prepared – In these circumstances, a case of stove burst must be ruled out – Conviction upheld. (B.Shashikala   Vs State of Andhra Pradesh ) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 96 (S.C.) : 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 604 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Assault by an axe – No injury inflicted on any vital part of body and none of the injuries individually was sufficient to cause death – Held, offence falls u/s 304 Part II and not u/s 302 IPC. (Kariya Vs State of Karnataka) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 38 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Assault by six persons armed with weapons, knife, rod and sticks – Oral dying declaration made to PW1 and second dying declaration recorded by doctor and three eye witnesses – PW1 not wholly reliable – FIR lodged by him mentioned dying declaration naming only accused A1 and A2 and one unidentified person as assailants – In trial he tried to implicate other accused also – In second dying declaration deceased named A1 and A2 and another unidentified person – Nature of injuries suffered by deceased were such that he would not have been conscious and in a condition to speak – Medical Officer admitted that deceased became unconscious immediately after making the dying declaration – Death was due to injuries to vital organs such as heart and left lung – Prosecution could not be said to have proved its charge and conviction was liable to be set aside. (Sabbita Satyavathi Vs Bandala Srinivasarao & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 134 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Circumstantial Evidence – Murder of wife – Accused and deceased living together – Ill treatment by accused proved – Motive proved – Nothing to show that outsider broke open house and murdered the deceased – Accused absconded and arrested after a week – Recovery of incriminating articles – Completes the chain of evidence – Conviction upheld. (Sardar Khan  Vs  State of Karnataka ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 676 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Circumstantial Evidence – To base conviction on circumstantial evidence prosecution must prove – a) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established – b) the circumstances should have tendency to unerringly point to the guilt towards the accused and – c) the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities the crime is committed by accused and none else. (Sardar Khan  Vs  State of Karnataka ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 676 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Co-accused persons acquitted of the charge u/s 302/149 except the appellant – Conviction of appellant in absence of separate charges – Illegal. (Prafulla @ Mangulu Pradhan Vs State of Orissa) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 642 (Orissa) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Conviction – Appeal – All eye witnesses turning hostile – Trial Court relied sole testimony of I.O. with regard to the seizure of knife from the appellant which contained blood stain which tallied with the blood group of the appellant to warrant conviction – Factum of seizure of weapon of offence from the possession of appellant disbelieved – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Prafulla @ Mangulu Pradhan Vs State of Orissa) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 642 (Orissa) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Conviction – Appeal – Independent witnesses available at the place of occurrence but prosecution examined two witnesses who are relative of deceased – On close scrutiny of testimony of relative witnesses the same not found to be trustworthy – Spot inspection made by I.O. but no blood stains found – No weapon of offence recovered from any of accused – Merely a knife was recovered from ‘Kala’ at the time of his surrender which has been rightly disbelieved by trial Court – In view of evidence broad probability arises that some accused who were not involved have been convicted and it is not possible to sift the grain from the chaff – Conviction set aside. (Hem Raj & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 553 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 618 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Conviction – Appeal against – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Appellant and co-accused hired taxi and reached hotel, stayed there over night and next day dead body of driver recovered in hotel room – PW-10 proved that both accused had hired taxi – Waiter boy of hotel who had seen last appellant and co-accused leaving hotel and telling that driver was in the room not examined and no explanation for not examining him – Entry in hotel register not proved to be in handwriting of accused – Letter written by appellant to his mother which was treated confession by Courts below not containing any such confession – Gold chain and ring allegedly belonging to deceased and recovered at instance of appellant not proved by cogent evidence that it did belong to deceased and there was no test identification parade – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Pawan Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 126 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Conviction – Appeal against – Extra judicial confession not received any corroboration – Evidence of P.W.1 not supported prosecution case – Prosecution failed to produce material to connect the appellant with crime – Appellant acquitted. (Natabar Aunria Vs State of Orissa) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 531 (Orissa) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Conviction – Appeal against – First version of incident coming from PW1 son of deceased and recorded by police but suppressed by prosecution – I.O. admitting having recovered incriminating articles from open place – PWs1 and PW4 not only changing manner of incident but also place of incident – PWs1 and PW4 stating that accused 3 & 14 gave lathi blows on deceased but same belied by medical evidence according to which there was no external injury on body of deceased except single injury on head – False statement of prosecution as to recovery of two blood stained lathis from accused – Nature of evidence doubtful – Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted. (Kevji Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 752 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Conviction – Appeal against – Testimony of a witness not to be rejected merely because his name is not mentioned in written report – PW 10 declared hostile but his testimony cannot be rejected totally merely on this ground – From evidence it is proved that accused B alone caused gandasa injuries to both deceased but no injuries caused by accused D and S – Injuries also sustained by accused D and B but same unexplained – Dispute arising when each party insisted on watering his own field first from canal water – Both parties retreating but coming again after some time with lathies and gandasis – Injuries on both deceased sufficient in ordinary course to cause death – Accused D and S not liable to be convicted u/ss 34, 302 in case of free fight – Deceased B alone liable to be convicted u/s 302 IPC. (Dhanraj & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 90 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Conviction – Circumstantial evidence – Injuries by sharp weapon – PWs 2 and 3 hostile and PW 4 not independent witness – Recovery of clothes worn by deceased and accused containing blood of same group as that of deceased – Recovery of blood stained kassi proved by PW 5 and he being brother of deceased is immaterial – Motive between accused and deceased as to whether live independently or together – Chain of circumstances complete and corroborated by medical evidence – Plea that blood appeared on clothes of accused while embracing dead bodies rightly rejected – Case proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction sustained. (Prithviraj Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 111 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Conviction – Initial case of prosecution that injuries on deceased were caused by knife but theory subsequently changed – Appellant not named in FIR nor deceased shown to be alive or talking with informant – Information that there were more than one accused who went away after scaling boundary wall – Police recording site plan as ‘mulziman’ – Appellant arrested after one month – Witnesses making improvements and embellishments at trial – Appellant acquitted on benefit of doubt. (Gopal Nai Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 482 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Conviction by trial Court and acquittal by High Court – State appeal – No embargo on appellate Court reviewing evidence – Paramount consideration of Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. (State of Punjab Vs Karnail Singh) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 298 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 519 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Conviction of two out of eight accused – Conviction of those two accused set aside by High Court on a view that evidence of eye witnesses did not appear to be reliable in as much as two of the accused against whom overt acts were alleged were not even named in FIR and High Court did not rely on sole eye witness-informant when other eye witness was not examined – View taken by High Court a possible reasonable view on evidence on record – No reason to interfere in appeal against acquittal. (Ayodhya Singh Vs State of Bihar & Ors.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 22 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Conviction u/s 302 – Several infirmities in prosecution case – Testimony of PWs 6, 7, 8 & 12 not reliable – Accused stayed at place of incident for few seconds and it is not possible for witnesses to have seen accused – Case not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside. (Mohd.Naseem Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 262 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Culpable homicide does not amount to murder when (a) Without premeditation in a sudden fight; (b) in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel; (c) Offender has not taken undue advantage; and (d) Offender has not acted in a cruel and unusual manner. (Krushna Naik Vs State of Orissa) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 465 (Orissa)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Custodial death – Police taking a person in custody – Thereafter his dead body found at another place – Police failing to explain as to how, where and in what manner deceased parted company with them – Guilty Police Officials convicted u/s 302 IPC. (Sahadevan @ Sagadevan Vs State) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 68 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Dead body found in jungle with stab injuries – Circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory – Absconding of appellant – Circumstance of appellant absconding was a weak link in the chain – Unsatisfactory evidence on the circumstance of deceased last seen in company of appellant – Motive also not proved by cogent evidence except statement of father of deceased that deceased had pledged gold ornaments of his sister with accused for Rs.1500/- and despite payment of loan ornaments were not returned – No attempt made during investigation to recover ornaments – Prosecution cannot be said to have proved guilt of appellant. (Panchu @ Panchanan Mohapatra Vs State of Orissa)  2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 139 (Orissa) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Deadly blow on head of deceased with full knowledge that blow on head might in the ordinary course of nature, result in death – Conviction u/s 302 IPC, upheld. (Krushna Naik Vs State of Orissa) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 465 (Orissa)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Death by burning by mother-in-law – Total burns 65% – Smell of kerosene present by dry heat – Burns self sufficient to cause death in ordinary course – Parcha bayan recorded by DSP in presence of lady doctor on out door duty –  Dying declaration later recorded by Magistrate after certificate of fitness of deceased given – Certificate of fitness given on separate sheet and not on dying declaration – Bit of discrepancy as to time of incident not material – No one other than mother-in-law implicated by deceased who had ample opportunity to identify accused – Harassment due to desire of dowry – Fact whether deceased was burnt in room of first floor or in chowk makes no difference – Dying declaration wholly reliable – No interference in order of conviction. (Mst.Amina Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 436 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Death by pressing neck of 19 years boy – PW 1 sister of deceased and PW2 claimed to be eye witnesses – Conviction affirmed in appeal by High Court – Dead body of deceased lying in house of appellant – It is a strong circumstance which supported prosecution case – Some omissions in evidence of eye witnesses but being immaterial and insignificant details – Not materially affect prosecution case – Testimony of PW1 corroborated by FIR and medical report – Evidence of doctor did not support theory of suicide – Conviction cannot be interfered with. (Lal Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 347 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Death of married lady from burns caused by igniting kerosene poured on her – Grand mother of accused present near scene of occurrence but not produced – Other lady inmates of house PWs 4 to 6 not supporting prosecution case  – Dying declaration recorded in chaste Hindi whereas deceased could speak only Marwari – Deceased a patient of tuberculosis and divorced – Deceased not found to be pregnant as she alleged in her dying declaration – Other inconsistencies in dying declaration – Conviction merely on basis of dying declarations not safe when it not containing straight truth – Allegation of beating given to deceased belied as no injuries found on body of deceased – No corroboration of statement of deceased from evidence of witnesses – Conviction set aside. (Yusuf Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 537 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Death of young married girl at her in-laws house – Deceased coming to marital home on 26th and died on 28th – Defence of suicide – Changed over to fact of two boys coming to deceased and staying with her for 45 minutes – Deceased pregnant – Death by strangulation – Belt used for strangulation recovered at instance of accused – Deceased last seen alive with accused – Plea of alibi found false as on day of incident appellant had reached his shop at 1.30 p.m. – Impression of accused that deceased was pregnant since prior to marriage made him to commit offence – Chain of circumstances against accused complete – Conviction sustained. (Balwant Singh Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 789 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Death on single blow on head with full knowledge that blow on head might in the ordinary course of nature, result in death – Death penalty – Act of accused is cruel but it is not rarest of rare types of murder – Death sentence modified to imprisonment for life. (Krushna Naik Vs State of Orissa) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 465 (Orissa)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Death sentence – Imposition of punishment for life is the rule – Awarding of death sentence is exception – Case not rarest of rare – Death sentence converted to life imprisonment. (Sardar Khan  Vs  State of Karnataka ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 676 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Death sentence – Murder of three members of family by domestic servant and attempt to murder wife of his master – Death sentence – Held, it is rare of rarest case – Death penalty needs no interference. (Om Prakash @ Raja Vs State of Uttaranchal) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 53 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Death sentence – Murder of wife and 1-1/2 years child – Appellant had earlier committed murder of his first wife and was convicted – While on parole appellant committed another murder – Murder of defenceless child of 1-1/2 years, murder with jambia, a hunting knife used for attack, not ordinarily available in a house and murder committed when victims were helpless and asleep – Appellant’s case bristles with special circumstances requisite for imposition of death penalty. (Saibanna Vs State of Karnataka) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 705 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 667 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Death sentence – Offence of kidnapping, rape and murder of minor girl – At the time of offence accused was 36 years of age and he was not involved in any other criminal case previously – Accused was a migrant labour and living in impecunious circumstances – Case does not fall within category of rarest of rare case – Sentence of death commuted to life imprisonment. (Surendra Pal Shivbalakpal Vs State of Gujarat) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 809 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Death sentence – Reducing it to life imprisonment – If death sentence is hanging on the head of the accused for an agonisingly long time, it is a fit case to convert it to imprisonment for life. (Om Prakash Vs State of U.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 497 (Allahabad) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Death sentence – Reducing it to life imprisonment – If the offender suffers from socio-compulsion and other general social pressures it would be adequate ground for downgrading the sentence from death to life. (Om Prakash Vs State of U.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 497 (Allahabad) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Death sentence – Sentence of death is awarded in a case in which act is very brutal and highly repugnant in moral – Appellant killed brother of informant on the day of Assembly election by causing firearm shot – Case does not fall in rarest of rare category – Death penalty is liable to be converted to life imprisonment. (Binod Prasad Vs State of Bihar) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 640 (Patna)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Error in charge – Murder by a number of persons – Accused charged u/s 302 IPC –  Evidence showed that all the accused had common intention – All the accused convicted under S.302 with aid of S.34 IPC even though no charge was framed under S.34 IPC. (Lallan Rai & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 438 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 48 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Evidence of a close relative and an interested witness and evidence of I.O. which is full of contradictions cannot be relied upon to base a conviction. (Suresh Chaudhary etc. Vs State of Bihar) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 584 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 515 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Evidence of eye witness, a close relative of the victim who was still alive when he noticed that he was assaulted by the accused – Did not take him to hospital and went to his office and then to his house – Did not inform the police or any of the relatives or any body else – Not explained how the police came to know that  he had seen the incident and recorded his statement – Held  no reliance could be placed on his evidence in view of his conduct. (Maruti Rama Naik  Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 584 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Evidence of eye witness unimpeachable and trust worthy – Appellant failed to explain how his wearing apparel contained blood group of the deceased – Appellant also failed to explain as to how the death of deceased took place after he was in their company – All the circumstances unfallingly and unerringly point out the guilt of the appellants – No interference in the order of conviction. (Ramia Gaudo & Anr. Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 402 (ORISSA) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Evidence of sole eye witness coupled with the evidence of I.O. and medical officer unerringly pointing to the guilt of accused – Intention to cause death proved – Impugned order of conviction and sentence not to be interfered with. (Kanista Barik Vs State of Orissa) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 148 (Ori.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Grave doubt on the presence of two eye witnesses at the place of incident so as to have witnessed the incident – Conviction which rests of the testimony of the two witnesses cannot be sustained. (Baldev Singh & Anr. Vs State of M.P.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 460 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 533 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Gun shot – Accused challenged the deceased and thereafter fired at him –  It is but quite natural that the deceased when challenged would have reacted by raising his hands either in defence or in accepting the challenge and in the process he would have sustained injury – The reaction of the deceased in raising his hands, in such circumstances, would be in tune and in consonance with the natural human behaviour in ordinary circumstances –  There is no set of rule that one must react in a particular way –  The natural reaction of man is unpredictable –  Every one reacts in his own way –  Such natural human behaviour is difficult to be proved by credible evidence – It has to be appreciated in the context of given facts and circumstances of each case. (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Mast Ram) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 766 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Gun shot – Appeal against conviction – Deceased was alleged to have disclosed name of appellant as assailant to his father who inquired from deceased but witness did not divulge name of assailants to villagers who had collected there – PW 4 claimed to be an eye witness but no evidence that there was light for this witness to identify appellant in that dark night from distance – Where testimony of witnesses is clouded with grave suspicion and discrepancy in material particulars, conviction would not be safe – Another witness on whose information father of deceased had lodged report was not examined – Oral dying declaration not acceptable – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Natha Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 26 (M.P.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – High Court altered conviction u/s 304 Part II IPC and imposed sentence for period already undergone without even noticing what was period already undergone – Discretion in matter of sentence is not whimsical and is controlled by law and by judicial discretion. (State of Rajasthan Vs Dhool Singh) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 40 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Injuries to the accused – Non explanation – Effect – It is not required to reject each and every case where prosecution fails to explain injuries to the accused – It will depend on facts and circumstance of each case – Where injuries are minor and superficial or where evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy that it overweighs the effect of non explanation – Non explanation would not be fatal. (Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Medical evidence and ocular evidence – Death by gunshot – Prosecution version that gun shot was fired from some distance – Medical evidence that injuries indicated marks of tattooing and scorching which were possible only when gunshot was made from a close range – Accused acquitted. (Suchand Pal Vs Phani Pal & Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 292 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Medical evidence and ocular evidence – Prosecution version that murder was committed shortly after the deceased had taken his meal – Medical evidence that stomach was empty – Prosecution failed to clarify the discrepancy – Time of death was a material factor to verify presence of eye witness – Conviction set aside. (Moti etc. Vs State of U.P.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 708 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Medical evidence and ocular evidence – Where eye witnesses account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. (Krishnan & Anr. Vs State Rep. By Inspector of Police) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 281 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 181 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Mother-in-law – Conviction on basis of dying declaration – Report relating to occurrence lodged after one year of occurrence – Dying declaration alleged to be made to mother and second dying declaration recorded by Head Constable after deceased was brought to hospital – Deceased stated that she had been forced to take poison – No evidence that mother-in-law had any motive to cause death – Witnesses for the first time after one year of occurrence mentioned about first dying declaration after report of FSL has become available – In second dying declaration recorded by Head Constable time not mentioned – Deceased brought to hospital at 7.30 P.M. and she breathed her last at 9.50 P.M. – Deceased died within 5-10 minutes of his recording dying declaration – Despite opportunity no attempt made to call Magistrate to record statement – No documentary evidence produced to substantiate doctor’s claim that he declared condition of deceased – Serious doubt appears as to whether dying declaration was infact recorded – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Meera Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 52 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – A1, A2 & A5 convicted for murder – A5 caught hold of the hands of deceased as he was beating his daughters, A1 and A2 caused his instantaneous death by stabbing him on his chest, abdomen and thigh – It is proved by eye witnesses to the occurrence – Corroboration in evidence of all eye-witnesses in all material aspects – However, no overt act attributed to A5 – A5 never shared any common intention to kill the deceased – A5 caught hold of hands of deceased so as to rescue his daughters from the clutches of deceased when he was beating them – There was no meeting of minds among A1, A2 and A5 – A5 had no role to play in the death of deceased – A5 acquitted of all charges and conviction of A1 and A2 confirmed. (S.Srinivasa Chary @ Srinu & Ors. Vs State of A.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 482 (A.P) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Accused armed with deadly weapons – Eye witnesses not coming forward for rescue – Not a ground to discard their evidence – Instinct of self preservation can be the dominant instinct. (Sucha Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 641 (S.C.) : 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Accused tied sari around neck and tightened when prosecutrix tried to shout as attempt for rape was made – Post mortem report showed that doctor found difficult to ascertain cause of death – Though there was ligature marks around neck but there was no corresponding damage to internal area – Doctor could not conclusively indicate death due to strangulation – Acquittal could not be interfered with. (State of Karnataka Vs Shiva Putrappa) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 490 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Acid thrown by accused – 60% burn injuries – Death due to septicaemia – Argument that due to improper treatment deceased developed septicaemia which caused death cannot be accepted – Where death is caused by bodily injury the persona who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by restoring to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented – Life sentence justified. (Veerla Satyanarayana Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 278 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Acquittal of seven accused – Conviction of 8th accused on same evidence set aside. (Narain Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 460 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – All witnesses turned hostile – PWs 1, 3 & 6 denied of having seen accused with hammer – PW 1 stating that he did not see accused in his house either in morning or in evening – As per PW 3 accused was brought from his village by police – FIR alleged to be dictated by police officer to scribe – Absence of evidence as to motive to kill wife on doubt of her infidelity – I.O. failing to ascertain whether accused was at his place of posting on day of incident – Recovery of hammer denied by PWs 12 & 13 – FSL report not tendered in evidence – Recovery alone is not sufficient to sustain conviction – Conviction set aside. (Lekha Ram Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 657 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Appeal against conviction – Assault by lathis – Two eye witnesses turned hostile but conviction recorded on statement of informant to whom eye witnesses had narrated incident and oral dying declaration – Medical evidence silent as to whether in the situation and in face of such injuries, deceased was in a condition to speak or not – Independent witnesses not supporting factum of dying declaration – Informant son of deceased who spoke about dying declaration had motive to implicate accused – Eye witnesses turned hostile – Trial Court erred in holding dying declaration reliable – Conviction could not be sustained. (Birsa Munda & Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 619 (Jharkhand) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Blood on iron rod and cement found to be human blood – Petticoat, blouse and saree of deceased also stained with human blood – PWs 1 and 2 stating that at the time of arrest accused had iron rod in his hand – PW 5 saw incident from distance of 12 feet – Statement of PW 5 corroborated by statement of PW 4 – PW5 found to be honest and truthful – PWs 4 to 6 found to be eyewitnesses and testimony of all these witnesses corroborated by medical evidence – Discrepancies in statement of PW4 only minor and natural – No reason to dissent with finding that accused committed offence – Conviction not open to interference. (Bhapa Ram Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 407 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Both parties came prepared to fight and indulged in free fight – One of the accused did not fire at any one with a view to cause injuries – But had fired at wall and at cow dung heap only with a view to scare away the members of prosecution party – Another accused also did not cause injury to anyone though he was armed with “dang” – Both accused not liable to be convicted.  (Kewal Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 160 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Place of occurrence – Consistent evidence that murder took place in room No.7 of hotel – Room whether on first floor or second floor as it came in evidence of witnesses is not really material – PW2 witness of extra judicial confession was reliable – Non mention of confession by PW2 when he telephoned owner of hotel PW3 or PW3 contacted police on phone not a factor which cast a reasonable doubt on version of PW2 – Last seen evidence could not be disbelieved only if hotel register was not produced – Non explanation of some minor injuries on the person of accused could not be a ground to discard prosecution case when accused had not set up any plea of self defence or any other plausible explanation for unnatural death of deceased – Approach of High Court perverse – Judgment of acquittal set aside  and conviction recorded by trial Court restored. (State of Karnataka Vs M.N.Ramdas) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 587 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Cause of death – When doctor not certain – Held, where a doctor conducting post-mortem examination would not be certain with regard to the cause of death and there have been no other connecting link placed by the circumstances, it would be hazardous to convict the appellants for causing death of the victim. (Babu @ Lingaraj Mahakul @ Mahakud & Ors. Vs State of Orissa) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 664 (Orissa) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Chance witness – Conviction based on testimony of sole eye witness who was a chance witness – His presence at the place of incident highly doubtful – His conduct too unnatural in not informing anyone else in the village – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Shankarlal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 207 (S.C.) : 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 578 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Accused acquitted as (1) Prosecution version that accused gave head injury with axe and dragged the dead body and threw it in a well but no trail of blood found from house to well; (2) Recovery of blood stained clothes, but no evidence that clothes belonged to accused and none else; (3) Recovery of axe not believed. (State of Karnataka Vs M.V.Manjunathegowda & Anr.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 543 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – All three circumstances that accused had suspicion of relations of his wife with his brother, that just after incident appellant was seen running and that deceased orally stated that he was burnt by accused – Not established on strength of evidence – Conviction set aside. (Satya Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 233 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Circumstances brought by prosecution were motive, conduct of accused immediately before and after incident, extra judicial confession and discovery of blood stained articles and blood in nail cuttings of accused – Extra judicial confession made to an old class mate – It was not impossible for accused to have reposed confidence in him – Post mortem proved homicidal death though accused pleaded death due to accident by fall in a well – Held, conviction was well merited. (Vilas Pandurang Patil Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 43 (S.C.) : 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 485 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Murder of wife and minor daughter – A day prior to incident accused bringing wife and daughter from his in-laws – Wife and daughter not seen alive thereafter – Dead bodies found in sand dunes – Blood stains on clothes of accused remain unexplained – Recovery of blood stained knife at instance of accused from a shrub – Extra judicial confession before P.W.2 – Motive for murder suspected fidelity of wife – Held, chain of circumstances proved against accused – Conviction upheld. (Magne Khan Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 545 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also – However, inference of guilt can be justified only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with innocence of accused or guilt of any other person. (State of Rajasthan Vs Rajaram) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 398 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Conviction – Appeal against – No discrepancy between eye witnesses and medical evidence – Injuries caused by sharp weapon – It is immaterial whether weapon had one or both sides sharp – Witness present at shop examined – Presence of PWs 5 and 11 on spot fully established and it is immaterial that these witnesses are sons of deceased when evidence of both finds corroboration from medical evidence – Conviction sustained. (Krishan Kant Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 715 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Conviction – Evidence of wife that appellant left the house holding khukhri after deceased having come to house of accused had left – Recovery of blood stained khukhri at instance of accused – Seizure panchnama not showing that spot from where weapon was concealed was within the exclusive knowledge of accused – No mention in panchnama about presence of blood stains on weapon or that it was wrapped & sealed on spot – 9 days delay in recovery of weapon – Testimony of sole eye witness found doubtful as there was unexplained delay of six days in recording his statement during investigation – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Bhalchandra Namdeo Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 193 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Conviction – Eye witness real sister of deceased – No reason to discard her evidence found to be wholly reliable –  Evidence of P.W.2 corroborated by medical evidence – P.W.1 seeing accused with gun – Deviation in cross examination that gun was lying there not material – No evidence that death occurred accidentally – Case held proved by prosecution – Conviction sustained. (Babulal Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 340 (Raj.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Conviction – Recovery of blood stained knife – Not supported by witnesses of recovery – Not believable that accused would move with blood stained clothes for four days – In arrest memo description of such clothes not indicating presence of blood and it is surprising that it is so mentioned in seizure memo – Seizure of clothes not supported by witnesses – Fact of recovery of Khookhari apparently inserted afterwards – No mention of blood on Khookhari – Recovery delayed by two days – Charges not established – Conviction set aside. (Rakesh & Anr. Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 346 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Conviction based on sole testimony of child witness, the son of deceased alleged to be going with deceased – Discrepancies as to spot of occurrence and day of recording statement to police – Independent witness turned hostile – Conviction set aside. (Zafar Vs State of U.P.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 406 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Death sentence – Award of – A holistic view to be taken on facts presented in each case.  (Gyasuddin Khan @ Md.Gyasuddin Khan Vs State of Bihar) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 242 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Death sentence – Mental condition or state of mind of accused is one of the relevant consideration for awarding the death sentence – In various cases Courts having regard to the disturbed or imbalanced state of mind of accused at the time of commission of offence, thought it fit not to impose death sentence. (Gyasuddin Khan @ Md.Gyasuddin Khan Vs State of Bihar) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 242 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Death sentence – Murder of wife on second night of their marriage when deceased was unable to sustain the lust for sex, persistently prevented by deceased as wife had come to know of premarital affairs of husband with a woman – Does not bring the case within ambit of rarest of rare case so as to call for extreme penalty of death. (Babu s/o Raveendran Vs Babu s/o Bahuleyan & Anr.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 528 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Deceased after murder alleged to have been taken away by accused – IO found blood at the place of occurrence but not around the place of occurrence – Absence of trail of blood does not make removal of dead body by accused doubtful. (Shankar Mahto & Anr. Vs State of Bihar) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 550 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Delay of 9 days in recoding statement of vital injured witness – No reasonable explanation for delay – Cannot be accepted that witness remained unconscious for all these days – It shows that innocent persons were involved and witness gave false statement – In cases of party factions and group rivalries there is tendency on the part of the prosecution witnesses to implicate some innocent persons also along with the guilty ones. (Bijoy Singh Vs State of Bihar) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 382 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Evidence of daughter of deceased that she was sleeping in the house alongwith her younger sister – Heard cries of her mother – Could not come out as the door was bolted from outside and noticed in the morning that her mother had been strangulated – Further stated that her father had contracted second marriage and had threatened  the deceased to kill her on the preceding day – In police statement she said that she came from her in-laws living  2Km. away  and found that her mother had died – Thought that her father might have killed her – Held, circumstances create a suspicion and it cannot take place of proof – Conviction set aside. (Bigan Prajapat Vs State of Bihar) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 680 (Patna)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Eye witness partly reliable – Evidence of such a witness to be accepted on corroboration in material particulars – Eye witness deposing that names of some of the accused were wrongly mentioned by him – Other accused tried with appellant acquitted by trial Court – Testimony of eye witness corroborated on all material particulars by medical evidence, ballistic expert and evidence of seizure of gun and empty cartridge – Conviction not liable to be interfered with. (Amrita @ Amritlal Vs State of M.P.) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 07 (S.C.) : 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 511 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Eyewitness mentioned the name of accused in FIR but did not identity him in Court or at any other point of time – No other material brought on record to connect the accused with the crime – Conviction set aside. (Simon & Ors. Vs State of Karnataka) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 111 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Genesis of incident, place of incident and manner in which incident took place – Not established by cogent and creditable evidence  – Accused acquitted. (Narain Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 460 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Gun shot – Defence plea that gun accidentally fired when child was fondling with it – Case based on circumstantial evidence – All the circumstances taken together namely, the deceased was lastly seen alive in the company of the appellant; the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment and appellant had evil-eye on her and her resistance gave the appellant cause to give threats to her life; the appellant was absconding soon after the incident and could be arrested after 21 days when his gun, the weapon of assault, was also recovered at his instance coupled with the fact that the explanation given by the appellant and defence taken proved to be palpably false make a complete chain of circumstances wherefrom no inference other than guilt of the appellant can be drawn. (Deewan Singh Vs State of Uttaranchal) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 277 (Uttaranchal)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Incident 10.30 a.m. and FIR lodged at 10.50 a.m. when police station was at a distance of 8 kilometers – Dying declaration detailed and ran into several pages – Opinion of doctor that deceased was not in a position to make statement – Carbon copy and not original of dying declaration exhibited – Accused acquitted. (Narain Singh & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 593 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Informant in FIR stated that he suffered a scratch on his back at the hands of some unknown persons – In his deposition he admitted that he knew the accused earlier – Accused rightly acquitted. (State of Kerala Vs Nazar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 713 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Injuries on person of accused – Non explanation – Non-explanation of injuries by the prosecution will not affect prosecution case where injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of prosecution to explain the injuries. (Surendra Paswan Vs State of Jharkhand) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 138 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death – To be examined not with reference to the date of death but with reference to the date on which it was inflicted. (Sukumaran Vs State of Kerala) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 367 (Kerala)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Minor discrepancies in FIR – Evidence of prosecution witnesses consistent and strengthened by medical evidence – Mere non mention of minute details in FIR does not make prosecution case doubtful – Accused liable to be convicted. (Kamma Otukunta Ram Naidu Vs Chereddy Pedda Subba Reddy & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 483 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Motive – Absence of motive is not fatal – It is unsound to suggest that no criminal act can be presumed unless motive proved – Absence of motive does not come to the aid of accused. (Ranganayaki Vs State by Inspector of Police) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 564 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Motive – Motive per se is not a ground for conviction of an accused and absence thereof no reason for acquittal. (Tehal Singh Vs The State of Punjab) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 406 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Murder of wife on second night of marriage when deceased was unable to sustain the lust for sex, persistently prevented by deceased as wife had come to know of premarital affairs of husband with a woman – Accused strangulated deceased and threw body in a well 17 meters away from house – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Though doctor had found hymen torn in 5 O’clock position but chemical examination of vaginal smear and swab did not show presence of semen and spermatoza – Tearing of hymen could have occurred in process of resistance – Accused and deceased were last seen together and rather were closeted in bedroom at about 8.30 p.m. – It is for accused to explain as to how deceased died and that too on account of strangulation – Father of accused stated in evidence that at 2.30 a.m. accused informed witness that his wife had died – Circumstances taken together cumulatively lead and unerringly point only to guilt of accused – Conviction by trial Court liable to be restored. (Babu s/o Raveendran Vs Babu s/o Bahuleyan & Anr.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 528 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Prosecution alleged that deceased had love affair with accused – Allegation against accused that he slowed down his scooter and poured petrol on deceased and set her on fire and that all this was done on the moving scooter – Fact that accused tried to extinguish fire and got burns – Moreover, accused got the deceased admitted in hospital and also informed her parents – Dying declaration of deceased found to be contradictory – Two views found to be possible – Acquittal upheld. (State of Maharashtra Vs Sanjay) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 603 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Prosecution failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt by leading clear, cogent, consistent, convincing and unimpeachable evidence that the accused persons were the authors of the crime – Order of conviction based on the statements of partisan and interested witnesses bristling with infirmities, inconsistencies and contradictions is liable to be set aside. (Pramod Kumar Khadamsingh & Ors. Vs State of Orissa) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 244 (Orissa) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Recovery of serviceable fire arms after 16 days from a shrub being an open place –  Pellets removed from dead body and clothes of deceased not sent for expert opinion – Katta examined by armorer – No eye witness to occurrence – No blood found on body of boy sleeping with deceased –  Prior enmity between accused and complainant party –  Injury by one or more than one shot not established – Prosecution fails. (Hoshiyar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 549 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Sole eye witness – Shot fired from country made pistol on chest of deceased who died on spot – Police constable sole eye witness – No blood found on spot nor any blood stained earth lifted which renders spot of incident doubtful – Fire shot when appellant was catching hold of deceased by his shirt collar but absence of blackening or scorching around wound remained unexplained – Father & wife of deceased present on spot when police reached but they not examined to know any motive on part of accused – Conviction liable to be set aside. (Alim Ullah Vs State of U.P.) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 407 (Allahabad) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Sole testimony of eye witness – FIR lodged promptly – FIR not a fabricated document – Presence of eye witness, PW 3 on spot not doubted merely because his blood stained clothes not seized – PW 3 taking deceased to hospital and lodging FIR promptly – Injuries inflicted on deceased on his refusal to give money to accused for liquor – Nature of weapon and manner of its use establishing intention to cause death – Conviction upheld. (Kishan Singh Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 237 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Sudden fight – Quarrel took place between accused and deceased over a trivial matter – Accused gave two “dhangu” blows on the head of deceased – Defence alleged delay in lodging FIR – Plea of delay in lodging FIR was rejected as complainant took victim to hospital and thereafter lodged FIR – Ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence – Medical evidence showed that infliction of “dhangu” could cause incised wound – Accused held guilty – Conviction altered from S.302 IPC to S.302 Part II as offence committed without premeditation in sudden fight. (Ravi Kumar Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 511 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Testimony of eye witness fully supported and corroborated by medical evidence which clearly established it a case of homicidal death – No material to disbelieve the eyewitness and other prosecution witnesses – Conviction not liable to be interfered with. (Prafulla Nath Vs State of Assam) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 386 (Gauhati)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Trial Court disbelieved eye witnesses in absence of motive – High Court reversed the order of acquittal as eye witnesses of the occurrence consistently supported prosecution – Held, this is not a case of possible two views – Held, view taken by High Court calls for no interference. (Arvind Prakash  Vs State of U.P.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 28 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Two eye witnesses resiled – Conviction based on evidence of sole eye witness – His evidence inspired confidence – Witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than quantity in human affairs. (Yakub Ismailbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 554 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder – Two out of three eye witness turned hostile – One supported prosecution – Accused convicted – It cannot be said that prosecution must suffer adverse inference for any further non production of witnesses – It is not the case of accused that there were certain witnesses who were cited as witnesses in the charge-sheet but were later on dropped as witnesses by prosecution during trial. (Yakub Ismailbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 554 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder at day time – Why accused choose a day break time to commit murder? – It is a hypothetical question – What is in the mind of a person and the reason for doing a thing is an aspect within the special knowledge of the accused – Prosecution is not supposed to meet every hypothetical question raised by the defence. (State of Punjab Vs Pohla Singh & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 330 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder of 35 persons in caste war – Murder by unlawful assembly of large number of persons – Conviction of eight of them – Conviction can be based on evidence of one eye witness only – It is only a rule of caution that where there are large number of offenders and large number of victims it would be safe to convict only if the case is supported by two or three or more witnesses who give consistent account of the incident. (Krishna Mochi & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 190 (S.C.)  

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder of a woman by husband and her two step-sons – Circumstantial evidence – Deceased was second wife and she was ill treated by her husband and step-sons – Dead body bore marks of injuries – Accused wanted to hurriedly bury the dead body – Accused had motive to kill as deceased was pregnant of two months and possibility of a male child was likely to affect the inheritance of step-sons – Accused absconded when police reached – Circumstances sufficient to bring home accusation – Conviction suffered no infirmity. (Usman Mian & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 334 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder of two small children – Appellant killing her two small children during fits of insanity – Also attempting to commit suicide – No motive – Mens rea wanting – Held, it is just and proper to extend benefit of doubt – Appellant acquitted. (Smt.Rukhsana (In Jail) Vs State of U.P.) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 647 (Allahabad)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder of wife, son and daughter – Conviction – Appeal against – Name of PWs 3 and 8 not mentioned in FIR – Delay in FIR not explained – Fact of harassment due to dowry missing in FIR – Evidence of PW.3 not helpful to prosecution –  PWs. 1 and 2 both chance witnesses but their statements contradictory to each other – Statement of close neighbours not recorded –  Evidence not properly appreciated by trial Court –  Possibility of murder as also of suicide – View in favour of accused to be accepted – Conviction set aside. (Jagdish @ Tempu Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 187 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder of wife – Circumstantial evidence – Accused and deceased going together on scooter – Death from fire arm, fired from short distance – No injury to accused when both were on same scooter – No scratch on scooter – Scooter switched off and key removed – Blood found under stepney but not a drop on stepney – Marks on kachcha road of scooter halted on stand – PWs 13 and 14 turning hostile – PWs 20, 21, 24 and 25 not supporting prosecution story – At instance of accused 12 bore country made pistol recovered in working condition – Recovered empty cartridge found to have been fired from country made pistol – Story concocted by accused that three miscreants near about road had fired, belied since scooter and ornaments of deceased never taken away – Motive of murder lack of dowry – Circumstances inconsistent with innocence of accused – Conviction sustained. (Satya Narain Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 750 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder of wife – Circumstantial evidence – Last seen together, a torn piece of shirt and buttons found at the scene of offence matched with the shirt seized from the house of accused and that accused gave false statement that his wife died of poisoning, whereas medical evidence disclosed that she had been brutally assaulted with some blunt object – Sarpanch informed police on telephone at 11.00 P.M. about commission of offence as disclosed to him by father of accused – No such report produced – Police reached at place of occurrence at 6.30 A.M. next morning – Circumstance reduces significance of incriminating circumstance of last seen together – Sarpanch informed police as told by father of accused that deceased had consumed pesticide – Not admissible in evidence being hit by rule against hearsay – Prosecution led no evidence to connect the shirt with piece of cloth found on place of occurrence – Though accused was arrested on 8.11.1992 but disclosure statement made on 22.11.1992 creates doubt –  Acquittal by High Court, though on different grounds, could not be interfered with. (State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Patnam Anandam) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 851 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder of wife – Conviction – Blood stained barchhi, being weapon of offence and kurti and ornaments of deceased matching with B blood group – Barchhi recovered at instance of accused from his conscious possession – Blood spread at place of occurrence mentioned in site plan – Accused bringing deceased from house of one ‘K’ with whom she had illicit relations and committing offence on way in a field – Accused changing version that he recovered deceased from house of K to state that K had abducted deceased – Version of accused that he was forced by police to sign blank papers falsified – No steps taken by accused to prosecute K – Version that accused was sleeping with his wife when K came to abduct deceased not in tune with the time set by accused for sequence of events – Conviction sustained. (Guman Mal Vs State of Raj.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 330 (Raj.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder of wife – Conviction – Case based on circumstantial evidence and extra judicial confession – Confession made at the earliest point of time to the brother of accused – Confession not alleged to have been procured under any undue influence, coercion or pressure – Such confession can be accepted without corroboration – Accused was suspicious about chastity of deceased – Accused and deceased were alone in the house and were last seen together – Conviction cannot be interfered with. (K.Kunhaman @ Kunhiraman Vs State of Kerala) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 338 (Kerala) : 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 338 (Kerala)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder of wife – Defence plea that wife committed suicide not corroborated by medical evidence – Circumstantial evidence that husband and wife not leading a congenial marital life, unnatural conduct of accused subsequent to the incident, spot map showing that the rafter of the roof was at such height as was unapproachable for committing suicide – Circumstantial evidence lead to one irresistible conclusion that accused alone is the author of the crime and he had taken a false defence that he had seen the deceased to have committed suicide by hanging herself – Appeal dismissed. (Mandhari Vs State of Chattisgarh) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 428 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder of wife – Husband could not prove his plea that he was not present in the house on night of occurrence by cogent evidence – Prosecution also failing to prove the presence of accused – Giving benefit of doubt accused acquitted. (Dasari Siva Prasad Reddy Vs The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 697 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder of wife and 1-1/2 years child – Accused had earlier murdered his wife and was convicted – While on parole accused murdered his wife and 1-1/2 years child with jambia, a hunting knife used for attack, while deceased were helpless and asleep – PW21, an old woman related to accused, on hearing cries saw accused assaulting deceased – Cross examination of this witness produced no discrepancies or contradictions – Fact that she was 70 years old and related to accused would gain nothing by levelling false allegations – Other witnesses who were post incident witnesses spoke about presence of PW21 at the spot and seeing injuries on both deceased and their evidence was corroborative – No reason to interfere with conviction. (Saibanna Vs State of Karnataka) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 705 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 667 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder of wife by pouring kerosene – Conviction by trial Court – High Court set it aside – Evidence showing strained relations – Son 9 years old deposing having seen his father burning his mother – Sessions Judge’s non-reliance found incorrect – Reasons given by High Court for acquittal found perverse – Dying declarations found to be true and reliable – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence by Sessions Judge restored. (State of Karnataka Vs Shariff) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 693 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder of wife by strangulation – No eye witness – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Prosecution of husband – Not proved beyond doubt that accused was in the house on the night of murder – A strong suspicion existed against husband, but suspicion cannot be the basis of conviction – Conviction set aside. (Dasari Siva Prasad Reddy Vs The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 671 (S.C.) : 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 697 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Murder with pistol shot – Bullet recovered from body not sent for ballistic examination – Not fatal. (Surendra Paswan Vs State of Jharkhand) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 138 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – No eye witness of incident – PWs3, 4 & 6 had seen appellant running away with knife in his hand – PWs 2, 3, 5, 6 & 8 heard deceased saying that it was appellant who stabbed him and FIR did mention this fact of dying declaration made by deceased – Conviction on basis of said dying declaration, recovery of blood stained knife and blood stained personal clothes of accused –  Dying declaration not mentioned by witnesses in their statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. – Statement to that effect for first time in Court raises some doubt – Deceased while being taken to hospital had become unconscious hence it was not safe to rely upon evidence of those witnesses – Accused bearing blood stained clothes even after four days is a conduct opposed to normal human behaviour – One of the witnesses turning hostile – Recovery could not be believed – Conviction liable to be set aside. (Khalil Khan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 393 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – No general rule can be laid that small stone cannot cause any injury leading to death punishable u/s 302 IPC – It would depend upon facts of each case. (Goura Venkata Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 112 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Number of injuries is not always the determining factor in ascertaining the intention – It is the nature of injury, the part of body where it is caused, the weapon used in causing such injury which the indicators of the fact whether the respondent caused the death of the deceased with an intention of causing death or not. (State of Rajasthan Vs Dhool Singh) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 40 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Offence of weapon – Eye witnesses account that accused caused injuries with “kudal” – It is not duty of witness to clarify which side of weapon was used when assault and death was established. (Chaudhari Ramjibhai Narasangbhai Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 500 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – On exhortation of one appellant second appellant fired gun shot – Victim died on way to hospital – Conviction on evidence of two eye witnesses, brothers of deceased and dying declaration made by victim to his father – Dying declaration unreliable as no mention of it made in FIR – Post mortem report revealed that there was fracture of lumber vertebra which showed no likelihood about injured having made any speech – Evidence of two eye witnesses however found acceptable – Omission of names of assailant in inquest report does not make prosecution case unacceptable – Delayed receipt of FIR in office of Magistrate does not ipso facto warrant conclusion about FIR to be tainted document – Conviction of appellant who fired shot and of second appellant on whose exhortation shot was fired merit no interference. (Binod Prasad Vs State of Bihar) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 640 (Patna)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – One injury inflicted with pestle on head of deceased – Cause of death shock and haemorrhage – Dispute was over collection of Rs.100/- for erecting a transformer in village –  Accused did not intent to cause death but intended to cause bodily injury which was likely to cause death – Offence falls u/s 304 Part II IPC – Sentence of 10 years imprisonment awarded. (Bayanaboina Subbarayudu Vs State of A.P.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 281 (A.P.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – One single blow given on the leg of deceased – Doctor’s opinion that if best treatment would have been given immediately, death could have averted – Offence is one u/s 326 of the Code as there was neither knowledge that such injury would cause death nor any intention to cause death. (Anama Naik Vs State of Orissa) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 711 (Orissa)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – One single blow with a sword on neck of deceased caused instantaneous death – Any reasonable person can come to the conclusion that such injury on such a vital part of the body with a sharp edged weapon will cause death – Such an injury not only exhibits the intention of the attacker in causing the death of the victim but also the knowledge of the attacker as to the likely consequence of such attack which could be none other than causing the death of the victim.  (State of Rajasthan Vs Dhool Singh) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 40 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Post mortem report – Defence admitted post mortem report – Held, post mortem report having been admitted it is not open to accused to criticize the recitals therein without giving an opportunity to the doctor to explain it. (Amit @ Ammu Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 555 (S.C.) : 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 786 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Presence of dead body and severed head of deceased in the field and tubewell of accused – If factor within special knowledge of accused is not satisfactorily explained, while considering totality of circumstances, it will be relevant factor to be considered against accused. (State of Punjab Vs Karnail Singh) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 298 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 519 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – PW (father) not coming to the rescue of the deceased (daughter) – Before the witness arrived the accused had inflicted injuries on different parts of the body of his daughter who was lying on ground in a pool of blood and when he arrived on hearing the cries of his daughter, the accused was found giving indiscriminate dagger blows to his daughter on different parts of her body and when the witness protested, accused ran towards him – Held, in these circumstances, it cannot be said to be unnatural if he could not take any steps to save life of his daughter as he being unarmed, as an ordinary normal human being, could not have taken risk to his life at the hands of the appellant which was so imminent. (Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs State of Delhi)2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 429 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Rape and murder – Girl aged 15-16 years – Body thrown into a well – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Identity of deceased established by superimposition report of FSL – Assistant Director certified that skull could have belonged to a person in the photograph – Identity of deceased had to be established by skeletal remains of deceased recovered after two months of murder – Post mortem report assessed age of deceased between 15-16 years – Identity of deceased stood established – Minor discrepancy in evidence of witness of last seen does not discredit prosecution case – Recovery of hair, hairpins, bangles and bones at the instance of appellant from well – Wearing apparels of deceased got recovered by accused by digging earth – Disclosure statement and recovery memo not bearing signatures of accused but facts stood established by deposition of witnesses – Conviction could not be interfered with. (Golakonda Venkateswara Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 153 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Related witness  will not like to drop a real culprit – Evidence of – Corroborated by a minor witness – Witnesses found reliable – Accused having illicit relations with the daughter of the deceased – Objected to  by deceased – Murdered with a kitchen knife – Seen by son – Minor son saw the accused entering the house and leaving it with weapon of offence in his hand – Conviction confirmed. (Indra Prasad Sharma Vs State of Sikkim) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 470 (Sikkim)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Serious contradictions between oral evidence of eye witness and report of ballistic expert which created doubt in use of firm arm alleged to have been used in murder – Eye witnesses examined were relatives of deceased and independent witnesses not examined – Serious doubt arose as to presence of eye witnesses – Conviction set aside. (Brijpal Singh Vs State of M.P.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 16 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Simple injuries – Death due to subsequent developments because of respiratory failure on account of pus formation in the membrane of brain – Held, when deceased did not die because of act of assault of accused but due to subsequent developments in body and failure of respiratory system, accused cannot be convicted for offence of murder. (Shankarlal & Ors. Vs State of M.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 762 (M.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Single blow by sword on abdomen with such a force that intestines of deceased came out – Incident occurred at house of deceased – Two sons and Wife of deceased were eye witnesses – In injury report Medical Officer held deceased to have suffered one incised wound but in post-mortem 3 sharp edged injuries found – Post-mortem report could not be taken contradicting injury report merely because it did not conform to injury report – Ocular evidence that by blow of sword intestines of deceased came out corroborated by medical evidence – Other four accused acquitted as one son and wife did not name them to have accompanied appellant armed with lathis would not affect charge against appellant – Abrasions found on body of deceased also would not make evidence of eye-witnesses doubtful – Eye witnesses related to deceased not a ground to disbelieve their testimony when their presence was natural and their evidence was acceptable – Conviction calls for no interference. (Naroo Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 303 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Single blow by sword on abdomen with such a force that intestines of deceased came out – It could be inferred that accused had intention to kill deceased – Conviction u/s 302 IPC suffers no illegality. (Naroo Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 303 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Single blow inflicted by an iron rod on the head of deceased – Incident took place following a quarrel – No pre-plan or pre-meditation to cause murder of deceased – Offence committed comes u/s 304 Part II, IPC.  (Lesu Pradhan Vs State of Orissa)  2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 465 (Ori.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Single injury – In every case of single injury it cannot be held absence of intention to kill – It is type of weapon used and body part against which injury is caused which are important aspects to be kept in view. (Hari Prasad Vs State of U.P.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 59 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Single sword blow on neck – Instantaneous death – According to doctor if proper medical care were provided injured could have survived – Held, S.300 does not contemplate a situation of miraculous survival. (State of Rajasthan Vs Dhool Singh) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 40 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Single sword blow on neck – Instantaneous death – Non production of weapon in Court – Doctor had found that deceased had suffered cut incised wound causing extensive damage and was caused by sharp edged weapon – Non production of weapon would be of no help to accused. (State of Rajasthan Vs Dhool Singh) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 40 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Statement of eye witnesses found corroboration from medical evidence – Blood stained sword where serologist found blood of human origin was recovered at instance of appellant – Eye witnesses stood test of cross examination – Conviction cannot be interfered with. (Krishan Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 471 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Two accused armed with Penakatti and axe assaulted deceased indiscriminately and inflicted 50 injuries – Cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries – High Court altered offence to one u/s 326 holding that it was difficult to say which injury was caused by which accused and which injury ultimately resulted in death – Reasoning of High Court not justified as either sound logic or on any settled principle of criminal jurisprudence – Conduct of accused before and after occurrence, manner of indiscriminate assault and weapon used showed a common intention – Conviction recorded by trial Court u/s 302 IPC restored. (State of Andhra Pradesh Vs K.Srinivasulu Reddy & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 646 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 – Unlawful assembly formed and its motive was to cause murder of PW1 – Accused caused death of deceased who tried to prevent them from attacking PW1 – A2 caused an oblique spindle shaped wound 5 x 2 cm on middle of neck – Cause of death was two wounds caused by appellant and A2 – Conviction of appellant by High Court u/s 302 and found A2 guilty u/s 304 Part I IPC – Death of deceased not attributed solely to act of appellant but was due to cumulative effect of injuries caused by appellant and A2 – No basis to differentiate between acts of appellant and A2 – Conviction of appellant modified to one u/s 304 Part I IPC and sentence of 7 years imprisonment awarded. (Chinnaiah @ Chinnasamy Vs State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 388 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 r/w S.34 – Offence u/s 302 r/w S.34 IPC – Conviction – Evidence of eye witnesses sons of deceased not corroborated by independent witness – Weapon alleged to be used found to be incapable of causing skull fracture in normal course – Seizure/discoveries denied by panch witness having made in their presence by I.O. – Motive for murder most unrealistic – Prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt regarding complicity of appellant in the crime – Conviction set aside. (Bhagwan Baliram Bari & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 584 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 and 304 – Only one injury caused by a stick on a dark night when visibility  was poor but the victim and  accused knew each other – One  could not move about without torch – Doctor opined that the injury was possible with one blow – High Court convicted under section 302 IPC – Held, due to darkness it could not be said with certainty the accused chose a vital part of the  body of the deceased or that  the blow was aimed with such an intention that it would land on head – Conviction altered from 302 to 304 Part II IPC. (Augustine Saldanha Vs State of Karnataka) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 746 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 and 304 Part II – Accused objected to parking of a scooter by  the deceased  at a particular place which resulted in an  altercation and a scuffle – Accused took out his gun and fired resulting in the death of deceased – No previous enmity between the two – Act done in the heat of moment- High Court convicted under section 304 Part I – Held that offence falls under section 304 Part II IPC. (Sukhdev Singh Vs Delhi State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 658 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 and 307 – Domestic servant – Murder of three members of family and attempt to murder wife of his master – Photographs, evidence of PW1 (the injured wife) & PW 4 and medical evidence proving the crime – Corroborated by subsequent absconding – Motive being dismissal from service for frustrated robbery and unreliable conduct – Held, insufficiency of motive and young age of accused does not affect his conviction u/s 302 IPC. (Om Prakash @ Raja Vs State of Uttaranchal) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 53 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302/120B, Evidence Act, 1872, S.32 – Trade Union leader working for the welfare of labour – Widespread labour movement – Deceased apprehended serious threat to his life from industrialists, especially from Simplex and Kedia Group of Industries – Note to this effect made in diary regrading apprehension of danger from management of these industrial units – In the night, his servant occupying the neighbouring room heard a noise like bursting of crackers and found deceased writhing in pain on his bed – Window found open and that deceased had been shot – On the basis of circumstantial evidence accused A1, A3, A4, A5 & A7 found guilty – Division Bench of High Court held that circumstances were not sufficient to prove guilt of accused – Entries in diary and statements of deceased recorded on a micro cassette not admissible u/s 32 of Evidence Act – Acquittal of A1, A3, A4, A5 and A7 sustained – A9 convicted for offence u/s 302 IPC. (State of M.P. through C.B.I etc. Vs Paltan Mallah & Ors. etc.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 899 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302/149 – Deceased assaulted by accused armed with iron rod, motor cycle chain etc. – Brother of deceased was eye witness and other three witnesses arrived on spot soon after incident – Deceased stated to the witnesses that appellants had assaulted him – Evidence was cogent and credible – Plea of alibi by appellant No.1 found not proved – Conviction calls for no interference.  (Bhargavan & Ors. Vs State of Kerala) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 63 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302/149 – Deceased travelling in a bus after attending a murder trial – Accused armed with fire-arms intercepted the bus, boarded it and fired at deceased – Six persons died in the bus and two chased and killed in a house – PW 1 and PW 2 hid themselves and managed to escape – Bus not seized and its driver and conductor not examined – Eye witnesses questioned after 15 days of incident – FIR reached Magistrate late by six days – Evidence of PW 1 and PW convincing and no reason not to accept it – Medical evidence supported their version – Only those accused were convicted who were armed with fire arms – Conviction could not be interfered with. (Sahdeo & Ors. Vs State of U.P.) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 101 (S.C.) : 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 455 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302/34,  Evidence Act, 1872 S.32 – Dying declaration – Recorded by a magistrate in a language not known to the deceased – Recorded with the help of the doctor who translated the answers given by the deceased to the magistrate – All precautions taken by the magistrate while recording the declaration – Finding of the trial court that declaration was recorded fairly and correctly – Findings affirmed in appeal. (B.Shashikala   Vs State of Andhra Pradesh ) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 96 (S.C.) : 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 604 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302/34, 304 Part I – Conviction – Appeal against – Fatal blow inflicted by appellant followed by one given by second accused when deceased confronted him with a query “why four days ago you got me arrested in a false case” –  Assailants would have found deceased in a pugnacious mood – Deceased was smelling alcohol when taken before doctor after sustaining injuries – Minor injuries on person of appellant does not justify right of private defence – Offence however liable to be brought down to one u/s 304 Part I IPC and sentence of 10 years  imprisonment  awarded. (Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 414 (SC) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302/34, 380/34 – Appeal against conviction u/s 302/380/34 IPC – On the date of incident deceased and appellants were in the house – Husband of deceased on return found deceased lying dead in piece of cloth around her neck and death was by strangulation – Both accused were absconding and arrested after two days – At instance of appellant No.2 stolen wrist watch which belonged to husband of deceased was recovered from the house of accused – Conviction of appellant No.2 upheld – Only circumstance against appellant No.1 was that he was in the house on date of incident and then was absconding – Not conclusive to hold him guilty – His conviction set aside. (Ranjit Roy & Anr. Vs State of Sikkim) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 19 (Sikkim)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302/34 – Assault by four with handles of axe and spade and iron rod – Accused A4 had lighted the torch which enabled other accused to focus assault on deceased – Conviction of A4 with help of S.34 IPC suffers no illegality – Only one injury on head which could not be attributed to specific accused was the fatal injury – Appellants are liable to be convicted u/s 304 Part I IPC and sentence of 10 years imprisonment awarded. (Chacko @ Aniyan Kunju & Ors. Vs State of Kerala) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 48 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 34, 100, 103 – Private defence – Right of – Wrangle of meddling with water course – Death in mutual fight – Accused entitled to use water course till evening of December 27, 1996 – Deceased meddling with water course and diverting same to his filed – No right of deceased to meddle water course – Accused protected in exercise of his right of private defence – Conviction set aside. (Jai Singh & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 530 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 34, 149 – Conviction u/s 302 read with S.34 – No specific charge framed u/s 34 – But facts giving rise to constructive liability well known to both the accused and the case which they have to meet under S.34 is substantially the same as the prosecution put forward – Held, no prejudice is caused to accused in the circumstances. (Shiva Shankar Pandey & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 240 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 34, 447 – As per evidence of PW1 participation of K1 and K2 doubtful – PWs2 and 3 coming at scene of occurrence after the incident as such their evidence cannot corroborate evidence of PW1 – Participation of H armed with lathi obvious – Only H convicted u/s 302 IPC and K1 and K2 acquitted. (Hira @ Hiralal & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 664 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 34 and 149 – Accused not mere sightseers – Nothing to show that dissuaded the persons from committing the criminal act or withdrew at any point – Eye witnesses identifying and establishing presence – Animosity admitted – Conviction u/s 302 with aid of section  34  and  149  upheld. (Dani Singh & Ors.  Vs  State of Bihar ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 34 and 326 – Circumstantial evidence – Recovery of Kulhari and Jelly proved – Report of Forensic Science Laboratory corroborating the testimony of prosecution witnesses that blood found on the recovered articles was human blood of group A – Case against both accused proved by a complete chain of circumstances consistent with guilt of accused – Injuries sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature as per medical evidence – Circumstances unerringly point towards guilt of accused – Conviction sustained. (Ram Kishan & Anr. Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 61 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 34 – Appeal against conviction u/s 302/34 IPC – Accused seen running from spot – Recovery of blood stained pant of accused – Articles in pockets of pant stained with blood group ‘A’ – Accused arrested after 9 days – Not believable that accused would continue to wear same pant – PW 3 stating that accused was arrested on same night – Fact of pant seized on 17.3.1996 falsified – Colour of pant as shown in seizure memo different than the one stated by PW 4 – Knife already in possession of police – Recovery of knife at instance of accused falsified – Knife recovered from open place – Long standing dispute between accused and deceased but no proximate cause of incident disclosed – Only circumstance of accused seen running from spot not inconsistent with innocence of accused – Contents of FSL Report not put to accused for his explanation – Conviction set aside. (Ved Prakash & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 429 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 34 – Appreciation of evidence – Prosecution alleged that there was a conspiracy between the accused amongst themselves to commit the crime – Conspiracy not mentioned in FIR – Not based on his personal knowledge – Fact that two witnesses remained admitted in hospital for a number of days not mentioned – DW received injury in the same occurrence and at the same time – One of the PWs facing trial under section 324 IPC for inflicting injuries on him – Place of occurrence changed – PW admitting that he received injuries at a distance of 200 yards away from the place of incident – Injured father who witnessed the incident not examined –  Blood not found on the spot – Held, evidence  produced by prosecution not consistent – Accused acquitted. (Hem Raj & Anr. Vs State of Punjab  ) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 138 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 34 – Common intention – In the absence of common intention, all accused persons cannot be convicted for alleged offence of murder – Conviction must be on the basis of individual acts of each accused person. (Darshan Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 25 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 34 – Conviction of three accused for murder with aid of S.34 IPC – All three accused armed with knife attacked accused who died on spot – A1 stabbed deceased on chest and other two assaulted on other parts – Post mortem report showed deceased had two injuries on chest and injuries on right thigh above knee and inner aspect of right ankle were very small in nature – A2 and A3 cannot e said to have shared common intention to cause death – They are liable to be convicted u/s 324/34 IPC – A1 convicted u/s 302 IPC. (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Farid Khan & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 220 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 34 – Conviction u/s 302/34 IPC – Appeal against – FIR ante-dated – Material contradictions in statements of eye witnesses – Unnatural conduct on part of these witnesses in not intervening to save their neighbour – FIR written on next day of incident – Weapon recovered but not produced in Court – Blood stained clothes also not produced and no FSL report obtained that clothes were stained with human blood – Conviction set aside. (Raoof Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 126 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 34 – Conviction – Appeal against – Informer turning hostile – PW-8 not found to be eye witness – No explanation for recording statement of PW-8 u/s 161 Cr.P.C. after four months – Wife (PW-2) of deceased not disclosing name of ‘R’ as accused and her statement self contradictory as also contrary to parcha bayan – Injury report noting four injuries whereas post mortem report stating eleven injuries and no explanation as to who caused remaining seven injuries – Presence of PW-2 on scene doubtful as she neither came to save deceased nor accompanied to hospital –  Long standing litigation between deceased and accused party – Conviction set aside. (Ram Avtar & Sawai Singh Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 430 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 34 – Conviction – Appeal against – Nothing to discredit testimony of prosecution witnesses PWs 4 to 6 – Their testimony corroborated by recovery memos, post mortem report and FSL report – Human blood found on seized articles – Recovery of earrings and ‘rawat’ corroborated by evidence of PW8 – Role of accused G not proved beyond reasonable doubt and his conviction set aside – Conviction of H sustained. (Harish Chand @ Har Chand @ Harak Chand & Anr. Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 766 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 34 – Conviction – Ocular account given by PW2 and PW3 not inspiring confidence – Difficult to believe that they could hear conversation between accused and deceased from a distance of 500 feet when there is obstruction of 7 feet high wall – Their evidence not corroborated by medical evidence –  PW2 and PW3 stating that assailants used gandasi –  Medical evidence not attributing injury to deceased with sharp weapon – Evidence of recovery of gandasi and blood stains thereon fabricated –  FIR lodged after 8 hours – Gun recovered not in exclusive possession of accused ‘C’ – No definite report about gun being in serviceable condition – Failure to establish charge – Conviction set aside. (Kulwant Singh & Anr. Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 516 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 34 – Murder – Appellant held the hand of the victim so as to help the assailants assault the victim – He neither released the hand of the deceased nor tried to dissuade the assailants from attacking – It is reasonable to conclude that the appellant also shared the intention of the assailants which was to commit the murder of the deceased. (Major Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 339 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 34 – No inordinate delay in FIR – Delay in sending FIR to Magistrate not fatal – Addition of one line in FIR inconsequential – No contradiction between ocular and medical evidence – Non examination of persons not having seen incident or of relatives of deceased not fatal – Case proved by eye witnesses – Conviction sustained. (Ramdev, Dharamraj & Rampal Vs The State of Raj.) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 347 (Raj.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 34 – Not possible to pin point the person who dealt the fatal blow to each of the deceased – However, when evidence indicates that the three accused had repeatedly given blows with lathi, farsi and tanchia and it is not possible to identify and ascribe a particular injury to a particular accused then accused can be convicted under section 302 read with section 34 IPC. (Mangu Khan & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 10 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 34 – Serious doubt about time and place of incident and therefore presence of eye-witnesses at the time of incident becomes doubtful – No explanation of discrepancy between medical and ocular evidence – P.Ws.3, 4 and 7 not of sterling worth – Conviction set aside. (Madan Lal & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 690 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 96, 97 and 100 – Murder – Private defence – Wordy altercation took place between appellant No.1 and PW1 – Appellant No.1 brought a stick and assaulted PW1 – PW1 and PW2 chased him and appellants came with weapons – Appellants assaulted deceased over head by small wooden yoke – Appellants could not establish that they exercised their right of private defence – As only single blow was given on head of deceased by small wooden yoke as such conviction altered from S.302 IPC to 304 Part I IPC. (V.Subramani & Anr. Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 407 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 149, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.235(2) – Accused having nothing to say on the question of sentence – It shows that accused has no repentance for the act he committed – Death penalty calls for no interference. (Holiram Bordoloi Vs State of Assam) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 584 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 149 – Eight accused came in a jeep duly armed and they assaulted the deceased and prevented others from going near the deceased – Jeep kept started – Held, these facts show that accused had common object – Accused rightly convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with aid of S.149 IPC. (Sunil Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 164 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 149 – Murder by 8 accused – Absence of specific overt act by each of them – Held, it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish as to the specific overt act done by each accused. (Sunil Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 164 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 149, 34 – Common intention – Two out of seven accused armed with lethal weapons – Both simultaneously assaulted and killed the deceased – Both shared common intention and not others – Both accused convicted u/s 302 r/w S.34 though initially they were charged u/s 302 r/w 149 – No bar in convicting the appellants u/s 302 r/w S.34 if evidence discloses commission of an offence in furtherance of common intention of all of them. (Chittarmal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 191 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 120-B – Death by gun fire – Recovery of weapon of offence – Recovery is of no consequence in absence of evidence that the same was connected with crime and more so when same had been recovered from an open place after 3-1/2 years – No reason to disbelieve evidence of eye witness – Clear from evidence of eye witness that accused A fired katta on chest of deceased – Accused A identified at identification parade held after 17 days since his arrest but same not creating doubt as Accused A was kept Baparda – Not desirable to magnify theoretical possibility after such lapse of time that it was not possible to identify accused A – Other accused acquitted – Accused A acquitted of charge u/s 120-B but his conviction and sentence u/s 302 IPC maintained. (Mohd. Hanif & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 235 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 147, 148 & 149 – Delay of one day in recording the statement of alleged eye witness  – Not safe to rely upon without corroboration – Witness stated that he saw the incident while going on a scooter, ran away and took refuge in a house – Accused came, dragged him out – Statement recorded on next day but he did not mention that he saw the accused attacking the victim previous day – Explanation that the witness had to be taken to hospital – Held, not convincing. (Maruti Rama Naik  Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 584 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 148 & 149 – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Dead body found lying in field – Recovery of weapons of offence i.e. crowbar and axe at instance of accused and weapons wearing human blood – Evidence failing to establish that weapons of offence were recovered at instance of accused – Blood group of blood on weapons could not be ascertained and thus could not be established that blood on weapons was blood of deceased – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Jeevan & Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 771 (Chhattisgarh)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 149, 34 – Non applicability of S.149 is not a bar in convicting the accused u/s 302 read with S.34 IPC if evidence discloses commission of an offence in furtherance of common intention of such accused. (Hamlet @ Sasi & Ors. Vs State of Kerala) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 333 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 149 – Unlawful assembly – Common object – Murder – All the 5 accused carried formidable weapons, broke down the wall, entered the house and killed two children due to a long standing enmity – Shows that accused formed unlawful assembly with common object to commit the murder. (State of Rajasthan Vs Nathu & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 35 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 201 – Circumstantial evidence – Recovery of skeleton from well – Recovery of gloves and hockey –  Deceased and accused last seen together – Recovery of skull –  Illicit relations of mother of deceased with accused – Witnesses of recovery not able to identify skeleton – Brother of deceased refusing skeleton to be that of deceased – Evidence of other witnesses establishing corpus delicti – Discovery and seizure of other articles faulty and inadmissible in evidence – Evidence of last seen unreliable and of no consequence – No credible evidence of illicit relations between mother of deceased and accused –  Conviction set aside. (Gopi Chand Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 82 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 201 – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Dead body exhumed at the instance of accused – Clothes of deceased recovered by accused taken out of a pit – Deceased had disclosed to PW1 that appellant had been threatening her to kill her and this fact was recorded in FIR lodged by PW1 – Extra judicial confession by appellant before village administrative officer recorded in writing – No reason to disbelieve witness of extra judicial confession – Another chain in link of circumstances that appellant did not try to trace the deceased though she was missing for three days – Conviction upheld. (Kamala Muniratnam & Anr. Vs State of A.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 829 (A.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 201 – Conviction of A1 and acquittal of others – Murder of mother-in-law of PW7 – Prosecution case primarily rested upon sole testimony of PW7 an approver – Conviction cannot be based on uncorroborated testimony of approver – Confession by PW7, preceded the pardon whereby she became approver, was wholly exculpatory – No reliance could be placed on such evidence – Her statement do not appear to be voluntary – Application to become approver moved after 3 months of PW7 having come out on bail and was living under supervision of PW4 – Conviction liable to be set aside. (Banwari Lal Vs State of Himachal Pradesh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 36 (H.P.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 201 – Conviction –  Appeal against –  Case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are (i) the extra judicial confession of the accused, (ii) the recovery of skeleton and key from the pocket of shirt of the skeleton and recovery of Chapple and, (iii) the deceased last seen in the company of accused – Pendency of criminal case between accused and family of deceased probabilising false implication of accused – Incident of 1988 and alleged confession made in 1991 – PW 13 not trustworthy – Unsafe to rely on belated confession – Evidence of last seen also failing – Dead body being in well already within knowledge of police – Articles identified not at all recorded by Police – Recovery of key and chapples after 3 years is hardly of any importance – Skeleton as recovered being of deceased not proved – Case not proved against accused – Conviction set aside. (Sarjeet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 62 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 201 – Conviction – Appeal against – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Circumstances must be proved by cogent evidence and circumstances so proved must point unerringly towards guilt of accused and should not be inconsistent with innocence of accused – Incriminating circumstances against accused were that bicycle of deceased was recovered at instance of appellant and dead body was also taken out of a pit on pointing out by appellant – Cycle recovered from pond which was accessible to all – Recovery witnesses of dead body turned hostile – Motive not proved – No weapon of offence recovered – Conviction set aside. (Pawan Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 71 (Chhattisgarh) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 201 – Conviction – Circumstantial evidence – Accused last seen with deceased – On return to Bombay accused giving misleading statements to others inquiring about deceased – Key of room in which dead body found recovered from accused – Golden chain, watch and bracelet of deceased recovered from accused at his instance – Trouser of accused found stained with human blood – No explanation by accused to such incriminating circumstances – Conviction upheld. (Hemant Trivedi Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 95 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 201 – Conviction – Circumstantial evidence – Circumstance of last seen together, recovery of iron pipe at instance of accused and that iron pipe stained with human blood, not proved – Finger prints of accused on TV stand and VCR of no help as accused used to visit house of deceased – Conviction set aside. (Mahesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 193 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 201 – Murder and then throwing dead body into river – Conviction based on judicial confession, recovery of weapon of offence at his instance and evidence of approver – Even retracted judicial confession can solely form basis for conviction if found true and voluntary – Confession not result of any threat inducement or coercion – Exculpatory part of confessional pleaded act committed by appellant in self defence – Other two approvers helped accused to throw dead body in river – Their evidence found reliable as no material to show that prosecution was over jealous in making them approver – Confession of accused revealed that deceased holding knife chased appellant and appellant then hit deceased with stone and deceased fell down – Appellant took knife from deceased and stabbed him and deceased died on spot – Case is covered by exception 2 of S.300 IPC and conviction was liable to be converted to 304 Part I IPC – Sentence for period already undergone, i.e. 8 years, would meet ends of justice. (Mitra Prasad Rai Vs State of Sikkim) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 601 (Sikkim)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 201 – Murder of old lady – No eye witness – Recovery of ‘Kariyan’ and ‘Hansali’ not proved beyond reasonable doubt as they not received in their original shape – Halwani not recovered from place in exclusive and conscious possession of accused – Burnt pieces of cloth not matching with original clothes of accused – Gap of 24 hours in alleged information given by accused and recovery of dead body – Information given by accused not proved to be voluntary – Repayment of money by accused to PWs 12 & 13 not sufficient to connect accused with crime – Chain of circumstances incomplete – Conviction set aside. (Chunia Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 458 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 201 – Murder of wife – Conviction – Pursuant to confession appellant was alleged to have pointed out the place where dead body was buried and then body was excavated which was kept in a gunny bag – Serious contradictions in evidence on material points as to date of arrest of appellant and manner of recovery of dead body – It was not safe to rely upon evidence relating to recovery of dead body – As regards motive it also not appearing a strong circumstance – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Ram Bilas Yadav Vs State of Bihar) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 134 (Patna)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 201 – Wife – Murder – Conviction based on evidence of two child witnesses, sons of appellant, aged six and ten years – Appellant returned home at 9 PM on date of incident after consuming toddy and abused deceased – When victim protested, appellant put a rope around her neck and placed rope on beam which was 9 feet high from floor level and hanged her till death – When children cried then PW 3 and 4 living in adjacent portion arrived and opening the room found body of deceased hanging – Death was opined on account of asphyxia due to hanging but doctor unable to say from the ligature marks or other features, whether death was suicidal or homicidal – Prosecution suppressed earliest version of two child witnesses – Account of incident given by these witnesses also revealed that it was against natural course of conduct and probabilities – Evidence of two child witnesses not inspiring confidence – Earlier version of other witnesses who had arrived on spot on hearing hue and cry of children seemed to have been suppressed – Conviction set aside. (Orsu Venkat Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 770 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 201 & 506 – Killing new born child by throttling in presence of wife due to suspicion – Testimony of mother of child, her brother and medical expert – Suggestion that death was accidental not believed – Conviction by trial Court and upheld by High Court – Conviction and sentence passed, upheld. (Syed Gani Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 143 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 302/34 and 323 – Five accused – Murder – Acquittal by trial Court – High Court maintained acquittal of  two and convicted others u/s 304 Part II and 323 IPC – PW 7 and PW 10 claiming to be eye witnesses had turned hostile – Trial Court found evidence of PW8 and PW9 different from what they had stated in earlier statement before police – High Court failed to apply its mind to various reasons recorded by trial Court for not relying upon testimony of eye witnesses – Nature and number of injuries caused by appellants, as deposed by witnesses, wholly inconsistent with medical evidence – High Court not to have interfered with acquittal. (Ram Swaroop & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 359 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 304 – Intention to ambush, attack and kill the persons who were coming to protest about the unlawful construction of the bund – Held, situation is covered by S.302 and not by S.304. (Mangu Khan & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 10 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 304 – Nature of offence – At the dead of night the respondent and their father went to the house of PW3 with a country made pistol and with force inflicted such injuries on head which resulted in death of wife of PW3 – Mere fact that only a single blow was inflicted on the head by itself is not enough to alter the conviction from S.302 to S.304 IPC. (State of U.P. Vs Premi & Ors.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 572 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 304-I, 100 – Private defence – Apprehension of grievous hurt from hands of deceased with bottle in his hand – Deceased had a bottle in his hand and with that bottle he threatened accused that he should not move further – Accused pleaded to spare him – There was scuffle and during that scuffle, accused drew a knife and stabbed deceased on chest and ran away – It cannot be taken that accused had exercised force more than what was required for averting attack on the deceased – Evidence disclosing that deceased was the real aggressor – Conviction u/s 304-I set aside and accused acquitted. (Kuriachan Joseph alias Kuriachan Vs State of Kerala) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 250 (Kerala)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 304 Part I – Accused coming with gun to house of complainant party and hurling abuses – On being chased by complainant party, accused firing only once – Death of ‘G’ from pellets – Offence does not travel beyond S.304, Part I – Conviction altered from S.302 to that u/s 304 Part I. (Narendra Singh Vs The State of Raj.)2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 398 (Raj.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 304 Part I – Appellant a Schedule Tribe and an illiterate rustic man – Being enraged by the behaviour of his elder brother towards his wife as well as altercations arising out of domestic problem was provoked and in a spur of moment picked up the stick lying on the ground and gave blows on the head of deceased – Prosecution totally failed to prove premeditation – Offence committed by the appellant amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Conviction u/s 302 set aside and convicted u/s 304 Part I IPC. (Madhu Rana Vs State of Orissa) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 709 (Orissa)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 304 Part II, 323 and 326 r/w S.149 – Group of five persons armed with sticks, whips and choppers assaulted rival group resulting in death of one and bodily injuries to others – Evidence of eye witnesses discarded for reason that they were related and interested witnesses – For want of independent witness to prove existence of common object and also for want of evidence connecting particular accused with fatal injury all accused acquitted – Order of acquittal not sustainable – “Common intention” of group must be distinguished from intention of individual members of group – Court has to shift evidence to find whether any of them was acting independently – In absence of intention to cause death as evidenced by weapons used and nature of bodily injuries inflicted all accused are liable to be convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and for causing grievous hurt – Sentence of imprisonment is limited to period already undergone and in addition each of them is liable to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-. (State by Gowribidanur Police Station Vs Thimmappa & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 130 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 304 Part II – Injuries on deceased caused without premeditation – Conviction altered from S.302 to S.304 Part II IPC. (Mool Chand Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 495 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 304 Part II – Accused assaulted deceased with bamboo sticks only to teach a lesson – Deceased died after three days of assault – Offence falls u/s 304 Part II IPC and not u/s 302 IPC. (Ramhu & Ors. Vs State of M.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 114(Chhattisgarh)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 304 Part II – Altercation between the appellant and deceased – In a state of anger being provoked by the words used by the deceased, appellant inflicted single knife blow on the chest of the deceased – No premeditation or pre-plan to cause death of the deceased – Entire incident arose on sudden impulse – Appellant is guilty for committing the offence punishable u/s 304 Part II, IPC. (Pratap Behera Vs State of Orissa) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 565 (Orissa)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 304 Part II – Appeal against acquittal of an offence u/s 302 IPC – Accused alleged to have stabbed the deceased with a knife – Death of deceased after 3 days – Evidence of P.W.1 about the incident – His evidence corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstantial evidence on record – Dying declaration wrongly rejected by trial Court – Incident happened very suddenly – Offence comes u/s 304 Part II – Convicted accordingly and sentenced – Appeal allowed. (State of Karnataka Vs S.P.Devaraju) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 368 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 304 Part II – Appeal against conviction – Death from head injury caused by kulhari – No pre-meditation – Boundary dispute – Villagers present on spot to settle the dispute – Complainant party wielding lathies – Kulhari might be used in defence – Kulhari blow not repeated – Incident at spur of moment – Conviction altered from one u/s 302 to that u/s 304 Part II IPC. (Baldeva Ram Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 666 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 304 Part II – Deceased had gone to house of appellants where appellants inflicted one knife blow on abdomen of deceased and incident took place on spur of moment without there being premeditation – Offence falls u/s 304 Part II and not u/s 302 IPC. (Ramdish Verma Vs State of Delhi) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 48 (Delhi) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 304 Part II – Deceased under influence of liquor entered house of accused with knife and wanted to rape his wife – Hearing cries accused intervened and rescued her – Possibility cannot be ruled out that accused pushed the deceased out of his house, inflicted blows with knife and killed the deceased – Accused committed the act in the same transaction in which he received the grave and sudden provocation – Exception 1 to S.300 IPC is attracted – Accused convicted u/s 304 Part II IPC – Sentence reduced to already undergone (7 Years and 5 Months). (Kajod Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 294 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 304 Part II – Injuries caused with knife – Medical evidence disclosed that injuries were simple in nature – There was bleeding of trachea and it resulted in clotting of blood leading to asphyxia but that injury was not attributed to the respondent and nothing to establish that injury which resulted in death was intended by any one – High Court held that offence is made out u/s 304 Part II and not u/s 302 – No reason to take a different view. (State of Rajasthan Vs Jora Ram) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 716 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 848 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 304 Part II – Nature of injuries not such as could be likely to cause death – Conviction altered from S.302 to S.304 Part II IPC. (Deshram Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 453 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 304 Part II – Single injury by katar on thigh – Injury proving fatal – No premeditation – Occurrence in heat of passion after sudden quarrel without offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner – Offence falls u/s 304 Part II. (Anwar Hussain Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 599 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 304 Part II – Sudden fight – Accused picked up a stick and inflicted single blow on head of deceased – Injury caused fracture of skull as well as sub dural and sub-arachnoid haemorrhage on right side on frontal lobe of brain – Doctor however did not specifically gave opinion that injury sustained by deceased was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death – No case of premeditation or preconceived attack – Offence falls u/s 304 Part II IPC and not u/s 302 IPC – Sentence of 7 years imprisonment awarded. (Pradip (In Jail) Vs The State of Maharashtra) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 432 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 304 Part II – Sudden scuffle – Accused took a knife from his waist and inflicted knife below on chest of deceased without premeditation to commit murder – In the scuffle accused also received two incised injuries on his head – Offence will fall under S.304 Part II IPC and not under S.302 IPC. (Deepak Bhikaji Dharmale Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 560 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 304, 326 – Single blow – In some cases may entail conviction u/s 302 IPC, in some cases u/s 304 IPC and in some other cases u/s 326 IPC – Question with regard to nature of offence has to be determined in the facts and circumstances of each case. (Krushna Naik Vs State of Orissa) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 465 (Orissa)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 304B, 498A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438 – Dowry death – Brother of husband and his wife allowed bail as they were not to get any benefit from dowry item if brought by deceased. (Nikhilesh Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 671 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 304-B, 498-B, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,  S.438 – Dowry death – Accused challaned u/s 302, 304B, 498A, but discharged by Court on request of Police – Subsequently Court summoned them as accused in exercise of power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. – Bail allowed. (Nikhilesh Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 671 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 304-B, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.221 – Charge framed u/s 302 IPC – Evidence to convict u/s 302 IPC not adequate – Trial Court should have framed the charge u/s 304-B, IPC as the death has occasioned within four months from the date of marriage – Case remitted back to the trial Judge for disposal according to law. (Jagannath Pradhan Vs State of Orissa) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 426 (ORISSA)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 306, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.222 & 464 – Conviction for offence other than charged – Accused charged with section 302, however convicted under section 306 – Conviction upheld – Court can convict an  accused for an offence for which no charge was framed unless court is of the opinion that a failure of justice would occasion. (Dalbir Singh  Vs.  State of U.P. ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 682 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 307, 323, 341,  147 to  149 – Conviction – Appeal against – Out of five accused, one pregnant lady, other invalid, third a juvenile and fourth an old lady – Trial Court discarding theory of common object – No witness deposing correctly about weapons possessed by accused persons – Part of beating resulting in death took place inside house of accused – No witness having seen infliction of injuries by any accused on any particular portion of deceased – Deceased brought to house of accused in a cart – No explanation how cart appeared – Invalid accused found not capable of participation in offence – Another left by trial Court – Third expiring – Fourth dealt with juvenile court – Court required to deal with only one – No evidence what particular injury was inflicted by which accused – PW3 a week sighted person and it was not possible or him to have seen incident from distance of 500 feet – PW 4 not able to particularise participation of accused – Absence of sufficient evidence of common intention – Conviction set aside. (Richpal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 556 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 307, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 – Murder – Bail – No injury attributed to accused – Petitioner is alleged to be armed and available at spot and exhorted his father to kill the deceased – Accused in jail for one year – It will take a long time before trial is concluded – Bail granted. (Satwant Singh alias Satta Vs The State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 245 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 307/149 – Appellants armed with rifle, DBBL guns and SBBL guns fired from their weapons wherein deceased brother of informant died and another person sustained injuries – Conviction – Appeal against – Great deal of doubt that incident had occurred at the place and in the manner alleged by prosecution – Accused were six in number armed with weapons – Indiscriminate firing alleged – Informant sitting with deceased under neem tree did not receive any injury and no pellet marks were noticed on neem tree and no blood was found at scene of occurrence or under neem tree – No rifle injury found either on deceased or on injured witness – One of the accused had suffered fire arm injury on vital part and that injury could not  be self inflicted – Prosecution suppressed truth and benefit must go to accused – Conviction unsustainable. (Jumman Khan & Ors. Vs State) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 329 (Allahabad) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 307 and 324 – Killing by gun shot – Appeal against acquittal – Conviction by High Court – Fight between two factions – Trial Court disbelieving prosecution case and acquitted all accused holding evidence of eye witnesses being full of contradictions – Discrepancies and accompanying contradictions are not of such nature as would make evidence of PWs incredible – PW5 though turned hostile but admitted in her evidence that she suffered injuries at the place and time as stated by prosecution – Held, High Court was justified in convicting accused. (Munna @ Surendra Kumar Vs State of M.P.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 437 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 307 and 324 – Killing by gun shot – Recovery of 12 bore gun found to have a defective firing pin – Barrel of gun showing signs of discharge – This fact not brought out in course of arguments – Prosecution not relying upon this piece of evidence – Fact that gun was not properly recovered would not make prosecution case weaker. (Munna @ Surendra Kumar Vs State of M.P.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 437 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 307 r/w 149 – Murder – Conviction by Courts below – Appeal to Supreme Court – Conviction based on evidence of eye witness PW1 corroborated by PW7 – Neither of the witnesses supported the case of prosecution  – Appeal allowed. (Jai Pal & Ors. Vs State of U.P.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 342 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 323 – Murder – Appeal against conviction – Circumstantial evidence – Assault on deceased while he was asleep and PWs 4, 5 & 6 were also sleeping with deceased – PW 4, 5 & 6 though had not been able to identify the appellant as the person who assaulted deceased but their evidence established that a naked person fitting description of appellant attacked deceased with a stick and ran away – Recovery of appellant’s clothes and stick from near the place of the incident – Held, circumstances relied on by prosecution established beyond doubt involvement of appellant and peculiar circumstances gave sufficient reason to draw a reasonable conclusion that it was appellant and appellant alone who could have caused murder – Conviction calls for no interference. (Jagannath Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 170 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 323, 342, 34 – Private defence – Ownership of tree – Fight in between two families – Death of two of complainant party – Conviction of four of accused party – Complainant party proved to be aggressors by uprooting tree belonging to accused party by trespassing into boundary wall of accused party – Evidence not properly considered by trial Court – Accused injured in exercise of right of private defence – Conviction set aside. (Jai Ram & Ors. Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 613 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 323 and 201 – Deceased eloped with sister of appellant 7 years prior to incident – Appellant with other acquitted accused, assaulted deceased with lathi and when deceased fell down he severed head of deceased with sickle and drank his blood – Brother and wife of deceased were eye witnesses and conviction recorded on accepting their testimony – Presence of witnesses on place of occurrence which was near house of deceased was natural – Wife of deceased was assaulted when she tried to intervene – No reason why wife of deceased would falsely implicate appellant her brother leaving real culprit – Conviction cannot be interfered with. (Om Prakash Vs State of U.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 497 (Allahabad) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 323 – Kulhari blow on neck – Death – Blood stained kulhari and pant of accused seized – Accused beating M – Deceased intervened and he dealt with kulhari blow by accused twice including one on neck – Clear intention of causing death – Displeasure of accused with deceased on adopting son of M – Motive established – Even if deceased was intervener, three kulhari blows prove intention to cause death – Conviction sustained. (Narayan Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 758 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 323 – Sole eye witness – Change in version at every step – Two other eye witnesses not examined – Eye witness examined not present at scene of occurrence as per statements of PWs 3 and 16 – Conviction set aside. (Bheema Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 697 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 324 – Acquittal by trial Court – Conviction by High Court – Trial Court rejected evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 7 for valid reasons – Evidence of PW1 was contrary to medical evidence and High Court wrongly came to conclusion that medical evidence supported oral evidence of PW 1 – PW 1 was injured witness and he admitted that due to poor eye sight he was unable to identify all accused – Injury attributed to appellant to forehead of deceased by spear by witnesses was not according to medical evidence caused by sharp edged weapon or pointed weapon – High Court erred in reversing judgment of acquittal. (Devatha Venkataswamy @ Rangaiah Vs Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 22 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 324 – Charge u/ss 147, 148, 307 and 302/149 IPC – Other accused acquitted but appellant convicted u/s 302/34 IPC – Conviction in absence of independent and alternative charge for those individual offices is erroneous. (Paduji Vs State of Maharashtra With State of Maharashtra Vs Sitaram Waman Parkhe & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 109 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 324 – Kulhari blow – Death – Injuries also caused to PW4, daughter-in-law of deceased who intervened – PW1 grand daughter of deceased another eye witness – Presence of PW1 neither doubtful nor that she was falsely implicating accused – Accused and deceased both related to PWs1 and 4 – No ground to disbelieve their evidence on ground of relationship – Recovery of blood stained Kulhari at instance of accused proved by PW7 – Statements of PWs 1 and 4 corroborated by medical evidence and by PW 2 – Incident in broad day light as such nothing impossible in accused being identified by PWs1 and 4 from distance of 50-90 yards – No interference in order of conviction. (Jeeva @ Khema Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 90(Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 324 – Murder – Sole testimony of PW1 daughter of both deceased – Injuries also caused on hand of PW1 – Accused grandfather of PW1 – PW1 firm in cross examination and fully reliable – PW1 supported by other evidence – Other evidence trustworthy and corroborating version of PW1 – Conviction upheld. (Nisar Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 109 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 324/34 – Appellants coming armed with deadly weapons to the field where the deceased and his brothers were harvesting the crop and assaulted deceased who died and his brothers sustained injuries – Injuries caused asserted to be in protecting possession of property – Appellants had obtained injunction but finding of facts by Courts below that deceased and his brother were in possession of land and had sown the crop which they were harvesting – Appellants were rightly held not to have acted in exercise of their right to protect possession. (Daulat Trimbak Shewale & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 256 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 326 – Lathi blow on head – Death by single blow – Incident occurred at spur of moment – No evidence that accused had any motive, intention or knowledge as to their act which led to the death of deceased – Accused is guilty of offence u/s 326 – Conviction u/s 302 IPC set aside. (Chowa Mandal & Anr. Vs State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 217 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 326 – Murder – Four accused inflicted injuries causing death – One of the accused 70 years old at the time of incident who might not have been active participant in attack – Accused acquitted under S.302 IPC but convicted u/s 326 IPC. (State of Orissa Vs Lodu Swain & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 405 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 326 and 34 – Murder – Appellants armed with axes and lathis assaulted deceased – Motive alleged by prosecution that deceased purchased the land which otherwise appellants would have inherited – Most of the injuries caused to deceased were of minor nature – One of the appellants gave “lathi” blow which resulted in causing fracture of ribs and piercing of lung tissues – Such injury proved to be fatal – Appellants cannot be said to have shared a common intention to cause death – Appellant who caused fatal injury held to be liable under S.304 Part I IPC – Other appellants guilty under S.326 IPC. (Balbir Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab etc.) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 499 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 547 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 364 – Murder of three persons – Sentenced to 10 years R.I. – No interference is called for with the sentence awarded. (Shankar Mahto & Anr. Vs State of Bihar) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 550 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 376 – Rape and murder of six years child –  Case falls in rarest of rare cases – Death sentence awarded by trial Court, held was appropriate. (State of U.P. Vs Satish) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 305 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 379 – Clothes recovered from the possession of accused found to contain blood of the same blood group as that of deceased – Failure to prove that clothes actually belonged to the accused – Held, vital circumstance is missing. (Bablu @ Bulbul Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 228 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 379 – Murder – No eye witness – Circumstance of deceased last seen in company of accused alone proved –  Chain recovered from accused but maker of chain failed to identify as that of deceased – Clothes recovered from the possession of accused found to contain blood of the same blood group as that of deceased – Failure to prove that clothes actually belonged to the accused – Recovery of cycle from accused not incriminating in absence of evidence of ownership of cycle and use of cycle in commission of crime – Conviction set aside. (Bablu @ Bulbul Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 228 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 392 – Conviction – Appeal against – One of witnesses to recovery of silver bangles not examined – Other turning hostile – Axe recovered but not sent for forensic examination – Nothing on record to implicate accused with murder or robbery – Another accused already acquitted u/s 411 by trial Court – Conviction set aside. (Kishanlal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 280 (Raj.)  

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 394 – Conviction u/ss 302 and 394 IPC – Appeal against – Circumstantial evidence – Accused last seen in the company of deceased and seen running from place of incident soon after incident not established on basis of evidence – Ornaments recovered from shop other than that disclosed by accused cannot be said to be recovery at the instance of accused – Recovery of Khurpi from open place accessible to all and same not containing human blood – Khurpi not proved to be weapon of offence – Accused seen washing his hands but no evidence that he had blood in his hands – Strap of wrist watch found on dead body but not proved to be that of accused – Evidence of identification of ornaments incredible – Circumstances not proved against accused – Accused acquitted on benefit of doubt. (Naresh @ Ram Naresh Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 256 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 394 – Robbery and murder – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Conviction based on evidence that deceased was last seen with accused – Accused failed to offer any explanation in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – Mere non explanation cannot lead to proof of guilt – Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Bharat Vs State of M.P.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 562 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 394 – Robbery and murder – Recovery of ornaments from house of accused – Ornaments of common pattern – No proper identification of ornaments held – Not proper to link the accused with murder – Conviction set aside. (Bharat Vs State of M.P.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 562 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 452, Evidence Act, 1872, S.32 – Kerosene poured and deceased set on fire – Dying declaration recorded by Magistrate in presence of doctor in a fit state of mind – PW5 stating that accused tried to save victim turning hostile – Accused not taking such plea – No burn injuries on accused – No foundation for false implication – No explanation for absconding of accused for 15 days – Dying declaration recorded next day – Unconsciousness of victim after incident makes no difference – Victim died after 25 days of incident does not bring down offence – Conviction sustained.

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 452, 323, 148 and 149, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 – Bail – No injury on vital part of body of deceased which can be said to have been caused by the petitioners – Co-accused already granted bail – Petitioners in custody for last one year and two months – Bail granted. (Balkishan & Ors. Vs The State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 599 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 452, 323, 148 and 149, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 – Bail – No specific injury attributed to the petitioners – Main allegations against other accused who gave lathi blows on vital parts of the body of deceased – Bail granted. (Dharam Chand Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 421 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 460 and 458 r/w S.34 – Three persons killed and a child of seven years injured – Conviction of appellant – Prosecution of appellant and ‘R’ who absconded and declared proclaimed offender – Deceased ‘S’ alongwith his wife and daughter (deceased) resided at the tube well, engaged for cultivation of land belonging to PW5 and his brothers – He had employed ‘R’ to look after his cattle at the tube well – Late in the night appellant accompanied by ‘R’ came to the tube well and assaulted ‘J’ and PW6 child witness – In the morning PW5 father of appellant came to tube well with tea and found dead bodies – Medical evidence indicated that one deceased was attacked with sharp cutting weapons while other two deceased were assaulted with hard and blunt object such as hammer – Delay in recording statement of child witness not explained – PW5 lodged FIR but turned hostile – Child witness only implicated ‘R’ – However, before the doctor at the prompting of her father, she implicated appellant – Appellant not known to her – Conviction of appellant not sustainable. (Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 733 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 460 – Murder with robbery – Recovery of stolen articles from accused on basis of disclosure statement who was once domestic servant – Not safe to convict on sole evidence of recovery for an offence u/s 302 read with S.34, u/s 460 read with S.34 and offence u/s 380 read with S.34 IPC. (Kuldip Singh Vs State of Delhi) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 64 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 460 – Murder with robbery – Recovery of stolen articles from accused on basis of disclosure statement who was once domestic servant – Recovery not beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside. (Kuldip Singh Vs State of Delhi) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 64 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 498-A – Bride burning – Dying declaration that deceased saw her husband sleeping with wife of his tenant and that she asked tenant to vacate house and that accused poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze while she was cooking meals – Neighbours and relatives turning hostile – PW1 narrating incident of deceased consuming poison 3-4 years ago – 7 years daughter of deceased stating that deceased immolated herself – PW15 stating that deceased had tied one of her children on waist – Deceased mentally ill admitted by her brother – Deceased short tempered admitted by her father – Accused and two years son also suffering 10% burns – No certificate that deceased at time of making dying declaration was in fit state of mind – No evidence of ill-treatment – Held, it is unsafe to base conviction merely on basis of dying declaration – Conviction set aside. (Rajendra Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 254 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 498-A – Conviction of husband and his parents – Setting on fire by pouring kerosene for not betting a child – Witnesses turning hostile – Dying declaration recorded by Magistrate in presence of doctor – Deceased stated that her mother-in-law sprinkled kerosene and her husband lit matchstick and set her on fire and that they used to quarrel with her as she did not beget children – Doctor endorsed that deceased was conscious and was in fit condition to give statement – No overt act attributed to father-in-law – Conviction of husband and mother-in-law upheld and father-in-law acquitted. (Boina Mallaiah Vs State of A.P.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 617 (A.P.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 498-A – Proof of charge u/s 498-A – By itself does not prove charge of murder u/s 302 IPC. (Sukhdev Bhimrao Hastapure Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 183 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 97 to 99 – Murder – Accused suffered minor injuries – Accused not taking plea of self defence during cross examination of eye witnesses – Plea taken for the first time during statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – Held, plea was after thought. (Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 384 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 and 149 – Murder – Allegation against appellant that he alongwith 17 other accused armed with weapon tied the door of hut of deceased from outside and set the hut on fire – PW1 and PW2 sustained many burn injuries and deceased i.e. husband and son of PW1 died on spot – Appellant and other accused caught the other third deceased and cut him into pieces – Minor contradiction in stating time of occurrence – No reason to interfere in finding of trial Court – High Court affirmed the finding of trial Court. (Holiram Bordoloi Vs State of Assam) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 559 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 584 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 and 149 – Murder – Death sentence – Appellant alongwith 17 accused set the hut of deceased on fire – PW1 and PW2 sustained burn injuries – Husband and son of PW1 died on spot – Appellant caught third deceased and cut him into pieces – No mitigating circumstance in favour of appellant – There was no spark of any kindness or compassion and mind of accused was brutal and entire incident shocked the collective conscience of the community – Death penalty calls for no interference. (Holiram Bordoloi Vs State of Assam) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 559 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 584 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 and 201 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Effort to destroy evidence by packing dead body in the form of a parcel to send it to another place through Railway – Evidence of Rickshaw-puller who transported that parcel from premises of appellants to Railway Station – Does not suffers from doubt on his memory to remember this after a long time –  Inability of prosecution to prove the motive is not fatal. (Ravinder Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 41 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 and 302/149 – Appellant armed with country made gun, pistol and some rifles came to field of deceased, demanded a bag of parwal as Rangdari Tax – Refusal of deceased to yield to demand of accused – Accused fired at deceased – Eye witnesses closely related to each other – Medical evidence contradicted evidence of eye witnesses – Witnesses tried to conceal real prosecution story – I.O. not examined – Genesis of occurrence not proved – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Nageshwar Yadav & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 734 (Patna)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 and 302/149 – Ten accused armed with barchhas assaulted prosecution party – One of the victims assaulted on chest and forehead died and victims PW1, 2, 4 and 7 sustained injuries – Defence contention that prosecution case was a counter blast to the case got registered by accused persons and that injury on the person of some of the accused remain unexplained and witnesses examined are interested as related to each other – Incident of other case occurred where prosecution party attempted to loot away the harvested crop – Report regarding that incident lodged at 3 p.m. and report of present case lodged at 11 a.m. – Two incidents are separate and independent and there is no question of prosecution explaining injuries on the person of accused in the present case – Evidence of witnesses, some of whom injured found to be worthy of credence, corroborated by medical evidence and no reason not to believe them – When direct evidence is available it is not necessary to go into question of motive – No reason to interfere with conviction. (Nagarjit Ahir etc. Vs State of Bihar) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 115 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 and 304 Part I – Deceased assaulted by accused with knife causing four injuries – There was free fight between deceased and accused about which none of prosecution witnesses spoke anything – Accused had also four injuries – Accused had not gone anywhere to bring knife but he used knife which was with him suddenly in quarrel though blows were on vital part of the body of deceased – Accused is liable to be convicted u/s 304 Part I and not under S.302 IPC. (Krushna  Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 122 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 and 304 part II, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.357 – Murder – Compensation –  Appellant convicted for having caused the death of a person playing drum in band party in Marriage – Appellant was 45 of age at the relevant time – He offered to pay rupees 3.5 lakhs as compensation to the aged parents of victim – Sentence of two years imprisonment awarded – Rs. 3.5 lakhs deposited by appellant to be paid to the parents of deceased. (Nehru Jain Vs State of NCT Delhi) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 731 (Delhi)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 and 304 part II – Murder – Appellant convicted for having caused the death of a person playing drum in band party in Marriage – Revolver from which shot was fired recovered from appellant – Three empty cartridges seized from the spot – Crime bullet also found fired from the weapon in question – Conviction upheld – However, conviction altered from S.302 IPC to section 304 part II IPC. (Nehru Jain Vs State of NCT Delhi) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 731 (Delhi)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 and 304 Part II – Murder – Bride burning – Prosecution alleged that sister-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased poured kerosene on deceased and set her on fire – Deceased rushed outside with flames on her person shouting for help – Accused did not try to save deceased – Relationship of accused and deceased not cordial – Case of stove burst ruled out – Prosecution version supported by dying declaration and corroborated by other evidence – Accused held  guilty – However, High Court altered conviction from S.302 to 304 Part II – No appeal filed by State against such alteration – No case made out for interference by Supreme Court. (B.Shashikala Vs  State of Andhra Pradesh) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 540 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 and 304 part II – Murder – Nature of offence – Appellant convicted for having caused the death of a person playing drum in band party in Marriage – No explanation by accused that he was firing in the air – Offence committed would fall under S.304 part II. (Nehru Jain Vs State of NCT Delhi) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 731 (Delhi)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 and 306, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.222 and 464 – Charge – Conviction under section 306 when accused was charged for offence u/s 302 – Wife setting herself and her two daughters on fire – Allegation of demand of dowry proved – Reason for suicide due to harassment on account of demand of dowry proved – Accused getting ample opportunity to rebut and disprove evidence against him – All ingredients  of offence u/s 306 proved and were duly put to accused – Conviction u/s 306 would not result in failure of justice – Conviction u/s 306 upheld. (Dalbir Singh  Vs.  State of U.P. ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 682 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 and 324 – Appellant assaulted deceased with axe on head when other four accused were armed with stick in the assault – Accepting evidence of eye witnesses including injured PW 7, trial Court convicted appellant but acquitted other four – Trial Court itself discarded evidence of eye witnesses so far as assault by acquitted accused was concerned –  Material omissions and contradictions in evidence of PW7 – FIR did not show that appellant was holding axe and assaulted victim on head – Prosecution failing to explain how one of the acquitted accused had suffered injuries – Conviction of appellant cannot be sustained. (Paduji Vs State of Maharashtra With State of Maharashtra Vs Sitaram Waman Parkhe & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 109 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 and 34 – Murder – Accused armed with axes and “lathis” assaulted deceased – Eye-witnesses PW2 and PW3 witnessed the incident – Delay in lodging FIR explained by PW2 as after incident he went to search the sarpanch of village and to call brother of deceased – PW2 did not rescue his father – Assailants were four in number and with arms – Contradictions between medical evidence and oral evidence held not to be of much consequence – Conviction not liable to be interfered with. (Balbir Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab etc.) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 499 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 547 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 and 34 – Murder – Appellants alleged to have killed deceased by setting him on fire – Motive alleged by prosecution that deceased failed to return interest of money to appellant – Courts below convicted appellants on the basis of dying declaration and evidence of PW2 i.e. father of deceased – PW2 did not show any idea regarding recording of dying declaration – Evidence of PW2 not credible – Evidence of Investigating Officer contradicted by other evidence – Medical evidence raised a number of questions which were not satisfactorily answered – Benefit of doubt given to appellants – Conviction set aside. (Sheikh Meheboob @ Hetak & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 600 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 and 397 – Murder by axe blow and then caused injury to PW1 wife of deceased and robbed her Rs.500/- – Appellant then went to his employer in midnight and made extra judicial confession before employer PW7, his wife PW2 and neighbourer PW 19 – PW1 wife of deceased when examined by doctor about her injuries narrated history of assault by unknown person – Police requisition for her examination also recorded assault by unknown person – Several discrepancies regarding persons to whom confession made and what precisely was said by appellant – Such extra judicial confession cannot be believed – Presence of human blood either on axe or in any article seized from appellant was not reported – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Raju @ Rajesh @ Topa Vs State of M.P.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 135 (M.P.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 read with S.149, 147, 323 and & 325 – Large number of persons armed with sticks or pelted stones chasing one ‘Vithal’ to teach him a lesson – ‘Vithal’ was with his brother – ‘Vithal’ dying and his brother injured – Held, object was to cause hurt or grievous hurt and not to commit murder. (Bhima @ Bhimrao Sida Kamble & Ors Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 64 (S.C)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 r/w Ss.34 and 498-A – Conviction u/s 302 r/w 34 and 498-A IPC – Husband and in-laws caused physical and mental harassment of wife and committed murder by pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze – Evidence of Magistrate recording dying declaration and doctor sufficient to prove prosecution case – Other circumstantial evidence including spot panchanama further proved prosecution case – Ill-treatment and harassment proved by father of deceased – Every link evidence proved by witnesses leading to one conclusion that all accused had common intention and knowingly poured kerosene on the victim and set her ablaze – No interference in order of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment. (Nagesh Dharma Godke & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 281 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 r/w 120-B and 302/34 – Deceased returning on a cycle with PW-15 – Bus driven by appellant rashly and ran over deceased – Other two appellants were in the bus and they conspired to kill deceased because of property dispute – PW 13 was 13 years of age, a student and was examined after 7 years of incident – While assessing evidence one has to keep realities in view and not adopt a hyper sensitive approach – Discrepancies like which part of offending vehicle hit cycle etc. were too trifle to affect credibility of witness – Appellant was whether owner of vehicle or had a driving licence is of no consequence – Conviction of appellant who drove vehicle and killed deceased calls for no interference – No evidence to prove conspiracy of other two appellants in crime – Their conviction either with help of S.120-B or S.34 IPC cannot be sustained. (Damodar Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 361 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 r/w 120-B and 302/34 – Deceased returning on a cycle with PW-15 – Bus driven by appellant rashly and ran over deceased – Other two appellants were in the bus and they conspired to kill deceased because of property dispute – PW 13 was 13 years of age, a student and was examined after 7 years of incident – While assessing evidence one has to keep realities in view and not adopt a hyper sensitive approach – Discrepancies like which part of offending vehicle hit cycle etc. were too trifle to affect credibility of witness – Appellant was whether owner of vehicle or had a driving licence is of no consequence – Conviction of appellant who drove vehicle and killed deceased calls for no interference – No evidence to prove conspiracy of other two appellants in crime – Their conviction either with help of S.120-B or S.34 IPC cannot be sustained. (Damodar Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 567 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/149, 148 and 324/149 – Conviction by trial Court – Acquittal by High Court – Appeal against – Appreciation of evidence by High Court neither perverse nor findings recorded not supported by evidence on record – Conclusion reached by High Court a possible reasonable conclusion which could be arrived at on the basis of evidence on record – No interference with order of acquittal. (State of U.P Vs Sunder Singh & Ors.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 725 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 r/w 149, 148 & Ss.100 & 88 – Accused armed with arrow and bow, Denga and stones assaulted two deceased in the field – Plea of right of private defence as their crop in threshing filed was set on fire and their house was stoned – Deceased sustained stab wounds and fracture of parietal bone and occipital bone and both deceased died of shock and excessive bleeding – Overwhelming ocular evidence duly corroborated by medical evidence – Accused filed to establish plea of private defence by preponderance of probabilities – Assault was exceedingly vindictive and maliciously excessive – Accused not entitled to right of private defence – Conviction calls for no interference. (Bathusingh & Ors. Vs State of M.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 549 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 r/w Ss.149 and 148, 341, 304 Part I, 304 Part II – Murder – Alteration of conviction – Lathis and axes used by appellants to beat deceased – Assaults made in course of quarrel – Doctor who conducted post-mortem found 34 injuries including several fracture injuries – Conviction by trial Court u/ss 302 r/w Ss.148, 149 and 341 – Fracture injuries were on hand and other non vital parts of body – No grievous injury on head – All injuries on hand simple in nature – High Court altered conviction to S.304 Part I – No infirmity – On facts, however, case held to be one covered under S.304 Part II – Custodial sentence of six years imposed. (Adu Ram Vs Mukna & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 678 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 r/w Ss.149 & 148 – Acquittal of co-accused – Contention that benefit of doubt should be given on that count – Held, not tenable. (Gangadhar Behera & Ors. Vs State of Orissa) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 176 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 r/w Ss.149 & 148 – S.149 is applicable for fastening the constructive liability which is sine qua non for its operation – Distinction between common object and common intention explained – No overt act is required to be proved against an accused who is alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly with a common object and was likely to commit any of the acts which fall u/s 141 IPC – Even if definite roles have not been assigned to the accused S.149 is applicable. (Gangadhar Behera & Ors. Vs State of Orissa) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 176 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 & 304 Part II – Quarrel in between accused and PW 5 – Deceased came to pacify the same – Accused inflicted axe blow on head of deceased in a spur of moment and there was no intention to cause death – Offence would wall u/s 304 Part II IPC and not u/s 302 IPC. (Kishore Chandra Sahu Vs State of Orissa) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 419 (Orissa) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 & 498-A r/w S.34, Evidence Act, 1872, S.32 – Dowry death – Conviction of husband and his father – Dying declaration by deceased to police official and second dying declaration recorded by Executive Magistrate – Both dying declarations  recorded  in  presence  of  doctor  and  certified  by  doctor  that victim was conscious  and in a fit state of mind to make statement – Dying declaration categorical that  appellants poured Kerosene and set her on fire – Victim had suffered 90% burns – No error in recording conviction by trial Court – Conviction cannot be interfered with.  (Bhagwan Tukaram Dange & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 23 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 & Arms Act, 1959, S.27 – Offence u/s 302 IPC & S.27 Arms Act – Conviction based on testimony of eye witnesses – No evidence or circumstance indicating FIR anti timed or anti dated – Non examination of another eye witness, in front of whose house deceased was playing chess, was for reason that he was won over – Prosecution cannot be compelled to examine such witness – Consistent evidence of three eye witnesses examined by prosecution – Conviction cannot be interfered with. (Tunai Sharma Vs State of Bihar) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 223 (Patna) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34, Evidence Act, 1872, S.3 – Murder – Conviction – Appreciation of evidence – Allegations against appellants that they gave beating to deceased and he died on the spot – Testimony of two eye-witnesses found trustworthy and reliable – Corroborated by testimony of other witnesses – Land dispute between the parties – Medical evidence showed that 23 injuries including fractures and haematomas were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death – No error found in the judgment passed by Court below. (Anda Ram & Anr. Vs State) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 528 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34, 148, 302/149 and 307/149 – Accused armed with gun, country made pistols and hockey sticks reached where deceased and prosecution witnesses were singing – Accused fired at two persons who died and others were injured – Five out of eight convicted – Just because witnesses were related to deceased is not a ground to discard their testimony – Two witnesses were independent and were injured in incident – Testimony of an injured witness has its relevance and efficacy – Individual role not to be looked into when evidence showed accused to have formed unlawful assembly with common object to murder deceased – Simple injuries on person of accused even if not explained, do not vitiate trial – Conviction recorded by trial Court restored. (State of U.P. Vs Kishan Chand & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 337 (S.C.) : 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 208 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34, 307, 302/114 – Quarrel among ladies over a trifle issue – Appellants armed with iron rod, lathis entered house of deceased – Accused (non appellant) inflicted iron rod on deceased which resulted in injury on left parital region of skull and in depressed fracture of left parital bone – Other two injuries were on body of deceased – Appellants cannot be said to have common intention to kill and are to be made liable for overt act committed by each – Appellants 1 and 2, armed with lathis entered into the house and instigated others to beat up – It would be safe to convict them u/s 324/114 IPC – Appellants 3 and 4 attacked deceased with lathis but only one injury on deceased could be related to one caused by lathi but no evidence who amongst two caused that injury – Appellant No.4 convicted u/s 324 IPC. (Mukati Prasad Rai @ Mukti Rai & Ors. Vs State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 986 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34, 307/34, 304 Part I – Appellants armed with axe, knife and iron rode assaulted deceased – Both hands chopped from below elbow by axe blows – No injury on head or other vital part caused which could show that intention was to kill – Appellant could be attributed knowledge that injuries they had inflicted were likely to cause death – Appellants liable to be convicted under S.304 Part I IPC. (Gopal & Ors. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 266 (M.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34, 325/34, 326/34 – Father, two sons and brother-in-law convicted u/ss 326/34 and 325/34 and sentenced to 7 years and 5 years R.I. – High Court acquitted them not relying dying declaration and evidence of PW5 – Evidence and reasons for discarding PW5 and dying declaration found to be wholly untenable – Accused found to be rightly convicted under Ss.325 and 326 r/w S.34 IPC – Sentence however reduced to 4 years RI. (State of Haryana Vs Mange Ram & Ors.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 135 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34, 325/34, 326/34 – Father, two sons and brother-in-law convicted u/ss 326/34 and 325/34 and sentenced to 7 years and 5 years R.I. – High Court acquitted them not relying dying declaration and evidence of PW5 – Evidence and reasons for discarding PW5 and dying declaration found to be wholly untenable – Accused found to be rightly convicted under Ss.325 and 326 r/w S.34 IPC – Sentence however reduced to 4 years RI. (State of Haryana Vs Mange Ram) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 372 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34, 394, 404 and 201 – Conviction – Circumstantial evidence – Dead body found in a tank – Death due to axphyxia – Deceased, an employee of Commission Agent had set out for collection of money from customers and had collected some money  also – He stayed with appellant at his residence – Appellant arrested from Bombay and pursuant to his information a watch, a bush-shirt, money bag, printed receipt book, pieces of torn bank draft and a knife recovered – From other appellant Rs.10,000/- and a handkerchief, which belonged to deceased recovered from his residence – Fact of recovery of these article from the appellants is the most probable inference that they were responsible for death of deceased – Appellants were in company of deceased at various places immediately preceding the day of death – Graffiti found on the wall of the fort and it tallied with specimen signatures of appellants – Conviction not liable to be interfered with. (Kanti Lal etc. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 781 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34, Arms Act, 1959, S.27 –  Conviction of appellant alongwith father and brother – SLP of father and brother not admitted but that of appellant admitted – Prosecution failed to establish that appellant shared common intention of his father and brother so as to hold him guilty of murder – Appellant cannot be held guilty of causing injuries to PW4 and PW7 under S.27 Arms Act. (Md.Rustam @ Rustam Vs The State of Bihar) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 409 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34 and 307/34 – Appellants armed with axe, knife and iron rod assaulted deceased – Wife of deceased an eye witness – Conviction challenged that witness was interested – Evidence cannot be discarded merely on the ground that it was of a partisan or interested witness – Witness herself had been injured in incident – Her presence could not be doubted – Her evidence stood supported by medical evidence as regards two appellants armed with axe and iron rod – No penetrating or stab wound found which could be attributed to appellant armed with knife – Injury on witness also could not be related to knife – Appellant armed with knife deserves benefit of doubt and his conviction set aside – Conviction of other two appellants was well based. (Gopal & Ors. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 266 (M.P.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34 – Accused assaulted informant in a Panchayati which had been called in relation to an altercation which took place between an accused and informant – Brother of informant intervened and asked accused why he was assaulting his brother – On this accused gave lathi blows on the head of deceased – Subsequently victim died – Cause of death not proved as doctor who conducted post-mortem not examined – No material before Court to hold that death was due to the assault by accused – Two eye witnesses examined by I.O. after 14 days of occurrence – Their evidence cannot be relied on to base conviction – Other two eye witnesses turned hostile – As evidence cannot be relied upon to base conviction as such the same is liable to be set aside. (Shiv Yadav @ Sheo Raut & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 06(Patna)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34 – Acquittal by trial Court – Conviction by High Court – Held, when trial Court had given good and weighty reasons for recording its conclusion on acquittal of accused, High Court need not have substituted its view to reverse the view of trial Court. (Rajeevan & Anr. Vs State of Kerala) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 324 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34 – Appeal against conviction – Previous enmity between parties – A-1 caught hold of the hands of the deceased towards backwards and A-2 picked out a small knife from his pocket and stabbed the deceased on his chest – Deceased fell down and died – Inconsistency in the evidence of PW1, 2 & 7 – P.W.2 does not speak A-2 stabbing the deceased twice – Inconsistency in the evidence regarding altercation before the incident – Material contradictions between evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Ex.P-1 (FIR) – Independent witnesses not examined – Conviction set aside. (Pullareddigari Venkataramana Reddi & Anr. Vs State of A.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 157 (A.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34 – Appeal against conviction – P.W.2 brother of deceased interested in becoming eye witness reached only on hearing hue and cry from a distance of 1/2 km – PW 5 disowning his statement made to police and not reliable – Injuries on accused not explained nor their injury reports brought on record – Investigation not revealing true genesis of occurrence – If evidence of PWs 2 and 5 rejected qua co-accused, same to be rejected in toto – Presence of both witnesses unnatural on scene of occurrence – In absence of true genesis of occurrence difficult to convict accused – Accused acquitted on benefit of doubt. (Mangu Singh Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 672 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34 – Appellant No.1 and his wife convicted for murder of brother of appellant No.1 – Both appellants assaulted deceased and his cries attracted sister of deceased and her daughter and both were eye witnesses – Eye witnesses deposed about assault on deceased by both appellants – Weapons bearing blood-stains recovered at instance of appellant not sent to FSL & case rested entirely on testimony of eye witnesses – No serious infirmity in statement of eye witnesses – Presence of eye witnesses natural as they were residents of locality – Eye witnesses being close relation will not implicate appellants falsely and their evidence corroborated by medical evidence – No interference with order of conviction. (Pappu @ Gutiya & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 190 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34 – Appellant No.2 mother of deceased, poured kerosene and appellant No.1 step father set deceased on fire – PW4 younger sister of deceased, a child witness was eye witness to incident – PW3 police patil recorded statement of deceased wherein she stated that A1 poured kerosene on her and A2 set her on fire – Order of conviction confirmed by High Court – Child witness, whose presence was admitted by defence, was not enemical to her mother and it was difficult to accept that any one could influence a child to depose against her own mother falsely – Her evidence corroborated by PW3 who recorded dying declaration in presence of an independent witness PW6 – Suggestion that deceased was pregnant by illicit relation and committed suicide not accepted as not supported by medical evidence – Conviction cannot be interfered with. (Doryodhan & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 62 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34 – Assault by four accused persons armed with lathis – Intention to kill – One lacerated wound and 4 contusions were on body of deceased – Left pleura and long was damaged with fracture of rib – Intention can be inferred from acts of accused and surrounding circumstances – Deceased earlier convicted for murder of brother of one of appellants and was on bail – Previous enmity and motive was there – Appellant is guilty of murder. (Munna & Ors. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 274 (M.P.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34 – At the exhortation of appellant No.2, appellant No.1 fired at deceased and shot hit in abdomen in house of deceased – Family members were eye witnesses – Delay in recording FIR – Inquest report did mention that death was caused by shot of country made pistol – No contradiction or infirmity in statement of eye witnesses – Medical evidence supported prosecution that deceased suffered a fire-arm shot as bullet embedded in 5th lumber vertebra was recovered – Whether said bullet was discharged from weapon carried by appellant is of no significance as weapon had not been recovered – Eye witnesses explained that deceased on receiving bullet injury pressed wound by hand and then tied piece of cloth around the wound and thus there was no likelihood of earth getting blood stained – Non lifting of blood stained earth does not create doubt – Evidence of eye witnesses convincing – Conviction of A1 suffers no infirmity. (Nirmal Singh & Anr. Vs State of Bihar) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 24 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34 – Common intention – Whether it was to murder the deceased or was it to merely assault in an attempt to take possession of the disputed land – Accused nine in number armed with deadly weapons came to the field where deceased and his two brothers were harvesting crop – Motive, nature of injuries and fact that there were also injuries on accused indicate that there was a fight between two groups – Though appellant carried axe but only an incised wound was there on the forehead of deceased – No evidence who amongst nine assailants had caused fatal injury on deceased – It is not safe to infer that appellants shared common intention to cause death – Appellants held guilty u/s 326/34 IPC – Sentence of seven years imprisonment awarded. (Daulat Trimbak Shewale & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 256 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34 – Conviction by trial Court and acquittal by High Court of three accused for murder with aid of S.34 IPC – All three accused armed with knife attacked accused who died on spot – PW1 brother of deceased and PW2 & PW3 independent persons were eye witnesses – High Court disbelieved PW2 on ground that earlier he had been convicted for four years in a criminal case and appeared to be a chance witness – Evidence of a witness who has got a criminal background to be viewed with caution but if his evidence gets corroboration then there is nothing wrong in accepting such evidence – PW3 cannot be disbelieved merely for the reason that he belonged to a different area or had no business to be near place of occurrence – High Court disbelieved PW1 on basis of a document produced in High Court and witness during trial had no opportunity to explain it – High Court should not have allowed such document to come on record at appellate stage – Acquittal cannot be sustained. (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Farid Khan & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 220 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34 – Conviction of appellant for offence of murder by his having shared a common intention with co-accused his father – Considerable discrepancies in evidence of witnesses as to language used by accused in causing exhortation to co-accused and not such act of exhortation attributed in initial report – Held, accused cannot be convicted for murder with aid of S.34 IPC. (Abdul Wahid Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 380 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34 – Conviction – Appeal against – Appellant armed with knife with three more unidentified assailants, one of whom armed with knife and other two with lathis, assaulted deceased in the field at about 12-1 O’Clock – Two sons of deceased woke up on hearing shouts and they alongwith PW3 arrived on spot and saw assailants leaving place – Aspect of motive becomes significant keeping in view manner and time of attack – Failure to establish motive – Number of injuries found incompatible with number of assailants and manner in which incident took place – It appeared to be a case of hit and run at dead of night and none could recognize assailants – Conviction set aside. (Chhotey Lal Pandey Vs State of U.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 197 (Allahabad)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34 – Events as contained in FIR materially differing with statement of PWs – No statement in FIR that appellant inflicted any injury with the stick on head of deceased as alleged by PWs – Colour of alleged injury on skull not noted in report so to enable to ascertain time of injury – In inquest panchnama, no head injury on dead body noted – In FIR nothing mentioned as to appellant’s role as regards his hitting the deceased with a stick on his head – In FIR only one overt act attributed to appellant ‘maro….maro’ – No injury inflicted on deceased after the alleged exhortation – Such exhortation by itself does not give rise to an inference of sharing common intention – Conviction set aside. (Idrish Bhai Daudbhai Vs State of Gujarat) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 666 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34 – Matrimonial offence – Murder of wife – Conviction of husband and his mother – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Victim sustained 100% burn injuries – Defence plea that it was accidental fire – PW-17, an eight year old child, as he woke up, saw deceased burning in room and both appellants  standing by side of door of room – Statement of witness corroborated by inquest report – Prudence requires that some corroboration is required in order to pass conviction on the basis of statement of a child witness – Witness immediately disclosed incident to informer who lodged FIR but in FIR the fact that informer was informed by PW17 not disclosed – Accidental fire ruled out as infant son of deceased aged 2/3 months who must be by side of deceased during night was not hurt and no sign of any burn mark found in room – Conviction could not be interfered with. (Khokan Patra & Anr. Vs State) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 626 (Calcutta) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34 – Murder by two accused – Three eye witnesses – PW-1 eye witness confronted with his earlier statement where he had not claimed to have seen the attack and hence could not be relied – PW-2 eye witness also confronted with her statement and was not reliable – Evidence of third eye witness found fully reliable and remained unshaken in cross-examination and his evidence stood corroboration by medical evidence – Defence plea that deceased sustained injury by fall on a stone – Not acceptable – Conviction calls for no interference. (Dayal & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 403 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34 – Murder due to enmity – Head severed from trunk – Head kept in plastic bag and trunk dragged to a pit full of water and thrown in it – Two eye witnesses PW2 and PW5, nephew of deceased – PW1, son of deceased came later and witnessed dragging of his father’s trunk – PW2 did not mention name of appellants – There is no scope of false implication as police came within a span of 1/2 hour – Being nephew of deceased witness does not become interested witness – Medical evidence and evidence of I.O. do not falsify story of dragging of headless body of deceased – It is a case based on proper evidence – Appeal dismissed. (Mundrika Mahto & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 389 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34 – Murder – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Domestic servant involved – Accused did not run away after incident – Recoveries unbelievable – Extra judicial confession false and unreliable – Case against appellants not proved to hilt beyond all reasonable doubt – Hence, appellants acquitted. (Radhey Shyam (In Jail) Vs State of U.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 453 (All.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34 – Murder – Conviction by trial Court – Acquittal by High Court – Murder of five members of family over property dispute – Convicted based on testimony of PW4 brother of one of deceased and his son PW5 – Accused armed with Kirpan and he alleged to have attacked five deceased who were asleep in courtyard in house in mid night – PW4 & PW5 sleeping on the roof of house on separate cots and saw accused assaulting deceased persons – High Court found presence of PW4 and PW5 on spot at the time of occurrence doubtful as they were chance witnesses – I.O. in site plan did not show wooden stairs or cots on roof – Absence of these in sketch created doubt – No person was attracted on PW4 and PW5 raising hue and cry after occurrence, creates doubt – High Court noticed inconsistencies in evidence of two eye witnesses – View of High Court was reasonable view of evidence and does not deserve to be interfered with. (State of Punjab Vs Ajaib Singh & Ors.) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 373 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34 – Murder – Eye witness account established that accused were responsible for death of deceased – Body of deceased was brought near the field of deceased from place of occurrence – Do not cast doubt on prosecution case. (Kishnia & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 578 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34 – Murder – On hearing gun shot father of deceased reached place of occurrence and saw accused holding pistols and deceased died of gun shot injuries – Not a human conduct that after committing crime the assailants would keep on standing to be witnessed by the informant – The plea of the father that he was kept confined in a jungle on pistol point throughout the night and was let off in the morning – Wife of the deceased stating that the father went to the place of occurrence along with other family members in the morning – Held, presence of the informant on the place of occurrence falsified and conviction set aside. (Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs State of Bihar) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 508 (Patna)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34 – Single gun shot injury – Murder – Common intention – Accused followed deceased on cycles and shortly thereafter sound of firearm shot was heard – Witnesses saw deceased lying with bleeding injury on neck – Eye witness PW4 turned hostile – Evidence of other witnesses that when they reached spot they heard PW4 shouting aloud that accused were running away after killing deceased – Res gestae evidence can be used in corroboration of primary evidence – According to prosecution gun shot injury was caused by accused who has since died and no evidence that appellants had shared common intention in killing deceased – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Rudal Shahi & Ors. Vs State) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 129 (Allahabad)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34 – Three accused assaulted deceased when deceased and his son PW1 were returning after attending criminal case in Court – Conviction recorded by trial Court on sole testimony of PW1 – Conviction set aside by High Court – High Court doubted presence of PW1 as no Court record was produced to show their appearance in the case – This fact not controverted in cross-examination and not even a suggestion was put – It cannot be said that there was late lodging of FIR as occurrence took place at 4 p.m. and FIR lodged at 6.30 p.m. as PW1 reached police station through different village so as to avoid risk to his life – Near relation will not ordinarily depose falsely against innocent so as to allow real culprit to escape – Medical evidence was not discrepant to oral testimony – Order of conviction recorded by trial Court restored. (State of Punjab Vs Hardan Singh & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 467 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/34 – Wife – Murder by strangulation – Entire case based on evidence of approver PW1 – Appeal against conviction – Evidence of PW1 that appellants by putting pistol and dagger on him compelled him to go with them for commission of offence – Witness may not fall in category of accomplice – Even if it is assumed that he was accomplice and turned approver, his evidence required corroboration by provisions of S.114(b) of Evidence Act – Court might presume that an accomplice was unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars – No corroboration to testimony of PW 1 – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Babu Lal Kahar Vs State of Bihar) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 684 (Patna)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/120B – Murder – Appeal against conviction – Accused ‘D’ neither named in FIR nor in statements given by witnesses during investigation – Identification after 168 days of incident – One witness correctly identified ‘D’ but committing one mistake in identifying other accused – Other witness correctly identifying other accused but committing one mistake in identifying ‘D’ – Value of identification only 50% – In absence of any other evidence, identification cannot be made basis of conviction – Incident took place at 9.30 p.m. in dark night – Assailants moving away on cycle – Witness neither going to house of deceased being close by to inform about incident – Witness neither disclosing to D.M., SSP and City Kotwal in hospital that he had himself seen assailants – His evidence highly doubtful – Other witness being chance witness and got up witness – But he did not have sufficient opportunity to identify fleeing assailants – Held, it is not safe to hold  appellant ‘D’ guilty of charge of murder – ‘D’ entitled to benefit of doubt – Acquitted. (Shambhoo Sharan Pandey & Anr. Vs State of U.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 48 (All.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/148 and Arms Act, 1959, S.27 – Conviction by trial Court and acquittal by High Court – Ten accused – Except one accused all others acquitted by Supreme Court – On 21.3.1986 all accused, armed with weapons like gun, rifle, bhala and country made gun came between 8 to 9 p.m. hurling abuses when informant and deceased were sitting – Respondent fired rifle shot and deceased fell dead on spot – Informant snatched rifle from accused and handed over the same to police – Ocular evidence corroborated in material particulars by medical evidence – High Court discarded eye witness account branding witnesses as inimical – Defence set up by accused was that fire went off accidentally when prosecution party tried to snatch the rifle but evidence showed rifle was snatched after fire was shot – Consistent and creditworthy evidence – Plea of accidental fire was improbable and rightly rejected in face of positive evidence – When prosecution evidence is strong and positive then motive becomes inconsequential – Conviction by trial Court restored against respondent. (Rama Shish Rai Vs Jagdish Singh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 946 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/149, 147, 323 – One of the accused committed murder of a passerby who was not the member of prosecution party – For that individual act of co-accused other accused cannot be convicted with aid of S.149 IPC. (Munsi Hasda & Anr. Vs State of Bihar) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 444 (Patna)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/149, 148, 323 – Murder – Conviction – Appeal against – Incident occurred in midnight on roof of house of deceased – PW1 wife was the sole eye witness, sleeping on roof – Brother of deceased lodged FIR who described the availability of moon light – It had rained in first half of night – Possibility that it was cloudy was strong and it ruled out availability of moon light – PW 1 by improvement introduced light by lantern – PW 1 remained silent for three days and her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recoded after three days – She cannot be considered to be a reliable and trustworthy witness to upheld conviction – Two of the appellants alleged to be armed with sharp edged pointed weapons but no corresponding injury by such weapon found on person of deceased – Other accused were armed with lathis was improvement as deceased was found having an injury on skull by blunt force – Defence story appeared probable – Conviction liable to be set aside. (Kailash Narain  Vs State of U.P) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 152 (Allahabad) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/149, 148, 325/149, 324/149, 323/149 and 326, Arms Act, 1959, S.27 – Offence under – Prosecution of 8 persons – One declared absconder – Three acquitted – Four convicted – 3 Appealed to Supreme Court – Conviction based on three eye witnesses – Evidence of informant and one witness not wholly reliable – Investigation of case was tainted – Recoveries and seizures made are suspect – Prosecution failed to explain the injuries on the person of Paramjit Singh and no test identification parade was held even though informant and eye witness did not know the names of the assailants on the date of occurrence – Appeal allowed. (Lakhwinder Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 352 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/149, 148, 452 – Seven accused armed with guns and pistols entered into house of informant at about 9.30 p.m. and fired shots at informant’s son who died on spot – Conviction of all seven accused – Eye witnesses family members – Though eye witnesses were interested and partisan but they made consistent and natural statements – FIR promptly lodged – Accused had motive for crime as deceased and other convicted u/s 307 IPC on a complaint of accused were enlarged on bail by High Court – Post mortem report showed that deceased sustained three gun shot wounds of entry – Facts showing that only one accused fired shots on deceased and he alone was liable to be convicted for murder and rest all the accused are entitled to acquittal by benefit of doubt. (Ram Shanker & Ors. Vs State) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 663 (Allahabad)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/149, 148 and 201 and 324 – Conviction of six appellants, members of a family – They along with two unknown persons armed with guns and appellants armed with weapons came to house/Gher of deceased and assaulted him by gun shots – PW1 wife of deceased, tried to intervene, was fired upon and injured – PW2 informant, was also the eyewitness and conviction was based on their evidence – Deceased and PW2 had earlier been tried and convicted for murder of father of appellants – Appellants would not have spared PW2 – It was not probable that PW2 alone would go to police station to lodge report – PW1 injured by gun shot was got medically examined on the next day – Evidence suggests that PW2 was not present on spot and PW 1 tried to make a case to corroborate the story culled out by PW2 – Story of three appellants armed with Gandasa and axe was introduced at later stage – Incident though took place in day time but no independent person came to witness incident – Merely because PW1 was injured, intrinsic value of her evidence is not enhanced by that fact alone – Conviction set aside. (Jagatpal & Ors. Vs State of U.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 24(Allahabad)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/149, 148 & 147 – Forming unlawful assembly and causing murder – Incident seen by wife and son of deceased – Son turning hostile – Evidence of wife believed – It cannot be said that she was not at the site of incident – Her statement to police after two days and later evidence corroborated by medical evidence – Order of conviction upheld – Appeal dismissed. (Babu Ram & Ors. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 35 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/149, 148 & 147 – Forming unlawful assembly and causing murder – Incident seen by wife and son of deceased – Son turning hostile – Evidence of wife believed – It cannot be said that she was not at the site of incident – Her statement to police after two days and later evidence corroborated by medical evidence – Order of conviction upheld – Appeal dismissed. (Babu Ram & Ors. Vs State of M.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 216 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/149, 302, 326/149, 148 and 324 – Medical evidence disclosing that though the deceased had suffered serious injuries, none of them by itself was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course – Death was the result of the cumulative effect of all the injuries – Accused A-1 and A-2 armed with axes caused injuries to the deceased only from the blunt side of the axes – Injury No.1 caused by sharp side of the axe but that injury was not a very serious nature though having fractured a bone, it was grievous in nature – Object of unlawful assembly was not to commit murder but certainly to cause grievous hurt to him – Accused guilty of offence u/ss 326/149 IPC. (Rudrappa Ramappa Jainpur & Ors. Vs State of Karnataka) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 497 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/149, 307/149, 326/149 – Unlawful assembly – Common object was limited to attack PW5 and deceased and not to murder deceased – Even if death is caused accused who infact inflicted injury on deceased could be convicted for murder and rest of accused are liable to be convicted u/ss 307/149, 326/149, 325/149 etc. (Jahangir Khan & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 215(Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/149, 323/149 & 148 – Conviction of six persons – PW 6, injured during incident and two other independent witnesses were eye witnesses – Trial Court relied on their testimony – Non examination of other witnesses does not affect prosecution case – Non explanation of injuries on person of accused not fatal to prosecution case as injuries on person of accused superficial and not put to any prosecution witness and accused did not surrender immediately after incident for their medical examination – FIR lodged within half an hour – Findings of trial Court cannot be interfered with. (Babukhan & Anr. Vs State of M.P.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 228 (M.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/149, 384/149, Arms Act, 1959, S.27 –  18-20 persons came armed with fire arms – Five male members of family surrounded – Their hands tied and demanded their gun – An offence u/s 384/149 is clearly made out – The deceased were then taken away and soon thereafter gun shots were heard and deceased were found to be shot dead in the orchard nearby – Held, all the members of the mob had come armed with fire arms with a view to commit the offence u/s 384 IPC, all the members of the assembly must be attributed the knowledge that it was likely that offence of murder may be committed in prosecution of that object – The only conclusion is that unlawful assembly had come determined to commit the offence of murder as they were all armed, came together and abducted the deceased who were soon thereafter murdered using fire arms – Conviction is justified. (Rameshwar Pandey & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 940 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/149 and 148 – Murder – Unlawful assembly – Common object – Animosity between parties over ancestral property – Appellants holding weapons came down from house of accused ‘K’ and came to the temple where deceased was present – ‘K’ while exhorting others to liquidate the deceased dealt blows with a hard and blunt substance on his head – Priest of temple locked gate of temple to save deceased – Appellant ‘D’ broke open the lock and dragged deceased outside – All accused dealt indiscriminate blows with lethal weapons – Prosecution examined 17 witnesses, who were villagers, some outsiders, who were either relations of deceased or claimed to have visited village for resolving their dispute – Plea of alibi accepted in respect of two accused – FIR promptly lodged – Acquittal of some of the accused does not entitle others to acquittal – S.149 rightly applied – Concurrent finding of conviction of accused not liable to be interfered. (Bikau Pandey & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 649 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/149, 436, 353 and 147 – Family member of accused shot dead by deceased – Accused reached the spot and lifted body of their family member and placed it under a Neem tree – Accused threw inflammable material in the house and put it on fire – 5 burnt bodies recovered – Time gap between two incidents was just 15 minutes – Case of accused that what they did was under grave provocation whilst deprived of their power of self control on account of murder of their family member – High Court convicted respondents 1 to 5 u/s 304 Part I IPC and respondents 6 to 13 were acquitted of the charge – No interference in order of High Court. (State of U.P. Vs Shyam Veer & Ors.) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 695 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 784 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/149 and 323/149 – Five accused armed with lathis fitted with iron rings assaulted deceased who died on spot – Deceased was moving on a motor cycle with PW 1 – PW1 injured in the incident – Mere acquaintance or friendship with deceased by itself not a reason to discard evidence of eye witness – Doctor in post mortem report opined some injuries caused by a sharp, heavy cutting weapon – Lathis fitted with iron rings with heavy blow could have caused skull to break – Courts below were justified in accepting medical evidence – In absence of direct evidence whether deceased had taken food or not before leaving house, finding of doctor that stomach of deceased was empty is of no consequence – Conviction calls for no interference. (Ram Kishan & Ors. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 310 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/149 – Appellants armed with deadly weapons assaulted deceased at a tea stall – Wife of deceased, tea stall owner and a customer were eye witnesses – Tea stall owner and customer turned hostile – Conviction based on testimony of wife – Deceased was convicted for murder of brother of A3 to A5 and was on bail – Two aspects  admitted by even tea  stall  owner  and  customer  that  their  signatures appeared on complaint and that deceased with injuries was found dead in tea shop – Nothing elicited from cross examination  of  wife  that  she  was speaking falsehood – Independent witnesses like tea shop owner and customer would be afraid of saying anything against accused – Testimony of wife could not be rejected who gave all details of overt acts against all accused – Conviction cannot be interfered with. (Oorkaval Perumal & Ors. Vs State rep. By Inspector of Police) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 180 (Madras)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/149 – Conviction of three appellants for offence of murder with help of S.149 IPC – Quarrel over accused’s buffalo entering field of informant for grazing – Non appellant accused went to his house and came armed with rifle and appellants came armed with gun and spear – Non appellant accused fired four shots upon deceased and two shots hit deceased, who died on spot – Appellants through armed with gun and spear did not use their weapon either to fire at deceased or two witnesses standing nearby – No other overt act or role attributed to them which could point to their common object to kill deceased – Their behaviour at scene of offence negatived such inference – Their conviction cannot be sustained. (Parsuram Pandey & Ors. Vs The State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 688 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/149 – Co-accused – Not filing appeal – Where on evaluation of the case Court reaches the conclusion that no conviction of any accused is possible, the benefit of that decision must be extended to the co-accused, similarly situated, though he has not challenged the order by way of an appeal. (Bijoy Singh Vs State of Bihar) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 382 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/149 – Murder – Unlawful assembly – None of the injuries sufficient to cause death in ordinary course – Object of unlawful assembly was not to commit murder but certainly to cause grievous hurt – Accused A-1 and A-2 caused injuries by blunt side except one injury – As none of the injuries was in itself sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death as such neither A-1 nor A-2 can be held guilty of offence u/s 302 IPC on the basis of their individual act. (Rudrappa Ramappa Jainpur & Ors. Vs State of Karnataka) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 497 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302/309/201 r/w S.34 –  Murder after abduction – Acquittal of co-accused – Prosecution evidence unfailingly and unerringly establishing that it was appellant who had taken an important role for taking the car on hire as well as for commission of the offence of murder – Held, acquittal of co-accused does not weaken the version of prosecution. (Araque Lutifi @ Dazy Vs State of Orissa) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 508 (Orissa) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.303 – Single blow – Even a single blow delivered with a heavy or dangerous weapon on a vital part of the body would make the offence a murder. (Augustine Saldanha Vs State of Karnataka) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 746 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304, Part II – Accused kicked deceased with his right knee on his private part saying that he would not leave him alive – Conviction u/s 304 Part II by trial Court but High Court converted it to S.323 IPC – Conviction by trial Court restored – Benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 not granted. (State of Karnataka Vs Mohamed Nazeer @ Babu) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 328 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part I, S.34 – Incident happened all of a sudden when accused persons saw deceased – Having regard to the peculiar nature of the circumstances which led to the death of the deceased accused A7, A8 & A11 come within the ambit of offence punishable u/s 304 Part I read with S.34 IPC. (Kunhimodeenkutty & Ors. Vs State of Kerala) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 116 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part I and S.300 Exception 4 – Murder – Accused and deceased both brothers – Dog of accused entered kitchen of deceased – Verbal altercation took place and tempers flew – Accused went to his room took out gun and fired a gun shot from distance of 35 feet resulting in death – Held, offence falls under S.300 Exception 4 – S.302 IPC has no application. (Parkash Chand Vs State of H.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 190 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part I and S.300 – Culpable homicide or murder – Accused inflicted one sariya blow on the head of deceased – Blow not repeated – Only this much intention can be imputed to accused that injury inflicted by him on vital part of body was likely to cause death – Offence committed would fall within mischief of S.304 Part I IPC. (Bapu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 702 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part I and S.304 Part II – Applicability – Second Part of Section 304 IPC applies when there is no guilty intention, but there is guilty knowledge i.e.  the act by which death was caused was done with the knowledge that the act was likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or such bodily injury, as was likely to cause death or so imminently dangerous that it must in all probabilities cause death, or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death, without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death – Part I of Section 304 IPC applies where the act by which death was caused was done either with the intention to cause death or with the intention to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. (Ladga Majhi Vs The State of Orissa) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 350 (Orissa)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part I & S.304 Part II – Conviction u/s 304 Part II – Deceased and other witnesses came to house of appellant to protest closure of water supply – Appellant rushed out with a knife charging the deceased and stabbed him in stomach – Cause of death was internal haemorrhage – Conviction recorded relying evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 – There is no merit that other witnesses who collected there were not examined – Witnesses who were examined were most natural – Identity of appellant not doubted as witnesses and accused belonged to same locality and were known to each other – Evidence was corroborated by medical evidence also – Conviction of appellant u/s 304 Part II altered to one under S.304 Part I IPC. (Gompu Lepcha Vs State of Sikkim) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 464 (Sikkim) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part I – Conviction u/s 304 Part I – Occurrence 12 years old – Sentence reduced from ten years to five years. (State of Rajasthan Vs Maharaj Singh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 421 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part I – Murder – Accused gave one blow with small stick on head of deceased resulting in his death –  Place where assault took place was dimly lit – Offence would fall under S.304 Part I and not under S.302 IPC – It cannot be said as a rule of universal application that whenever one blow is given Section 302 IPC is ruled out – It depends upon the facts of each case – The weapon used, size of the weapon, place where the assault took place, background facts leading to the assault, part of the body where the blow was given are some of the factors to be considered. (Thangaiya Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 436 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part I – One lathi stroke given on head of deceased – Offence committed at the spur of moment and being immediately incensed with anger out of sudden provocation – Held, offence comes within the perview of S.304 Part I IPC and not u/s 302 IPC. (Jakaka Dama Vs State of Orissa) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 674 (Orissa)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part I – Punishment – Quantum – While awarding punishment Court to look into circumstances such as social and economic conditions, education etc. – When a rustic villager killed another village over possession of sheep, accused convicted and sentenced to 10 years u/s 304 Part I IPC. (Sekar @ Raja Sekharan Vs State rep. by Inspector of Police, T.Nadu) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 676 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part I – When it is found that the act by which the death was caused was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the case would be covered under Section 304 Part I IPC.  (Gompu Lepcha Vs State of Sikkim) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 464 (Sikkim) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II, 100 – Deceased causing 9 injuries to accused – Accused in turn inflicting scissor blow on right side of chest and did not repeat any further blow – Right of private defence available to accused – All 9 injures on accused simple – Plea of accused that deceased pressed his neck and he got suffocated not acceptable in view of medical evidence – No apprehension of death or grievous injuries to accused – Accused exceeded his right of private defence but had no intention to cause death but had knowledge that death might be caused by his act – Conviction of accused altered from Part I to Part II of S.304 and he being 19 years of age sentence reduced to 2 years RI with fine of Rs.200/-. (Mohammed Nazim Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 340 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.235 – Quantum of sentence – High Court reduced sentence from 7 years to already undergone – Order reducing sentence not stated the period undergone by accused – Matter remanded back for reconsideration – Order reducing sentence set aside – Held, undue sympathy to impose sentence would do more harm to justice system. (State of U.P. Vs Kishan) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 343 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.427(2) – Accused causing death of a person in jail while undergoing life imprisonment – Accused sentenced to 7 years RI u/s 304 Part II – Both the sentences shall run concurrently. (Balwan Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 517 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II, S.325 – Culpable homicide – Injuries caused to deceased found severe enough to cause death in ordinary course – Accused also had requisite knowledge that injuries inflicted were likely to cause death – One of the injuries inflicted over left ear caused fracture of left parietal and left temporal bone extending to frontal and occipital region – Held, such injury is not contemplated by S.325 – Conviction of accused under S.304 Part II, is proper. (Tarsem Singh Vs State of Punjab) AIR 2002 S.C. 760

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II – Accused went to the house of deceased to demand his money back – Deceased was not in a position to pay the money – Accused got flared up and caught hold of deceased and put pressure on his neck and it caused his death – Post mortem report showing that deceased was frail and slight pressure on his neck must have resulted in his death – It is difficult to assume that by using such force accused had any intention to cause death though he could be attributed with knowledge that his act would cause death of the victim – Accused is guilty of offence u/s 304 Part II IPC – Accused sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six years. (State of Punjab Vs Joginder Singh & Anr.) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 168 (S.C.) : 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 398 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II – Assault to teach a lesson – It was not anticipated that assault will result into death – Knowledge that such assault may cause death was there – Conviction u/s 302 r/w S.34 IPC set aside and instead conviction u/s 304 Part II r/w S.34 IPC passed. (Indersen @ Vakil Ramsurat Yadav & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 872 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II – Blow with spade on head of deceased in the night without any intention, but due to grave and sudden provocation on 26.7.1993 – Death occurred on 2.8.1993 – Held, Part II of S.304 applies. (Ladga Majhi Vs The State of Orissa) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 350 (Orissa) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II – Complainant party caused injuries to accused in same occurrence – Prosecution is bound to explain the injuries – But it is not in every case that the injuries on the person of the accused have to be explained. (Pawan Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 183 (P&H)  

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II – Conviction u/s 304 Part II – Accused face trial for 14 years – Sentence reduced from 7 years to 4 years R.I. (Kewal Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 160 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II – Custodial death – Death in police custody – Medical evidence that the injuries were confined to the skin and upper level of the body – Grievous injuries were not found on the vital parts of the body – Duration of injuries widely variant – Right lung of the deceased was TB affected – Combined effect of alcohol and the injuries shortened the period of death and resulted in a quicker death – Conviction u/s 304 Part II IPC cannot be faulted with. (Munshi Singh Gautam (D) & Ors. Vs State of M.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 645 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II – Evidence – Non examination of Investigating Officer – Effect – Not fatal to the prosecution case especially when no prejudice was likely to be suffered by the accused – Evidence of two injured witnesses credible – Conviction upheld. (State of Karnataka Vs Bhaskar Kushali Kotharkar & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 241 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II – Fight took place on spur of moment, about laying of wires of tubewell in which stab injury was caused to deceased – Injury caused without any premeditation and without any intention to cause death though bodily injury was caused with knowledge that it may result in death – Conviction u/s 302 converted to S.304 Part II IPC. (Rafiq Khan Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 634 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II – Incident occurred all of a sudden on a spur of moment – Accused inflicted only one injury with bamboo stick and fled away – Accused did not act in a cruel manner nor took undue advantage of the situation – Element of intention missing – It can be inferred that accused had knowledge that the injury which he was going to inflict could likely cause death – Conviction altered from S.302 to 304 Part II IPC. (Gopal & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 807 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II – Incident occurred on spur of moment – Accused assaulted deceased with lathi blows – Three injuries caused out of which one resulted in fracture of head bone – No blow repeated when deceased fell down – Offence falls u/s 304 Part II IPC and not u/s 302 IPC. (Adya Prasad Mishra & Anr. Vs State of U.P.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 297 (Allahabad)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II – Injury on chest of deceased caused with chhuri – Occurrence took place suddenly without any premeditation – Accused had no intention of causing any particular injury – However accused must be having knowledge that death may be caused by his act – Case falls within ambit of S.304 Part II – Conviction altered from S.302 to 304 Part II, IPC. (Foja Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 162 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II – Murder of younger brother by inflicting cut injuries on neck by lathi in a sudden family quarrel – Prosecution version itself provided credence to plea of sudden provocation on spur of moment – Conviction is to be recorded u/s 304 Part II and not under S.302 IPC. (Felix Ambrose D’Souza Vs State of Karnataka) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 308 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II – Murder – Both deceased assaulted by both appellants – Incident occurred at a spur of moment – No regular weapon of assault carried on by any of the accused – Each of deceased sustaining only one fatal injury on head – No clear evidence as to who was author of both head injuries – Held, both accused cannot be held guilty of offence of murder – Accused can be held guilty only for offence punishable u/s 304 Part II – Conviction and death sentence set aside and accused convicted u/s 304 Part II and sentenced to 5 years R.I. each. (Jamuna Prasad & Anr.  Vs State of U.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 710 (Allahabad)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II – Murder – Deceased and accused met at a festival – They exchanged abuses over small issue – Accused gave several injuries with stones and lathis to deceased in a sudden fight – Accused had not come prepared for the incident – Only the injury to liver proved fatal – Accused held, guilty u/s 304 Part II IPC. (Khuman Singh Vs State of M.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 625 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II – Quarrel between accused and deceased regarding payment of money – Deceased suddenly picked up a stone and threw it aiming at the accused which hit the head of accused – Thereafter accused brought out a knife and stabbed the deceased on his back near the shoulder – Accused was aware that the injury caused by him may result in death but he had no intention of causing death – Conviction altered from S.302 to S.304 Part II, IPC. (Narayan Bag   Vs State of Orissa  ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 122 (Orissa)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II – Sentence of six years and fine of Rs.5,000/- – Accused serving sentence of seven years 10 months – If accused did not deposit fine he could have been detained for a further period of one year – Imprisonment beyond seven years is clearly illegal – State to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to widow of deceased in the original criminal case – Accused be released forthwith. (Prakash Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 370 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II – Sentence – Reduction in Sentence – Speedy justice – Incident took place in 1993 – Accused acquitted in 1996 by High court – Sentence reduced from 7 years to 5 years. (State of Karnataka Vs Bhaskar Kushali Kotharkar & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 241 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II – Single blow by bamboo stick on head of deceased in a property dispute – Circumstances not indicating pre-meditation – Offence falls u/s 304 Part II and not u/s 302 IPC. (Nani Gopal Panda Vs State of Orissa) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 704 (Orissa)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II – Single blow by stick on head – Intention to cause death cannot be attributed to accused but the knowledge that the accused was likely to cause death by giving single blow can be attributed to him – Offence falls u/s 304 Part II IPC – Sentence awarded for period already undergone. (Namdeo Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 655 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II – Sudden dispute over money – Accused caused a single lathi blow on head of deceased – No previous enmity which could justify inference of any premeditation for causing such bodily injury – Intention of causing death could not be attributed to accused – Offence falls u/s 304 Part II. (Nand Lal Vs State of Raj.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 287 (Raj.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304A, 80 & 88 – Medical negligence – For fixing criminal liability on a doctor or surgeon, the standard of negligence required to be proved should be so high as can be described as “gross negligence” or recklessness” – It is not merely lack of necessary care, attention and skill. (Dr.Suresh Gupta Vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 283 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304A, 80 & 88 – Medical negligence – Mere lack of proper care, precaution and attention or inadvertence might create civil liability but not a criminal one. (Dr.Suresh Gupta Vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 283 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304A, 80 & 88 – Medical negligence – Operation for nasal deformity – Cause of death stated in medical opinion was ‘not introducing a cuffed endo-tracheal tube of proper size so as to prevent aspiration of blood from the wound in the respiratory passage’ –  This act can be described as negligent act as there was lack of due care and precaution – For this act of negligence doctor can be liable in tort but his carelessness or want of due attention and skill cannot be described to be so reckless or grossly negligent as to make him criminally liable. (Dr.Suresh Gupta Vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 283 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304A – Death of patient – Liability of Doctor – Mere fact that a patient died in the Hospital does not lead to the presumption that death occurred due to negligence of doctor and for making him liable it has to be established that there was criminal negligence on his part – To attract S.304-A death due to rash or negligent act must be direct or proximate result of the act. (Prabha G.Nair Vs Mohanan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 448 (KERALA)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304A – Rash and negligent driving – Truck hit the cyclist from behind as a result of which  cyclist fell down with his head downwards and succumbed to his injuries – Truck driver sped away the truck from the place of occurrence and was arrested after 12 days of occurrence alongwith truck No.PJQ 3141 – Eye witnesses gave truck No.3141 – Company had two trucks with Registration No.PJQ 3141 and PUV 3141 – Doubtful which truck was involved – Accused acquitted. (State of Punjab Vs Subhash Chander) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 511 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304B, Evidence Act, 1872, S.113-B – Dowry death – ‘Soon before’ – It is a relative term and it depends upon circumstances of each case and no strait jacket formula can be laid down – It would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question – There must be existence of a proximate and live-link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death – If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. (Hira Lal & Ors. Vs State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 342 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 187 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304B, Evidence Act, 1872, S.32 – Dowry death – Two dying declarations – Deceased implicated her husband in one declaration, however in other all family members implicated  – Hence, two dying declarations giving two different versions – Serious doubt created about truthfulness of dying declarations – Court rejected both dying declarations – Acquittal upheld. (State of Punjab Vs Parveen Kumar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 325 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-A and 279 – Reduction in sentence – Petitioner not a previous convict – Petitioner not indulged in any other criminal activity after registration of the case – Petitioner a poor man – Sentence reduced to 15 months. (Madan Lal Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 358 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-A – Conviction u/s 304-A – Accused a middle aged person having a large family to support – Compensation paid to heirs of deceased by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Sentence reduced from two years to one year – Fine to remain the same – Driving licence of accused suspended for two years. (Nachhattar Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 273 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-A – Death by negligence – Mechanic employed on job basis for fitting a tubewell engine – Mechanic entered the pit of the well and became unconscious – He was taken out for treatment but died – There is no question of negligence – Immediate cause of death was not an act of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused but was something else – Death is by way of misadventure – There is complete absence of criminal intention or even criminal negligence – FIR u/s 304-A quashed – Legal representatives may claim damages in civil action. (Chetan Bhatnagar Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 16 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-A – Death by rash and negligent driving – Non examination of I.O. – Rough site plan not proved – Accused did not admit the accident – Held, non examination of I.O. assumes great importance – Benefit of doubt rightly extended to accused by trial Court. (State of Punjab Vs Gurdip Singh) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 62 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-A – Deceased crossing road unmindful of the fact whether a Truck was coming from the opposite direction or not – In such a situation if accident takes place it cannot be said that the death of the deceased was the direct result of rash or negligent act of the accused. (Vijay Kumar Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 325 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-A – Electrocution and death of a factory worker during his course of employment – Complaint filed under Factories Act for violation of rules relating to safety measures – Criminal proceedings also initiated u/s 304-A IPC for same offence – Petition to quash proceedings – Specific allegation against petitioner that in spite of bringing to their notice repeatedly that there is possibility of electrocution, they neglected – Under two different enactments, two different proceedings have been initiated for two different offences – It cannot be said that S.304-A IPC is not attracted – Petition rejected. (G.P.Pillai & Ors. Vs State ) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 564 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-A – Rash and negligent driving – Accused alleged to be driving bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused death of a person – Accused not named in FIR and both the eye witnesses had not seen him at the spot – Identification in the Court for the first time is no identification in the eye of law – Identity of accused thus not fixed – Acquittal upheld. (State of Punjab Vs Gurdip Singh) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 62 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-A – Section 299 and 300 – Culpable Homicide – Section 304-A is attracted in case of death caused by rash and negligent acts and not amounting to culpable homicide u/s 299 or murder u/s 300 – Intention and knowledge to cause death absent in case of section 304-A – When intent or knowledge is the direct motivating force of the act – Section 299 instead of 304-A will be attracted. (Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar  Vs  State of Maharashtra ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 782 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, 302 – Dowry death – Demand of dowry not fulfilled  as such accused murdering his wife – Offence u/s 302 IPC not proved and accused acquitted – Demand of dowry and harassment on part of accused proved – Accused convicted and sentenced to 10 years R.I. u/s 304-B IPC. (State of Karnataka Vs M.V.Manjunathegowda & Anr.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 543 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, 306, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 – Dowry death – Bail – Allowed to father, mother and brother of husband as they lived separately and had no occasion to meddle in demand of dowry. (Om Parkash Vs State of Haryana) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 283 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, 498-A & Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, S.4 – Dowry death – Death within seven years of marriage – Death caused otherwise than under normal circumstances – FIR lodged promptly on very day of death of deceased which excludes the possibility of concoction – Dead body consigned to flames even without waiting for the arrival of the family members of the deceased – Raises doubt about the bona fides of the accused – All the essentials of S.304-B IPC established – Held, order of conviction not to be interfered with. (Bhagirathi Subudhi Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 60 (Ori.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, 498-A – Dowry death – Demand of dowry made by father-in-law and mother-in-law – Both insulted and humiliated the bride – Father-in-law gave beating in public street – Suicide by bride – Conviction of father-in-law u/s 304-B upheld and conviction of mother-in-law converted from S.304-B to S.498-A IPC. (Kaliyaperumal & Anr. Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 501 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.389 – Dowry death – Appeal against conviction – Bail during pendency of appeal – Appellant in jail for 10 years and appeal not likely to be heard in near future –  There had been total disregard of provision of S.235(2) Cr.P.C. while awarding sentence upon appellant – Appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. (Jaisi Ram Vs State of U.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 591 (Allahabad) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, Cr.P.C.: S.319 – Dowry death – Demand of dowry alleged against parents-in-law – No allegation against husband – Husband cannot be summoned as accused on the allegation that it was his duty to have protected his wife from harassment and ill-treatment and that he failed to discharge his important marital duty. (Lajpat Rai Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 416 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 – Bail – Dowry death – Prosecution of husband, his father and mother – Deceased left behind two children aged 3 years and 14 months – Minor children also in jail – Bail allowed to mother. (Krishna Devi Handa Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 471 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, Dowry Death – Delay of 8 days in lodging FIR – Detailed allegations by illiterate complainant – Complaint prepared at court – Father of deceased falsely stating that they were not informed about death before cremation – Held it was well thought of and deliberate document – Witnesses closely related to deceased – Marriage 11 years old – Deceased having no child and was in a state of depression – This indicates possibility of suicide – Conviction set aside. (Baljeet Singh and Another  Vs.  State of Haryana ) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 455 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 468 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Ss.3,4 – Suicide in matrimonial home by setting herself on fire within four years of marriage – Deceased had written letter addressed to her father that  her husband demanded Rs.5,000/- and assaulted her – Informant mother of deceased and her son deposed about dowry demand and torture by accused persons for non-fulfilment of such demand – Circumstances show that soon before death deceased was subjected to torture and cruelty on account of demand – Conviction of appellant for dowry death and sentence of 7 years imprisonment calls for no interference. (Munna @ Manoj Barnwal Vs State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 495 (Jharkhand)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, Evidence Act, 1872, S.32 – Dowry death – Six dying declaration, three oral and three written – In first dying declaration deceased stated that she suffered burn injuries by accident when she was preparing tea on stove – This statement not believed as it was recorded by ASI in presence of her mother-in-law and certificate of fitness was not obtained – Other dying declarations relied upon wherein deceased stated that kerosene oil was sprinkled at her by her mother-in-law and she was set ablaze – Conviction upheld. (Sher Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 261 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, Evidence Act, 1872, S.113-B, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.313 – Dowry death – Defence of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. statement was total denial – Therefore, the presumption as to dowry death envisaged under S.113-B of Evidence Act remains unrebutted. (State of Karnataka Vs M.V.Manjunathegowda & Anr.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 543 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, Evidence Act, 1872, S.113-B – ‘Soon before’ – No strait jacket formula can be laid down – It is to be determined by Courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case – However, interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and death – There must be existence of a proximate and live-link between the effects of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death – If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. (Kamesh Panjiyar @ Kamlesh Panjiyar Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 448 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, Evidence Act, 1872, S.113-B – Dowry death – Presumption – ‘Soon before death ‘ – – Scope and Ambit – Soon before is relative term and would depend upon circumstances of each case and no strait jacket formula can be laid – There is no fixed – It would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and death in question – There must be proximate and live link between cruelty based on demand of dowry and death – If incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of women concerned it would be of no consequence. (Kunhiabdulla & Anr.  Vs State of Kerala ) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 32 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 286 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, Evidence Act, 1872, S.113-B – Dowry death – Presumption – Can be drawn when the following circumstances are proved i.e.  (i) death of woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or had occurred otherwise than in normal circumstances; (ii) such death took place within 7 years of her marriage; (iii) the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any relative of her husband; (iv) such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with demand of dowry; (v) to such cruelty or harassment, the deceased was subjected to soon before her death, (vi) when the aforesaid circumstances are established, a presumption of dowry death shall be drawn against the accused under section 113-B of the Evidence Act. (Jaswinder Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 37 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, Evidence Act, 1872, S.113-B – Dowry Death – Presumption – Cruelty – Wife committing suicide – Accused demanding dowry and had sent her away from his house and only after meditation she was taken back – Death happened within a period of 2 months thereafter – It clearly shows that the suicide was the result of the harassment or cruelty meted out to the deceased – Presumption u/s 113-B can be invoked. (Dhian Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 278 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, Evidence Act, 1872, S.113-B – Dowry death – Presumption – Ingredients to draw presumption – Presumption can be raised only if accused being tried for the offence under section 304-B and death of women should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage – Deceased must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives of husband – Such cruelty or harassment should be or in connection with demand of dowry and – Such cruelty and harassment was meted out to the women soon before her death. (State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Raj Gopal Asawa & Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 526 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, Evidence Act, 1872, S.113-B – Dowry death – Presumption – Ingredients to draw presumption – Presumption can be raised only if accused being tried for the offence under section 304-B – Death of women should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage – Deceased must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives of husband – Such cruelty or harassment should be or in connection with demand of dowry and such cruelty and harassment was meted out to the woman soon before her death. (Kunhiabdulla & Anr.  Vs State of Kerala ) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 32 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 286 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, Evidence Act, 1872, S.113-B – Dowry death – Presumption – Prosecution can make use of the presumption as to dowry death as enshrined in section 113-B of the Evidence Act only on proof of ingredients which constitute dowry death. (Jaswinder Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 37 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, Evidence Act, 1872, S.113-B – Dowry death – Prosecution has to prove that the death of a woman is caused by any burns  or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances and such death occurs within 7 years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband – Such harassment and cruelty must be in connection with any demand for dowry – If prosecution is able to prove these circumstances then presumption u/s 113-B Evidence Act operates – However it is a rebuttable presumption and the onus to rebut shifts to the deceased.  (State of Karnataka Vs M.V.Manjunathegowda & Anr.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 543 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, Evidence Act, 1872, S.113-B – Presumption – Death within seven years of marriage – Demand of dowry and harassment on that account proved – Dying declarations however stating cause of fire as accidental – Presumption u/s 113-B stands rebutted – Conviction u/s 304-B set aside. (Nallam Veera Stayanandam & Ors.  Vs.  The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. ) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 667 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 269 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, Evidence Act, 1872, S.113-B – Presumption – Prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates – Prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of ‘death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances’ – Expression ‘soon before’ would normally imply that interval should not be much between concerned cruelty or harassment and death in question and there must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effects of cruelty based on dowry demand and concerned death. (Kamesh Panjiyar @ Kamlesh Panjiyar Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 935 (S.C.) : 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 448 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, Evidence Act, 1872, S.113-B – Un-natural death in husband’s house within three months of marriage – Explanation of husband that deceased was pregnant and felt dejected due to miscarriage and that he could not bring a suit of her choice on occasion of marriage of niece – Explanation not acceptable – These incidents are not sufficient for a young girl to end her life – Conviction upheld. (Krishan Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 243 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, Evidence Act, 1872, S.113-B – Un-natural death in husband’s house within three months of marriage – Has to be explained by husband on some reasonable hypothesis. (Krishan Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 243 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, Evidence Act, 1872, S.113-B – ‘Soon before death’ – Would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death – There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death – If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. (Kaliyaperumal & Anr. Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 501 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, Evidence Act, 1872, S.113-B – ‘Soon before’ – No strait jacket formula can be laid down – It is to be determined by Courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case – However, interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and death – There must be existence of a proximate and live-link between the effects of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death – If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. (Kamesh Panjiyar @ Kamlesh Panjiyar Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 935 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, Evidence Act, 1872, S.32 – Dying declaration – Deceased suffered 90% burn injuries – Dying declaration recorded by Magistrate – Doctor gave certificate of fitness – Deceased implicated only mother-in-law – Held, dying declaration was voluntary – Conviction u/s 304-B upheld. (Mamta  Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 578 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 113-B –  Dowry death – ‘Soon before death ‘ –  Scope and Ambit – Soon before would depend upon circumstances of each case and no strait jacket formula can be laid – No period can be fixed to define the expression – It would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and death in question – There must be proximate and live link between cruelty based on demand of dowry and death – If incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of women concerned it would be of no consequence. (State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Raj Gopal Asawa & Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 526 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B and 306 –  Suicide by bride within six years of marriage – Demand of dowry had been made soon after marriage – Evidence showed that relations between parties were extremely cordial – Conviction set aside. (Hardev Singh @ Gurdev Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 275 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B and 306 – Dowry death – Conviction of husband and his parents – Demand of dowry made out in oral evidence but it is neither supported by documentary evidence of letters and suicide note – Courts below were not right in recording order of conviction – Conviction set aside. (Gurucharan Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 577 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B and Evidence Act, 1872, S.113-B – Dowry death – Charge of murder and dowry death can be framed in respect of same offence – If charge u/s 302 is framed but no charge u/s 304-B is framed Court cannot presume that accused had committed offence u/s 304-B as presumption u/s 113-B of Evidence Act could not be drawn. (Sukhdev Bhimrao Hastapure Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 183 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B & 306 – Dowry death – Conviction of accused set aside as (i) No evidence of immediate demand of dowry – Statements of demand of dowry inconsistent; (ii) Two letters written by deceased to his parents and no mention therein regarding cruelty with regard to demand of dowry; (iii) No demand of dowry was made at time of marriage; (iv) Accused and his family were financially well off as compared to parents of deceased; (iv) Accused was bringing girls of bad character to his house –  May be deceased could not withstand and committed suicide. (Sunil Bajaj Vs State of M.P.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 196 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – ‘Soon before’ is a relative term which requires to be construed in the context  of specific circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rules of any universal application can be laid down by fixing any time limit. (Vidhya Devi & Anr. Vs State of Haryana  ) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 61 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Applicability of S.304-B – Necessary ingredients are: (i) that the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) within seven years of her marriage; (iii) it must be shown that before the death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband or in connection with the demand of dowry – On satisfaction of three ingredients presumption under S.113-B of Evidence Act follow – However, this is a rebuttable presumption and accused by satisfactory evidence can rebut the presumption. (Arun Garg Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 10 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Death of bride by drowning in well – Allegation of torture by making demand of dowry – Demand not proved – Evidence of villagers that victim slipped and accidentally fell down – Information sent to parents of bride but last rites performed before arrival of parents as they lived far away – Conviction set aside. (Saro Rana & Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 881 (Jharkhand)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Deceased in her dying declaration naming only her husband and her father-in-law and denying presence of any one else – Charge against four others set aside. (Govind Narain Vs State of Raj.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 121 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Demand of ornaments worn by wife for the purpose of sale – Consequent thereto suicide by wife – Demand does not come within offence punishable u/s 304-B IPC – Conviction on that score set aside. (Babu Vs Padmanabhan) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 943 (Kerala)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death within 9 months of marriage – Harassment by husband, jeth & jethani – In first 4/5 months wife wrote a number of letters to Jeth, Jethani and others in which she made no mention of harassment – Held, this fact by itself is not sufficient to discard prosecution story as newly wedded lady does not make any complaint against ill treatment meted out to her in her correspondence by way of letters – Conviction upheld. (Sushil Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 510 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Accused marrying deceased on condition of payment of Rs.10,000/- as cash and three sovereigns of gold – Rs.8,000/- paid on date of marriage – Gold and remaining cash of Rs.2,000/- not paid – Murder of wife within 6 months of marriage – Demand and continuous harassment proved – Accused convicted and sentenced to 10 years R.I. – No leniency be shown in dowry death cases. (State of Karnataka Vs M.V.Manjunathegowda & Anr.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 543 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Body cremated without intimation to parents of bride – It shows that there was foul play – Evidence that there was demand of Rs.25,000/- by husband – Conviction of husband upheld and that of his father and mother set aside giving benefit of doubt. (Gurdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 453 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Complaint against husband, his brother and wife – Evidence showed that brothers had strained relations – Brother and his wife rightly acquitted. (Sushil Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 510 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Conviction on basis of evidence that deceased was tortured by appellants – Defence plea that deceased died natural death as she was patient of epilepsy – Doctor who conducted autopsy admitted that deceased might have died a natural death – No satisfactory evidence that deceased died an unnatural death – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Suradhani Darbar & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 521 (Calcutta)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Cruelty or harassment – S.304-B IPC does not define cruelty or harassment – Aid may be taken from S.498-A – Definition of cruelty in S.498-A may not be exhaustive for the purpose of S.304-B but reasonably it includes the cruelty or harassment as defined in S.498-A IPC. (State of Haryana Vs Rajbati) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 46 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Death in 1988 – Incidents of harassment and cruelty took place in 1986 –  Incidents of cruelty and harassment were too remote cannot be said to be soon before death. (Rajbir Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 349 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Death within four years of marriage in abnormal circumstances – Deceased persistently subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and her parents in connection with demand for dowry – Held, a presumption arises that it is a case of dowry death and that her husband or relatives who subjected her to cruelty and harassment shall be deemed to have caused her death – Onus then shifts to defence to rebut the presumption. (Yashoda & Anr. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 246( S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Deceased fell from roof and accused got her admitted in hospital and intimation sent to parents of deceased – Parents were present at time of cremation, but report of FIR lodged after 8 days –  No documentary evidence that the delay was on account that at first police refused to register FIR then SSP and DM were approached – Version of father that he was not present at the time of cremation found to be false – In such a case no reliance could be placed on his version that accused had demanded Rs.10,000/- – Accused acquitted. (Mithu Ram Vs The State of Punjab) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 491 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Defence version that deceased suffered fit of epilepsy and died – No previous medical history of deceased brought on record – A bald statement in this regard cannot be believed. (Jora Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 813 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Demand of dowry – Deposition of witness that demand of dowry was made soon before death – This fact not mentioned by witness when his statement was recorded in a complaint case and also before police when his statement was recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. – Deposition of said witness is not reliable as he had tried to make improvements. (Nachhatar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 61 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Demand of dowry – Witness gave different statements regarding demand of dowry – Held, on the basis of evidence, it is not proved that actually the accused had made a demand of dowry and that was made soon before the death and due to this deceased was harassed – Conviction set aside. (State of Rajasthan Vs Teg Bahadur) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 49 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Demand of dowry – “Soon before death” – Demand of gas connection and cash – Wife committing suicide within two months – During this period father making efforts to arrange gas connection – Held, in the circumstances existence of harassment would be deemed to be soon before death – Conviction u/s 304-B upheld. (Sushil Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 510 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Dying declaration that she was a psychic and that she committed suicide and that no person from her in-laws family be held responsible for the same – Father of deceased withdrew Rs.24,000 from Bank account of deceased – Order of acquittal upheld. (Megh Raj Goyal Vs State of Punjab) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 388 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry Death – Entire family roped in as accused – Cruelty and Harassment on account of dowry must be soon before the victim’s death – Incident 2-1/2 years old – On same allegations mother of husband acquitted – Two sisters of husband were however convicted – Daughters could not be convicted on same set of evidence – No particulars of time and date when alleged harassment was meted out by accused given – Improvements made by P.W. – Conviction of sisters set aside. (Surinder Kaur & Anr. Vs.  State of Haryana ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 258 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Essential ingredients for the applicability of the provision are (i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance; (ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; (iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry; (v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. (Kaliyaperumal & Anr. Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 501 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Expenses of delivery – Demand of – Do not come under demand of dowry. (Rajbir Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 349 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – FIR stated that accused were not happy with dowry – No particular instance of demand mentioned in FIR – Subsequent statement in Court regrading demand of T.V., Cash etc. not believed – Prosecution version that bride was given beating about 15 days prior to her death – No evidence in shape of police report or medical examination – Acquittal upheld. (State of Haryana Vs Rajbati) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 46 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – For applicability of provision of S.304-B IPC prosecution must prove that (i) death of a woman took place within 7 years of her marriage; (ii) that she did not die a natural death; (iii) she was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death and (iv) that such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry. (Ravinder Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 480 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Husband, parents, sister and her husband arrayed as accused – Sister and her husband casually visited the house of accused – Held, it is not sufficient to drag them in dowry death – No sufficient proof of causing injuries by all the accused persons – Conviction set aside by giving benefit of doubt. (Jaswinder Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 37 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Husband writing a letter before marriage that whatever expenses bride side is to incur, the half of the amount be given in the shape of Fixed Deposits – Held, such suggestion cannot be interpreted to be cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry. (State of Haryana Vs Naresh Kumar Vasisth) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 636 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Ingredients essential to term any death as dowry death are : (1) The death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (2) Such death must have occurred within 7 years of her marriage; (3) Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband; (4) Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand of dowry. (Nachhatar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 61 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Making the demand is not sufficient to bring the case under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code –  There must be cruelty or harassment soon before the commission of crime for non-fulfillment of dowry. (Satyendra Singh & Anr. Vs State of Bihar) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 548 (Patna)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Marriage in 1988 and Duragaman performed in August 1989 – Death in matrimonial house on 28.11.1989 – Doctor opined that possible cause of death not ascertainable – Post mortem report however noted black stained rough skin on both sides of neck and trickling of blood stained fluid from mouth – No evidence that death was  due to normal reasons – Evidence amply establishes demand of dowry and ill-treatment of deceased shortly before occurrence – Conviction – Calls for no interference. (Kamesh Panjiyar @ Kamlesh Panjiyar Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 935 (S.C.) : 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 448 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Maximum punishment of imprisonment for life – Extreme punishment has to be awarded in rarest of rare cases and not in every case – It is incumbent upon trial Court to assign satisfactory reasons for awarding imprisonment for life. (Jaisi Ram Vs State of U.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 591 (Allahabad) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Mediator who helped in the settlement of marriage – Cannot be summoned as an accused u/s 304-B IPC. (Jaswinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 587 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Mother of deceased supported prosecution but father turned hostile – Deceased remained at parents house for 9 months and death occurred within 2 days when she came to matrimonial home – Body cremated before parents of deceased could reach – Conviction upheld. (Jora Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 813 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry Death – No particulars of time and date when alleged harassment was meted out by accused given – Accused acquitted. (Surinder Kaur & Anr. Vs.  State of Haryana ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 258 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – None of the PWs stated as to when, in which year, date and month, act of cruelty in connection with demand of dowry was committed – Not even a single witness gave any specific instance in this regard – No complaint made to police or any other responsible officer regarding demand of dowry – Accused acquitted. (Nachhatar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 61 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Persistent demand of gold ornaments and ill treatment – Last demand made 15 days before death – Body cremated same night without informing parents of deceased – Presumption arises that it is a case of dowry death. (Yashoda & Anr. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 246( S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Presumption arises on proof of facts that (i) unnatural death of a woman within 7 years of her marriage; (ii) she was being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand for dowry. (Chhajju Vs State of Haryana & Ors.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 242 (P&H)  

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Proof – (1) It is required to be proved that the death of a woman was by any burns or bodily injury otherwise than under normal circumstances; (2) such death was within seven years of her marriage, and (3)  that soon before her death she was  subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, (4) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. (State of Haryana Vs Rajbati) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 46 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Prosecution has to prove : (a) The death of the married woman was within seven years of the marriage; (b) A little prior to death, her husband or relative on the point of demand of dowry subjected cruelty to her or harassed her – Prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of “death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances.” (State of Rajasthan Vs Teg Bahadur) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 49 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Soon before death – Bride not subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry for 10 months before death – Held, such death cannot be called dowry death – Conviction set aside. (Sadhu Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 599 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Soon before death – Death within six months of marriage – Proof that deceased was harassed soon before death not required – Defence failed to show any other reason of death – Conviction upheld. (Baldev Raj Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 658 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Suicide within three months of marriage – Husband and his parents acquitted as there was no demand of dowry at the time of engagement or marriage; statement of husband that although no demand was made, parents of deceased gave sufficient dowry; non was informed about harassment on account of dowry and Panchayat was not convened; no independent corroboration regarding demand of dowry – Mediator and other person who knew the facts not examined – In a letter deceased stated that although she had got everything whatever she wanted but she was not satisfied – There must be some imaginary reasons to commit suicide.  (Girish Rajpal & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 413 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – Suspicion against father-in-law and mother-in-law – Held, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of proof – Benefit of doubt given and hence both acquitted. (Gurdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 453 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry death – To attract the provision Court must be satisfied that (i) the death of a women must have been caused by burns or bodily injury of otherwise than under normal circumstances;  (ii) such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (iii) soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband; (iv) such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand for dowry; and (v) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death meaning thereby the proximity in point of time and not too remote or stale in point of time and relevance. (Vidhya Devi & Anr.   Vs State of Haryana  ) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 61 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry – Has to be understood as it is defined in S.2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. (Om Prakash & Ors. Vs State of U.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 102 (Allahabad)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Dowry – There are three occasions related to dowry – One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is “at any time” after the marriage  which should be “in connection with the marriage of the said parties” – The demand of dowry should be of any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage. (Om Prakash & Ors. Vs State of U.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 102 (Allahabad)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Essential ingredients of the offence are that death was otherwise than in normal circumstances, that the death occurred within 7 years of marriage and that before her death they had harassed her for or in connection with demand for dowry which remained unfulfilled. (Gurdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 453 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Essentials for conviction u/s 304-B IPC are: (i) The death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) Such death must have occurred within 7 years of her marriage; (iii) Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband; (iv) Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand of dowry. (Sunil Bajaj Vs State of M.P.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 196 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Kerosene sprinkled and she set on afire – Accused-Husband did not take her to hospital – It will impinge upon his innocence. (Radhey Sham Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 222 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Necessary ingredients are: (1) that the death of a woman should be by burn or by bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances; (2) within 7 years of marriage; (3) it must be shown that before death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband or in connection of demand of dowry. (Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 233 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Reduction in sentence – Dowry death – FIR recorded in 1987 and accused faced trial for 16 years – Sentence reduced from 10 to 7 years. (Baldev Raj Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 658 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Suicide – Cruelty or harassment – Demand of T.V. and cash for the first time after 5 years of marriage – Shows that accused are not greedy persons – Demand made after such a long interval takes a back seat. (Pale Ram Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 849 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Suicide by wife – Marriage more than seven years old – Accused rightly acquitted u/s 304-B. (Dalbir Singh  Vs.  State of U.P. ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 682 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – To bring home charge u/s 304-B IPC, it is incumbent upon prosecution to establish that victim died an unnatural death. (Suradhani Darbar & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 521 (Calcutta)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – Under Section 304B, the Court is not empowered to impose fine as a punishment. (Arun Garg Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 10 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – “Soon before” – There is no straight jacket formula to determine what constitutes “soon before” – It depends on facts and circumstances of each case – In the instant case last demand made fifteen days before death – Held, it was demand soon before death. (Yashoda & Anr. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 246( S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B – ‘Cruelty’ – Meaning has not been given in S.304-B – However meaning of ‘cruelty’ or ‘harassment’ is the same as prescribed in the Explanation to S.498-A under which cruelty by itself amounts to an offence. (Kaliyaperumal & Anr. Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 501 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-A, 36 – Workman – Death in factory due to fall from height – Act or omission, to amount to criminal negligence, must be direct or proximate cause of death, and must imply indifference to obvious consequences – When such negligence cannot be attributed to accused, proceedings instituted against him are liable to be quashed – Omission to provide safety measures may give rise to liability under Factories Act, and no criminal liability be fastened on accused. (Daljith Singh Ghai & Anr.   Vs State) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 158 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304, 323 – Sudden quarrel – Accused gave fist blow hitting amblicus of victim who died – Appellant cannot be posted with the knowledge that death was likely to result – Conviction altered from S.304 to S.323 IPC. (Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 634 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304 Part I and 302 – Appellant assaulted his wife either in self defence or on account of sudden provocation – Offence is culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Conviction and sentence u/s 302 IPC set aside – Appellant convicted u/s 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years. (Madhavgir  Vs State of Maharashtra) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 722 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304 Part I – No intention on part of accused to commit murder and the attended circumstances do not suggest any repeated assault by accused – Case falls u/s 304 Part I of IPC – Sentence reduced to already undergone (Two years and seven months). (Desa Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 441 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304 Part II, 302, 34, 201 – Dead body of deceased recovered in a bag from well – Deceased while staying at the house of accused ‘R’ sent him to take betel, had sexual intercourse with his wife and when he returned on witnessing scene had a struggle with deceased and finally killed him with Ranpi  – Same version reiterated by his wife – Blood stained Ranpi recovered at instance of accused – Accused ‘R’ convicted under S.304 Part II and 201 by giving him benefit of grave and sudden provocation and his wife acquitted. (Ram Rai & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 343 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304 Part II, 302 – One shot fired from a considerable distance – Application of S.302 IPC is ruled out – However, there cannot be any rule that whenever one shot is fired from a distance, S.302 IPC would not be applicable – It depends upon the nature of the gun, the position of the assailant and the victim, obstructions from any intermediary object which may cause deflection of the shot and several other relevant factors – In the instant case appropriate application provision is S.304 Part II IPC. (Raj Kishore Jha Vs State of Bihar & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 213 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 656 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304 Part II, 447 – Death from head injury – Presence of PW4 at scene of occurrence doubtful – PW 1 admitted not to have seen occurrence – Sole testimony of PW 2, daughter-in-law of deceased that she and deceased were cutting grass together – Evidence of PW2 cannot be discarded merely because of her relation with deceased – Witness M going out of State and, hence, his non-production, not deliberate – Non recovery of lathi  not material – Evidence of PW 2 corroborated by medical evidence – No exceptional reason to discard testimony of PW 2 – Conviction sustained. (Saka  Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 188 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304 Part II and 302 – 3 out of six injuries on person of deceased were simple – Other injuries not x-rayed – Three ribs fractured – A piece of rib pierced into spleen – Offence falls under S.304 Part II – Conviction u/s 302 IPC set aside. (Pawan Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 183 (P&H)   

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304 Part II – One knife blow in abdomen of deceased in a sudden fight in the heat of passion without pre-meditation – Held, offence falls under S.304 Part II IPC and not u/s 302 IPC. (Sanjay Subba Vs State of Sikkim) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 46 (Sikkim)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304 Part II – Sudden quarrel – Fight between accused and deceased and the injured witnesses and injuries came to be inflicted in course of such sudden quarrel – Accused sentenced under S.304 Part II IPC. (State of M.P. Vs Deshraj & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 231 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304 Part II/34 – A3 and A4 with A1 came on cycle and took up a quarrel with PW1, PW2 and deceased who were also on cycle – Deceased, PW1 and PW2 ignored the assault and proceeded – Appellants with A1 chased them and again took up a quarrel – A1 then physically assaulted deceased who fell down on road with face upward and sustained bleeding injury on back of his head – Post mortem report showed that victim died of head injury – Conviction of appellants by applying S.34 IPC – Held, conviction suffers no illegality. (Saravanan & Anr. Vs State of Pondicherry) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 745 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304A and 279 – Rash and negligent driving – Death caused by truck – Driver fled away – Accused not named in FIR – Owner of truck hauled up as accused – No evidence that owner was driving the truck or any other driver – Identification parade not held – Identification of accused for the first time in Court is valueless – Order of acquittal upheld. (State of Punjab Vs Sudama) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 453 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304B, 498A, 306 – Dowry death – Charge framed u/s 304B and 498A – Prosecution failed to prove charge u/s 304B – Material showed that accused committed an offence u/ss 306 and 498A IPC – Accused acquitted u/s 304B but convicted u/ss 306 & 498A, even though no charge was framed u/s 306 IPC. (Hira Lal & Ors. Vs State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 342 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 187 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304B, 498A – Charge u/s 304-B – Acquittal u/s 304B – Accused can be convicted u/s 498A without that charge being there, if such a case is made out. (Hira Lal & Ors. Vs State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 342 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 187 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304B and 201 – Dowry death – Dead body cremated – Conviction of three persons u/s 201 IPC on the ground that they took part in the cremation of dead body – No evidence that these persons had knowledge or had reason to believe that offence had been committed – They had no mens rea – Conviction set aside. (Jora Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 813 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304B and 498A, 306 – Conviction u/s 306 – All facts and ingredients constituting the offence mentioned in charge framed u/ss 498-A and 304-B IPC – Mere omission to mention S.306 IPC does not preclude Court from convicting accused u/s 306 IPC. (Smt.Batool Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 320 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304B and 498A – The two provisions cannot be held to be mutually inclusive – These provision deal with two distinct offences. (Hira Lal Vs State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 187 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 342 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304B & 498A/34 – Dowry death – Death in suspicious circumstances within one and half years of marriage – Accused A1 and A2 were parents of A3 – Because of harassment and demand for dowry deceased was living in her father’s house – A3 employed in military came on leave and deceased was brought to house of accused and she committed suicide within three days by consuming poison – Evidence that there was continuous harassment by A1 and A2 regarding selling of 56 cents of property which deceased had got at the time of marriage – No evidence that A3 harassed deceased in connection with dowry soon before her death but evidence showing acts of cruelty committed by him against deceased – Conviction of A1 and A2 not interfered but sentence of life imprisonment reduced to 9 years imprisonment in view of their age being 71 and 67 – Conviction of A3 upheld for offence u/s 498A and sentence of 3 years imprisonment and fine sustained. (Anirudhan Vs State of Kerala) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 358 (Kerala)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-A, 279 – Appeal against conviction – Incident 18 years old – Accused the only bread winner of family – Sentence reduced to already undergone. (Bir Chand Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 131 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-A, 279 – Death by rash and negligent driving – Accused facing trial for 18 years and suffering from TB – Accused already undergone sentence of six months – Sentence reduced to already undergone. (Om Parkash Vs State) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 288 (Delhi) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-A, 279 – Rash and negligent driving – Death of two persons – Evidence of eye witnesses that accused was driving at a very high speed – Contention of accused that witnesses did not state that accused was driving in rash and negligent manner – Held, from the very incident it is proved without any shadow of doubt that accused was driving in a rash and negligent manner. (Bir Chand Vs State of Haryana)   2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 131 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-A, 279 – Reduction in sentence – Death by rash and negligent driving – Accused facing trial for 17 years – Accused was 25 years old at the time of occurrence – Sentence reduced to already undergone (One month). (Jaswinder Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 453 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-A, 314, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.320 – Death of a woman due to termination of pregnancy – FIR against doctor – Parties entering into compromise – Complainant filed affidavit that he lodged FIR due to misunderstanding and accused was not responsible for death – Held, offence not compoundable but chances of conviction bleak – FIR quashed. (Bhupinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Anr.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 81 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-A, 337 & 279 – Rash and negligent driving – Death of two persons – Incident 16 years old – Accused first offender – Sentence reduced from two years to one year u/s 304-A but sentence of imprisonment u/ss 279 and 337 IPC upheld –  However sentence of fine with its default clause  maintained. (Malkiat Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 681 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 306, 498-A – Dowry death – Suicide within 11 months of marriage – Acquittal by trial Court – Conviction by High Court under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC – Appeal against – Having regard to the facts of the case continuous taunting or teasing on one ground or the other amounted to mental cruelty compelling her to  end life – Out of 11 months of married life deceased was forced to live in her parents house and could live with her husband for a period of two months in different spells – Trial Court committed error in disbelieving evidence of PW 3 to PW 7 and dying declaration – – Held, High Court was right and justified in reversing the order of acquittal and convicting and sentencing the appellants. (Mohd.Hoshan, A.P. & Anr. Vs State of A.P.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 88 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 498-A – Dowry death – Acquittal u/s 304-B – Accused can be convicted u/s 498-A even if no charge was framed if such a case is made out. (Kaliyaperumal & Anr. Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 501 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-A and 306, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.113-B and 113-A – Dowry death and abetment of suicide by married women – Framing of charge – Alternative charges for both offences must be framed, as both involves element of presumption under Sections 113-B and 113-A of the Evidence Act. (State by Kamakshipalya Police, Bangalore Vs Maregowda & Ors.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 141 (Kant.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-A & 279 – Fatal accident – When there is no admissible evidence available to connect the petitioner with the incident the petitioner to be acquitted of the charges framed against him. (Ram Parshad Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 308 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 201, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, S.3 – Dowry death – Death within 6 years of marriage –  Cremation without intimation to parents of deceased – Conviction of husband – Evidence of father of deceased that deceased was being tortured on account of non fulfilment of demand for motor cycle – Conduct of petitioner in not informing father about death of his wife a strong circumstance – Conviction of appellant of charges called for no interference – Sentence however reduced to 7 years imprisonment from life imprisonment. (Rajeshwar Mishra Vs State of Bihar) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 493 (Patna) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 201 and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, S.3 – Dowry death – Death within six years of marriage – Mother-in-law – Though PW7 in evidence stated that deceased was assaulted by this appellant with other accused including husband, but father of deceased did not speak of any cruelty committed by her – Evidence against appellant mother-in-law could not be said adequate to hold her guilty of charges. (Rajeshwar Mishra Vs State of Bihar) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 493 (Patna)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 201 – Dowry death – Death in matrimonial home within one & half years of marriage – Evidence of father of deceased that accused was demanding motor-cycle which could not be fulfilled – However, he admitting that demand of motor cycle was not made to him – No direct evidence of demand – Sister of deceased receiving letters from deceased but no letter mentioned any torture or harassment or ill-treatment – Ingredients of S.113-B Evidence Act not established – Doctor examined in defence stated that deceased was suffering from diarrhoea a day before death and was being treated by him – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Satyendra Singh & Anr. Vs State of Bihar) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 548 (Patna)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 201 – Dowry death – Death within six years of marriage – Cremation without information to parents of deceased – Appellant only took dead body on tyre cart and was present with other appellants in cremation of dead body – Nothing to show that appellant was having knowledge that deceased had died as case of dowry death – His conviction under S.201 IPC cannot be sustained. (Rajeshwar Mishra Vs State of Bihar) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 493 (Patna) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 306, 498-A – Dowry death – Suicide within 11 months of marriage – Acquittal by trial Court – Conviction by High Court under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC – Appeal against – Having regard to the facts of the case continuous taunting or teasing on one ground or the other amounted to mental cruelty compelling her to  end life – Out of 11 months of married life deceased was forced to live in her parents house and could live with her husband for a period of two months in different spells – Trial Court committed error in disbelieving evidence of PW 3 to PW 7 and dying declaration – – Held, High Court was right and justified in reversing the order of acquittal and convicting and sentencing the appellants. (Mohd.Hoshan, A.P. & Anr. Vs State of A.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 394 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 306 – Charge u/s 304-B – Accused can be convicted u/s 306 IPC even in absence of a charge thereto  if evidence is there to prove the charge. (Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 233 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 306, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.221, 215 and 216 – Dowry death – Charge u/s 304-B – Accused found not guilty of offence u/s 304-B but found guilty of offence u/s 306 – Accused can be convicted u/s 306 IPC even though no charge was framed u/s 306 IPC. (Nachhatar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 61 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 306 and 498-A – Dowry death – Husband and wife lived happily for four years – After four years husband became addict to gambling, drinking and started demanding dowry and ill-treated wife – Suicide by wife – Accused is guilty of offence u/s 498-A and not u/s 304-B and 306 IPC. (Enugu Thirupathi Reddy Vs State of A.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 501 (A.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 468-A – Dowry death – Article in media when case is sub judice – Article based on interview of family of deceased – Facts narrated in article are material facts which may be used in the trial – This type of articles will certainly interfere with the administration of justice – This practice deprecated and publisher, editor and jouranlist warned not to indulge in such type of articles when issue is subjudice. (M.P.Lohia Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 132 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 468-A, Punjab Jail Manual,  Para 516-B, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.433A and 432 –  Life imprisonment for dowry death – It is not heinous offence – Accused is entitled to premature release after serving 10 years actual imprisonment and 14 years including remissions as per 2(b) of Haryana Government Instructions dated 8.8.2000. (Chhajju Vs State of Haryana & Ors.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 242 (P&H)  

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B and 498-A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 – Accused 61 years old lady – No specific role attributed to her in the occurrence in which her daughter-in-law was humiliated – Petitioner in custody for six months – Bail allowed. (Rajwanti alias Rajo Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 419 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B & 498-A, Evidence Act, 1872, S.113-B – Unnatural death with seven years of marriage –  Conviction on the basis of letters – In letters it was no where mentioned that she was harassed on account of demand of dowry or that there was demand of dowry – Oral evidence also did not show if any demand for money or dowry was raised by any of the accused before death of victim –  Deceased was residing separately with appellant A1 – Other three appellants acquitted – Evidence to show that A1 used to beat deceased and torture her and deceased committed suicide – Appellant A1 abetted suicide and was liable to be convicted u/s 306 IPC – In the facts and circumstances of the case sentence of 4 years imprisonment awarded with fine. (Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 233 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 498, 494 – Second marriage during subsistence of first marriage – Second wife committed suicide due to harassment by accused on account of demand of dowry – Accused cannot be allowed to take a plea that second wife could not be termed as wife as marriage was null and void – Held, although second marriage was null and void but until this is declared to be null and void it is a subsisting fact – Accused rightly convicted. (Pawan Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 616 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 498-A, 302 rw S.34 – Additional charge u/s 302/34 framed at the stage of arguments in a trial u/s 304-B and 498-A – Prosecution as well as defence not leading any further evidence – Accused convicted u/s 302 r/w S.34 IPC – Conviction set aside as no opportunity to cross examine witnesses on  additional charge was given to accused – Case remanded with liberty to prosecution to lead evidence on additional charge and opportunity to defence to cross examine witnesses already examined or who may be examined after remand and also to examine defence witnesses, if any. (Pralhad Ramji Surjuse & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 525 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 498-A, Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.113-A, 113-B – Dowry death – Taunted by remarks that she was from a hungry (poor household) and had not brought much – Not an act of cruelty which could be termed to be a demand for dowry soon before her death – This can be termed cruelty of the type punishable u/s 498-A Explanation A – Presumption u/s 113-A may apply but not u/s 113-B of Evidence Act. (Rajbir Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 349 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 498-A, Evidence Act, 1872, S.113-B – Dowry death – Parcha bayan of deceased not dying declaration but only statement made to investigation officer – 90% burn injuries and doctor declared that deceased is unfit for making any statement – Parcha bayan not inspiring confidence as a person with 90% burn injuries cannot be in a fit state to make such a detailed statement as parcha bayan was – No evidence of cruelty or ill-treatment with deceased – Presumption u/s 113-B Evidence Act not available – Dowry demand not established beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside. (Chandra Devi & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 615 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 498-A & Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Ss.3, 4 – Dowry death within one year of marriage –  Suicide note left by deceased did not implicate husband in any manner – Allegations of cruelty and harassment by family members of deceased against accused for non-fulfilment of demand for money to buy a plot – In a case of dowry death or abetment to suicide, suicide note is not the only evidence to be considered at the stage of framing charge – Allegations of cruelty and harassment to be tried on evidence during trial – Prima facie case for charge u/s 498-A, 304-B IPC and u/s 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act are there. (Dr.Hemand Kumar Taneja Vs State of U.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 460 (Allahabad)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 498-A – Accused charged with an offence u/s 304-B IPC – Offence u/s 304-B not proved – Cruelty to wife proved – Accused cannot be convicted u/s 498-A IPC as charge under this section was not framed. (Babu Vs Padmanabhan) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 943 (Kerala)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 498-A – Acquittal – Revision against – At the instance of complainant – In absence of legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of trial, there is no justification for the High Court to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction – High Court should not reappreciate evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court – In absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted – In revision by private party against order of acquittal Court exercises only limited jurisdiction and should not constitute itself into an appellate Court which has a much wider jurisdiction to go into questions of facts and law and to convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction. (2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 61 followed). (Gurmail Singh Vs Boga Singh & Ors.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 313 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 498-A – Charge u/s 304-B – Charge not proved – Cogent evidence on record to prove charge u/s 498-A – Though no charge was framed u/s 498-A yet this would not be taken as a technical flaw for holding him guilty because S.498-A is a lesser offence in nature. (Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 561 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 498-A – Cruelty soon before death – Wife committing suicide while she was at her parents house – Wife was not allowed to enter matrimonial house unless demand of a scooter and cash of Rs.20,000/- is met – As wife was not allowed to enter house of her in-laws unless demand is met as such it amounts to cruelty soon before the occurrence. (Rajinder & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 42 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 498-A – Dowry death – Accused demanded Rs.1000/- after six months of marriage and Rs.5,000/- six months later – On both occasions accused got money from his father-in-law – Thereafter for two years there had been no demand of dowry or a demand for anything resembling dowry – This is not a type of demand within meaning of S.498-A – Harassment or cruelty was not soon before death – Conviction set aside. (Kuldip Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 255 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 498-A – Dowry death – Death within 10 months of marriage – Death under abnormal circumstances – Medical opinion of death from asphyxia and body being burnt after death – Dead body not found in kitchen but in room bolted from inside – Piece of electric wire found near body – Room broken open by PW 13 when no one was in house – Not possible for a dead body to bolt room from inside nor to have throttled and then burnt herself – Ample evidence to raise presumption against accused A, husband of deceased – Charge against other accused not established beyond doubt – Conduct of husband abnormal throughout – Conviction of husband sustained but that of other accused set aside. (Amar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 200 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 498-A – Dowry death – Husband and his mother taunting bride on small issues – Accused rejected gifts brought by parents of bride on various occasions – Bride committed suicide – It is not dowry death – Conviction u/s 304-B IPC set aside and accused convicted u/s 498-A IPC. (Ravinder Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 480 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 498-A – Dowry death – No neighbour of two relevant places examined – No particular incident of beating given to deceased stated – P.Ws. 2 and 7 though neighbours but not stating that relations of accused with deceased were strained – Statement of P.Ws.4 & 5 regarding dying declaration false since no police officer or hospital staff corroborated that fact – Fact of dying declaration not mentioned in FIR – Quantity of demand of cash and jewellery not disclosed – Held, evidence falls short of proving charge – Conviction set aside. (Ganpat Singh & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 294 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B, 498-A- A person charged and acquitted under Section 304B can be convicted under Section 498A without a specific charge being there, if such a case is made out. (Arun Garg Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 10 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B and 306 – Cruelty to wife – Suicide by wife – Accused cannot be convicted both under Sections 304-B and 306 IPC in respect of same death. (Enugu Thirupathi Reddy Vs State of A.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 501 (A.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B and 498-A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.222(2) – Charge u/s 304-B and 306 IPC – Accused, however, found guilty of offence u/s 498-A IPC – Court can convict accused u/s 498-A even if no specific charge is framed. (Enugu Thirupathi Reddy Vs State of A.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 501 (A.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B and 498-A – Dowry death – Death due to burn injuries – Deceased was taken to hospital by appellant which is more consistent with their innocence rather than their guilt. (Om Prakash & Ors. Vs State of U.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 102 (Allahabad)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.304-B and 498-A – Two Dying declarations – Dying declaration made to Magistrate relied – Deceased stating burns result of accidental fire – Demand of dowry and harassment proved – Accused convicted under section 498-A and acquitted under section 304-B. (Nallam Veera Stayanandam & Ors.  Vs.  The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 269 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.389 – Appeal – Suspension of sentence – Deceased committed suicide because her lover (accused) refused to marry her – Accused convicted and sentenced u/s 306 IPC – Accused in jail for 5 years – Sentence suspended during pendency of appeal. (Pardeep Kumar @ Boby Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 43 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113-A – Presumption as to Abetment – Unlike Section 113-B a statutory presumption does not arise by operation of law merely on proof of the circumstances enumerated in Section 113-A – Prosecution has first to establish suicide within a period of seven years of marriage and that accused had subjected her to cruelty –  No automatic presumption – Even then court is not bound to presume – Court has discretion to raise such a presumption, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case – In case of cruelty  Court to consider as to whether the alleged cruelty was of such nature as was likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman. (Hans Raj  Vs.  State of Haryana ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 351 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 – Abetment – Can be performed by a positive act or by conduct or may be by omission. (Nachhatar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 61 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 – Defence – Letters written by the deceased to her brother  – No letter mentions the demand of dowry or of fridge, scooter or T.V. as the witnesses stated during evidence  – Demand of dowry not proved. (Sakatar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 268 (S.C.) : 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 528 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 – Demand of Dowry and harassment of deceased by the accused alleged – Deceased committing suicide by pouring kerosene and burning herself – Mother stating the source of her knowledge regarding demand of dowry and harassment from letters written by deceased – Letters not produced mentioning demand of dowry etc. – Adverse inference to be drawn – Mother stated that the deceased never told her about the demand – Held evidence is based on opinion as such is not admissible. (Sakatar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 268 (S.C.) : 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 528 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 – Previous statement made during investigation of mother – She asserted she stated the fact during investigation that the accused wanted the deceased to claim her share in the property of her father – Not stated the fact during evidence – Held  witness made improvements – Demand of dowry not proved. (Sakatar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 268 (S.C.) : 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 528 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 – Suicide by bride – Abetment – If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarl individual in a given society to commit suicide then Court should not give verdict of guilty. (Randhir Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 168 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 – Suicide by bride – Conviction of husband and his mother – Occurrence 15 years old – Appeal against conviction pending for 13 years – Sentence reduced to already undergone. (Satto & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 85 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 – Suicide by wife after 16 years of marriage – Conviction of Husband – Incident 8 years old – Sentence reduced to already undergone i.e. 27 months and 23 days. (Virender Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 290 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 – Suicide – Abetment – Deceased had a quarrel with accused was given beating – He could not tolerate the beating and committed suicide – No prima facie case can be said to be made out – Order framing charge set aside. (Santosh Vishwakarma & Anr. Vs State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh)) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 752 (M.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 – Suicide – Abetment – Demand of dowry – Deceased did not disclose harassment to her close friends – Not a proof that there was no demand – In a tradition and custom bound Indian society no conservative woman would disclose family discords before a person, however close he or she may be. (Randhir Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 168 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 – Suicide – Abetment – In order to constitute the offence of abetment to suicide it is necessary that accused must have provoked, incite or induced the deceased to commit suicide and that too with mens rea that as a result of their act or instigation or inducement the necessary outcome was suicide by the deceased. (Santosh Vishwakarma & Anr. Vs State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh)) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 752 (M.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.167 – Offence u/s 306 IPC – Charge sheet not filed within sixty days from the date of arrest – Accused is entitled to bail. (Pralhad Vithal Giri Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 281 (Bombay)  

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306, Evidence Act, 1872, S.113-A – Suicide within seven years of marriage – Evidence showing assault by accused on deceased on the date of incident supported by other circumstances leading to conclusion that being unable to bear the brunt, young wife ended her life – Conviction cannot be interfered with. (Abani Goswami @ Jitu Goswami Vs State of Assam) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 438 (Gauhati) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 – Abetment – There should be a direct or reasonable nexus between the act and the consequences – If there is no direct nexus, the offence of abetment would not be constituted. (Pardeep Kumar Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 117 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 – Abetment – Wife left her matrimonial home due to torture and committed suicide two years later in her parental home – Held, in-laws not guilty of abetment – Moreover as per injury on body of deceased, chances of suicide were remote – Accused discharged. (Pardeep Kumar Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 117 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 – Offence u/s 302 IPC – Not proved – Accused is to be acquitted – Accused cannot be convicted u/s 306 IPC without charge as offence u/s 306 IPC is not a minor offence which could be covered by a charge u/s 302 IPC. (Krishnan Vs State by Inspector of Police) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 105 (Madras) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 – Rape – Suicide after 3 years – No offence of abetment is made out. (S.P.S.Rathore Vs C.B.I. New Delhi) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 468 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 – Suicide – Abetment – Death note stated that accused had taken money from deceased for getting a plot allotted by Development Authority and deceased was harassed when accused refused to give plot – As a result of dishonesty of accused, deceased committed suicide – Does not fulfil required ingredients of abetment – No other positive act attributed to accused – Order framing charge set aside. (Mahesh  Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 432 (M.P) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 – Suicide – Abetment – Husband alleged to have demanded more dowry after marriage – Details of demand not given – No evidence that husband ever maltreated his wife during subsistence of marriage – Conviction set aside. (Mehar Dass & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 46 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 – Suicide – Abetment – Husband harassed wife for dowry and during his bouts of drinking beating her and also compelled her to have sexual intercourse with several other persons – Wife committed suicide – Husband is guilty of offence u/s 306 IPC. (Bimal Kumar Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 456 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 – Suicide – Abetment – Non payment of loan amount – Accused took away the ornaments of deceased and threatened police action if he did not settle his outstanding loan account – Deceased committed suicide and wrote suicide note – Held, act of accused does not constitute abetment – Framing of charge amounts to miscarriage of justice – Charge not sustainable in law and the same quashed. (Jugal Kishore Vs State of M.P.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 161 (M.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 – Suicide – Abetment – Rape of 14 years girl – Victim reached home and narrated incident to her mother and committed suicide within half an hour – Accused had warned deceased that if she disclosed incident to anyone her reputation is at stake – Act and conduct of accused were such from which reasonable certainly to incite the consequence could be spelt out – Held, appellant was rightly convicted for the offence. (Sunil Kumar Arjun Das Gupta Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 245 (M.P.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 – Suicide – Abetment – Three accused persons chased the deceased who committed suicide by jumping into a well – Accused had grudge against the deceased and wanted to get him arrested under Excise Act – Conviction set aside as no offence of abetment is made out. (Jaipal & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 652 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 – Wife – Suicide – Allegation of abetment against husband – Instances of beating remote and did not occur immediately before suicide by deceased – No case for abetment of suicide proved against husband – Acquittal, upheld. (State Vs Gopal) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 313 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 – “You are not fit for job and you should drown yourself in a handful of water” – Suicide after 32 days – No mens rea on part of accused – Words uttered do not amount to abetment or instigation – Letters of company addressed to deceased not containing any threat or abusive language – Charge quashed. (Satveer Singh & Anr. Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 662 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 – Suicide – Abetment – No evidence that there was harassment of deceased by accused soon before her death – No intention nor any positive act on part of accused to instigate deceased to commit suicide – Conviction set aside. (Vanna Singh Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 594 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.306 – Suicide – Abetment – Wife committed suicide by jumping into well alongwith her four sons – Husband slapped her wife twice in the morning for not preparing food in time and also told her that he will perform second marriage and will treat deceased as servant – Evidence was not sufficient to prove abetment – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Raghunath Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 688 (M.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306, 107, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 – Suicide – In suicide note name of appellant appearing at two places – Except this there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby appellant is alleged to have 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 appellant had played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased – No allegation in complaint that appellant harassed deceased – Held, contents of suicide note do not in any way make out the offence against the appellant – FIR quashed. (Netai Dutta Vs State of West Bengal) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 275 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306, 107, Evidence Act, 1872, S.113-A – Suicide – Abetment – For applicability of the provision instigation to deceased to commit suicide must be proved – Merely because the accused had been cruel towards the deceased, it cannot be taken that he had intended the victim committing suicide or that he had instigated suicide – Presumption u/s 113A of Evidence Act applies only when the victim is his wife. (Kunjumon  Vs State of Kerala) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 39(Kerala)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306, 107 and 354 – Suicide – Abetment – Married woman deserted by husband and living with her mother – Committed suicide a few days after attempt made by accused to outrage her modesty – Deceased was depressed and unhappy that her husband had not taken her back to his house in spite of her willingness to live with her husband – Intention and act of accused was only to outrage modesty of deceased and he never intended to instigate her to commit suicide – Accused is not guilty of offence of abetting commission of suicide by deceased merely because he had attempted to outrage her modesty – Accused, however, liable to be convicted for offence of assaulting woman intending to outrange her modesty. (Suryakanth Vs State of Karnataka) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 499 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306, 107 & 108 – Suicide – ‘Abet’ – S.306 IPC does not define ‘abet’ as such meaning of abetment has to be gathered from the provisions of S.107 coupled with definition of expression ‘abettor’ in S.108 IPC. (S.P.S.Rathore Vs C.B.I. New Delhi) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 468 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306, 107 & 498-A – Evidence Act, 1872, S.113-A – Suicide – Abetment – No direct evidence to establish that the appellant either aided or instigated the deceased to commit suicide or entered into any conspiracy to aid her in committing suicide – Improvements made by prosecution – No case for conviction u/s 306 – However allegation u/s 498-A stands proved – Accused convicted u/s 498-A instead of 306. (Hans Raj  Vs.  State of Haryana ) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 701 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306, 107 & 498-A – Evidence Act, 1872, S.113-A – Suicide – Abetment – No direct evidence to establish that the appellant either aided or instigated the deceased to commit suicide or entered into any conspiracy to aid her in committing suicide – Improvements made by prosecution – No case for conviction u/s 306 – However allegation u/s 498-A stands proved – Accused convicted u/s 498-A instead of 306. (Hans Raj  Vs.  State of Haryana ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 351 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306, 107 – Suicide by feeling humiliated – Motor Vehicle Inspector took deceased to his office, abused him in vulgar language and kicked him with his shoe – Deceased feeling humiliated and insulted consumed pesticide and died – Offence of abetment to suicide – Act of causing humiliation by itself does not come within the definition of abetment – Charge could not be sustained. (Bura Manohar Vs State of A.P.)   2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 670 (A.P) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306, 107 – Suicide – Abetment – Marriage of a girl settled but cancelled – Girl committing suicide as she felt humiliated – Offence of abetment is not made out. (V.Shankaraiah Vs State of A.P.) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 583 (A.P.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306, 302 – Charge u/s 302 IPC – Acquittal u/s 302 but accused convicted u/s 306 – Offence u/s 306 is not minor offence as compared to offence u/s 302 – Conviction u/s 306 set aside. (Shyam Sunder & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 755 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306, 307 – Rape – Abetment – Girl aged 14 years committed suicide within an hour of rape – It must be held that her suicide was instigated and abetted by the accused –  Conviction u/s 306 and 376 IPC upheld. (Sunil Kumar Arjun Das Gupta Vs State of M.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 124 (M.P.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306, 452 & 354, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 – Bail – Abetment- Allegation against accused that he entered the house of the  complainant and  caught hold of the daughter of the complainant who  committed suicide on the  next day –  Accused in custody for last since 6 months  – Bail granted. (Amit @ Mittu Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 719 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306, 498-A and 304-B – Death of bride and an infant – Offence of cruelty against husband proved – Conviction u/s 306 IPC would not ipso facto follow – There should be little more evidence to link the death with the acts of cruelty. (State of Karnataka Vs Moorthy) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 167 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306, 498-A – Allegation that wife is not fit for conjugal happiness – Suicide by wife – Held, it is not sufficient to attract ingredients of Ss.306, 107 of IPC. (Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad Vs Jangili Sammaiah alias Babu) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 847 (A.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306, 498-A – Conviction u/s 498-A and 306 IPC – Occurrence 13 years old – Accused on bail – Sentence reduced to already undergone i.e. 13 months. (Jagsir Singh & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 366 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306, 498-A – Second marriage during subsistence of first marriage – Second wife committed suicide by burning as a result of torture by husband and first wife – Conviction of both accused – Conviction u/s 498A IPC set aside as second marriage during subsistence of first marriage is null and void – Evidence of witnesses however established that on account of torture by appellants deceased committed suicide – No error committed by Courts below either in appreciation of evidence or in their approach relating to evidence in question – Conviction u/s 306 IPC confirmed – Sentence reduced to five years. (Shivcharan Lal Verma & Anr. Vs State of M.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 590 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306, 498-A – Suicide by bride within 5 years of marriage by jumping into well alongwith 3-4 years daughter – Deceased gave birth to two daughters – She was given taunts and called “Kelehni” (inauspicious person) by her husband, mother-in-law – Husband and mother-in-law solely responsible by constantly taunting/teasing and torturing on account of birth of second daughter and that deceased was subject to cruelty which was the cause of abetment of suicide – Husband and mother-in-law rightly convicted – Father acquitted – Father aged 65 years cannot be expected to pass such remarks. (Satto & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 85 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306, 498-A/34 – Suicide by wife – Wife living in her parents house because of harassment – Wife got maintenance order u/s 125 Cr.P.C. in her favour – A few days before she was brought in her matrimonial home – In given circumstances it could be well accepted that victim was treated badly consequent to which she had to commit suicide – Evidence showed that ill treatment and harassment was at hands of her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband – High Court was justified in convicting those appellants – Conviction of father-in-law liable to be set aside. (Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 674 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306 and 107 – Suicide – Abetment – Two things necessary are : (a) there must be abetment of the act of the commission of suicide, either by instigation, conspiracy or by giving an intentional aid, and (b) that the act which amounts to abetment must have some reasonable proximity and nexus with the actual commission of the suicide – Reasonable proximity of the alleged act of abetment is also required to the actual act of committing suicide. (Bapurao & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 483 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306 and 498-A – Concurrent findings of fact – Demand of dowry and harassment proved – Plea that accused had sufficient resources in bank not accepted for valid reasons by courts below – Conviction upheld. (Moti Lal  Vs  State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh) ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 668 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306 and 498-A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S.235 (2) – Sentence – New Plea – Order of conviction and sentence passed on same day – Appellant not seeking adjournment  or  time  for  making submission on the sentence – No grievance against passing of conviction and sentence on same day made before High Court either in Memorandum of appeal or at the time of argument – Plea at belated stage rejected. (Moti Lal  Vs  State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh) ) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 69 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 668 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306 & 107 – Abetment to commit suicide – Proof – Prosecution must prove that accused intentionally aided deceased to commit suicide. (Mithailal Jagram Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 21 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306 & 107 – Quarrel between accused and husband of his sister – Accused told the deceased to go and die – Deceased committing suicide on third day of quarrel – Held, it cannot be said that suicide was direct result of quarrel – There was enough time for deceased to think over and reflect – Charge of abetment against accused quashed. (Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 647 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306 & 406 – Abetment to suicide – Accused failed to pay the amount of goods supplied to him – Supplier of goods committed suicide due to financial crisis – No allegations in complaint that accused had knowledge or intention that deceased will commit suicide – Proceedings u/s 306 IPC cannot continue but proceedings u/s 406 IPC to continue. (Ajay Patodia Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 215 (M.P.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306 & 498-A – Charge u/s 306 and 498-A – Acquittal of charge u/s 306 as death found to be accidental – Acquittal of offence u/s 306 is not a ground of acquittal of offence u/s 498-A – In the instant case as there is no evidence of demand of dowry by accused from deceased or her relatives as such acquittal u/s 306 IPC will also lead to acquittal u/s 498-A IPC. (Girdhar Shankar Tawade Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 455 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.306/34 – Suicide – Abetment – General allegations of torture, however strong may be, does not make out any case of abetment to commit suicide. (Surajmal Banthia & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 438 (Calcutta)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438 – Anticipatory bail – Offence under S.307 IPC – Discretion to grant pre-arrest bail could be exercised only if the offence alleged to be committed is not grave and there is no need of custodial interrogation – Keeping in view the nature of charges, motive and obvious need of custodial interrogation, no case under S.438 Cr.P.C. made out. (Hoshiar Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 703 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307 – Accused dashing jeep against injured –  Simple injuries of abrasion received – No offence u/s 307 IPC is made out – Charge for offence u/s 307/149 set aside. (Anil & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 520 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307 – Appellants armed with gun fired indiscriminately without aiming any particular person and some villagers sustained simple injuries – No evidence about distance from which said two appellants fired – Conviction u/s 307 IPC cannot be sustained but they are liable to be convicted u/s 324 IPC and hence sentenced to three years imprisonment. (Parsuram Pandey & Ors. Vs The State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 688 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307 – Attempt to murder – For conviction under the provision there should be intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof – It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflected – Nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused – However, intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference to all to actual wounds. (Bappa alias Bapu Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 146 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307 – Attempt to murder – Injury found not enough to cause death – Result of the injury not to be considered holding the commission of offence under section 307 IPC – It is sufficient  if the injury is caused  with an intention of causing murder. (Girija Shankar Vs State of U.P.) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 58 (S.C.) : 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 291 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307 – Attempt to murder – Knife injury inflicted on victim – Injury on chest was sufficient to cause death as per medical opinion – Evidence of injured witness duly corroborated by two P.Ws. – Knife recovered from accused on disclosure statement is another factor to connect him with the commission of offence  – Conviction upheld. (Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 375 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307 – Attempt to murder – PW8 intervened when deceased was being stabbed by A1 and A2 – In that process A3 and A4 stabbed PW8 on his abdomen and his intestine came out – PW8 survived due to timely treatment given to him – Evidence of PW8 corroborated by evidence of PW1 and PW2 and PW4 in all material particulars – As the injury was caused on the vital organ as such A3 & A4 were rightly convicted for attempt to murder. (S.Srinivasa Chary @ Srinu & Ors. Vs State of A.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 482 (A.P) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307 – Bullet recovered from the person of injured not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination – Contention repelled in view of occular account of injured witness being supported by medical evidence. (Tejinder Singh alias Kala Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 645 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307 – Conviction and sentence of 10 years RI passed – Incident 8 years old – Accused were then aged 19/20 years – Sentence reduced to 7 years R.I. (Swaran Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 120 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307 – Conviction u/s 307 IPC – Accused sentenced to 3 years R.I. – At the time of commission of offence accused was 18 years of age and 14 years have elapsed since then – Accused a poor labourer and only bread winner – Both of the arms of his brother amputated while thrashing wheat crop – Sentence reduced to one year. (Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 375 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307 – Conviction – Appeal against –  Statement of the informant not consistent with the FIR and medical evidence on record – No eye witness except a child witness –  Statement of child witness found to be incredible – Hazardous to sustain conviction on the sole testimony of P.W.1 –  Appellant entitled for acquittal. (Daman Bhoi & Ors. Vs  The State) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 130 (Orissa)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307 – Discharge – Two reasons given for discharge (1) injured has not received any grievous hurt on vital part and (2) injured has not received such injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death – Held, reasons not sufficient for discharge when it is not clear that accused intended to cause death. (Shahid Khan Vs State of Raj. & Ors.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 469 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307 – Head injury with lathi – Lathi a deadly weapon – Medical evidence that patient could have died if timely medical aid had not reached him – Accused guilty of offence u/s 307 IPC – Merely because patient survived for 18 days and was reacting normal during this period is not enough to prove that the injury was not dangerous to life or sufficient to cause death in normal course. (Mahabir & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 291 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307 – Intention to cause death – Injury inflicted simple – Held, determinative question is intention or knowledge and not nature of injury – It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted – Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend upon facts of a given case. (Hari Mohan Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 565 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307 – Offence u/s 307 – No previous enmity – Parties descendants from common ancestors – Occurrence sparked off over trifle issue – Accused faced trial for 14 years – Sentence reduced from five years to two years. (Mahabir & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 291 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307 – Reduction in sentence – Accused faced trial for 16 years – Sentence reduced from 5 years to one year. (Tejinder Singh alias Kala Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 645 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307 – Reduction in sentence – Conviction u/s 307 IPC – Occurrence 15 years old – Parties related to each other – No untoward incident between parties have taken place since then – Sentence reduced to already undergone – Amount of fine enhanced – Amount of fine to be paid to the injured. (Ujjagar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 428 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307 – Sentence – Altercations took place at the time of husking paddy – No pre-meditation or planning of the attack – Sentence reduced to five years. (Hari Mohan Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 565 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307 – To attract S.307 IPC, it is the intention or knowledge which is material and not the consequences of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention. (Ajay  Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 778 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307 – Two ingredients are: (a) an intention of or knowledge relating to commission of murder; and (b) the doing of an act towards it – It is intention or knowledge which is material and not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention – In the absence of intention or knowledge which is the necessary ingredient of S.307 IPC there can be no offence ‘of attempt to murder’ – Intent which is a state of mind cannot be proved by precise direct evidence, as a fact it can only be detected or inferred from other factors – Some of the relevant considerations may be the nature of the weapon used, the place where injuries were inflicted, the nature of the injuries and the circumstances in which the incident took place. (Parsuram Pandey & Ors. Vs The State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 688 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307/34 – Attempt to Murder – Dispute over a plot of land – Appellants convicted for having assaulted PW2 and PW4 with arms, knife and lathi – Appellants, in spite of possessing weapons like knife, Kasola, Lathis, etc., did not inflict any sharp edged injury on the chest or stomach or any vital part of body of PW 2 & 4 – Most of the injuries were simple and caused with blunt objects – Injured were discharged from the Hospital on the same day – Medical evidence vague as to nature and seriousness of injury suffered by the complainant – Injury even on head caused by blunt force – Conviction altered from S.307 IPC to one under Ss.324/34. (Suresh Kumar & Ors. Vs State) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 760 (Delhi)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.307/34 – Accused armed with knives assaulted complainant – FIR mentioned appellant No.1 by name but other two appellants as unknown persons – Other two appellants on their arrest were subject to test identification parade & were identified by complainant – Complainant admitted in his statement in Court that he knew both the appellants by their name and had also disclosed their names to police while lodging FIR – Held, version of participation of two appellants is not reliable and they are entitled to benefit of doubt – However, sufficient evidence shows involvement of appellant No.1 who had been named in FIR – Held, conviction of appellant No.1 cannot be interfered with. (Makbool & Ors. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 142 (M.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.307/149 – ‘Kulhadi’ used from reverse side – It shows no intention to commit murder – Accused discharged of the offence punishable u/s 307/149 IPC. (Panchuram Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 680 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.307, 323, 324, 325, 447, 34 – Grievous and simple injuries – Simple injuries caused in right of private defence – Grievous injuries not on vital parts – Incident all of a sudden without premeditation in sudden fight – No intention to cause death – Accused acquitted u/s 307 – Conviction sustained u/ss 34, 323, 324, 325 and 447 – Accused from same family and first offenders and no previous enmity between parties – Accused given benefit of doubt. (Sujya & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 768 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.307, 323, 324 and 326 – Conviction – Appeal against – True genesis of incident suppressed – Complainant party themselves aggressors – Accused sustaining simple injuries and had right of private defence of their property and in that view no common intention can be attributed to accused – No conclusive evidence as to which of the accused inflicted axe injury to B and on hand of K – Not possible to convict accused – Conviction set aside. (Laxmi Narayan & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 121 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.307, 323 – Attempt to murder – Hockey blow on head – Lacerated wound caused on left frontal region covering the parietal area as well – MLR report not proved – X-Ray report not produced – Opinion of doctor that injury was dangerous to life but doctor not examined – Conviction u/s 307 set aside and accused convicted u/s 323 IPC. (Nirmal Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 103 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.307, 323 – Reduction in sentence – Conviction u/ss 307 and 323 IPC – Incident 12 years old and accused was at that time 19 years old and co-accused 70 years of age – Accused the only bread winner – Accused not previous convicts and after their conviction they have not indulged themselves in any other criminal activity – Sentence reduced to already undergone (3-1/2 months) – Fine enhanced to Rs.20,000/- to be paid to victim. (Gulab Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 717 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.307, 324, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.223 – Accused discharged of offence u/s 307 IPC and case remitted for trial of offence u/s 324 IPC – Injury inflicted by accused was a contused lacerated wound on left parietal region and was opined simple by doctor – At the stage of framing charge though Court has power to sift and weigh evidence but sifting and weighing evidence does not entitle Court to appreciate evidence – Whether accused had intention and requisite knowledge could be arrived at after evidence of witnesses was recorded – Impugned order not sustainable. (State through Public Prosecutor Vs Basudev Martha) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 506 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.307, 324 – Attempt to murder – Previous enmity – Accused came armed with pistol and fired a shot which hit the victim below knee – Offence u/s 324 IPC is made out – Accused acquitted of offence u/s 307 IPC – Accused was armed with pistol and if he his intention was to cause death he could very well have done so by firing a shot in the chest but he had chosen to fire the shot on his leg below the knee. (Fakkar Singh alias Jaila Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 641 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.307, 325, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438 – Bail – Attempt to murder – Only “Danda” blow attributed to petitioner which act falls under S.325 IPC which is bailable offence – Bail allowed to petitioner. (Harish Sasan Vs State of Haryana) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 624 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.307 and 324 – Accused firing gun shot at victim who was sleeping from a very close range – Bullet broke into pieces and pieces struck the accused – Whether accused liable under Section 324 or 307 – To attract section 307 it is not essential that bodily injury actually caused should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause death – Court has to see as to whether the act, irrespective of its result was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section – Accused convicted under section 307. (Vasant Vithu Jadhav  Vs.  State of Maharashtra ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 300 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.307, 353 and 330 – Vicarious Liability – Fight between two parties armed with  deadly  weapons – It is not established as to which party was the aggressor –   From the evidence, it is clear that it was a case of free  fight  and in such cases,  each individual who has participated  in the occurrence, is responsible for his individual  act and not vicariously – Complainant did not specify  individual role of  accused persons –  Conviction set aside. (Harbhagwant Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 757 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.307, 365, 342, 323, 148 and 149, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 – Bail – Allegation against A1 that he had given fist blows on the person of injured and A2 had caused dang blows – Injuries simple in nature – Both the petitioners in custody since December 2004 – Bail allowed. (Bhani Ram & Ors. Vs The State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 373 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.307 and 504, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.319 – Summoning of additional accused – Accused named in  F.I.R. but not charge sheeted, could be summoned – The term ‘Evidence’ as used in S.319 Cr.P.C. does not mean ‘Evidence’ complete by cross-examination and court can take action under S.319 Cr.P.C. even on the statement made in examination-in-chief of one or more witnesses. (Ravina Vs State of U.P.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 839 (Allahabad)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.307 and 506, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 – Accused in custody for six months – Final report put in Court for trial – Injured out of danger and discharged from hospital – Bail allowed. (Saupal alias Ram Sarup & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 23 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.307/34 – Attempt to murder – Compounding of offences – Victims suffered serious injuries on both his thighs and also on his right forearm – He was taken out from underneath the  truck by the villagers and was thereafter taken to a hospital for medical treatment – The injured suffered grievous injuries and victim suffered multiple fractures – He remained hospitalised for about one year – He had suffered permanent disability on account of injuries sustained – Compounding of offence declined – Appellants, who are accused of committing offences in such a gruesome manner, cannot be permitted to set at naught their prosecution by means of affecting a monetary settlement. (Rohtas & Ors. Vs State of Delhi) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 862 (Delhi)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.313, 324, 442 & 506, Cr.P.C.: S.204 – Complaint of offence – Offence triable by Court of Session – Magistrate taking cognizance of offence inspite of report of police who were earlier directed to investigate into complaint – Where allegations made in complaint and evidence, both oral and documentary, make out prima facie case, Magistrate, held, was right in deciding to issue process notwithstanding medical opinion which was contrary to case made out – Value of medical opinion in light of rest of evidence is to be decided at trial and not at stage of issuance of process to accused. (Dr.A.Ebenezer Vs Smt.M.Mary) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 468 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.316, 304-A – Miscarriage by giving leg blow on stomach of pregnant woman – PW 1 pregnant with 5-6 months intervened when accused was giving beating to PW5 – Accused gave leg blow on stomach of pregnant woman resulting into death of unborn child – Intention to cause death of unborn child was missing as only when PW 1 suddenly intervened that accused gave leg blow on her stomach – Offence u/s 316 IPC is not made out – Accused is liable to be convicted u/s 304-A IPC – Sentence of one year imprisonment and fine of R.500/- awarded.  (Ramji Ram Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 91 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.320(5), Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.500 – Conviction – Compromise – Matter settled between parties and a joint petition filed for compounding of the offence – Permission to compound granted – Appellant acquitted in terms of compromise. (K.Kandasamy & Anr. Vs K.P.M.V.P. Chandrasekaran) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 858 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.323, 504 & 506 – Conviction u/s 323, 504 & 506 – Incident twelve years old – No bad antecedents or criminal history against accused – Sentenced reduced to a period already undergone and further sentence of fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed. (Bhirug Vs State of U.P.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 323 (All.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.323, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 – Exoneration from departmental proceedings – Has hardly any material bearing on the case at this stage and cannot come to his aid now – When assault is clearly made out Magistrate is legally justified in issuing process – In deciding the petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the determining factor shall be the allegations made in the complaint – It need not stand the scrutiny of the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt or that of genuineness on the basis of unimpeachable evidence a trial of the case only admits of. (Tapan Kumar Bhattacharjee Vs Bijan Kumar Bose & Anr.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 558 (Calcutta)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.323, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, S.4 – Conviction u/s 323 IPC – Appellant suffering from 96% permanent disability – Ends of justice will be adequately met if appellant is ordered to be released on probation instead of awarding substantive sentence. (Nirmal Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 103 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.323, 323 & 34, Evidence Act, 1872, S.3 – Interested and injured witnesses – Their evidence corroborated by medical evidence – There is no rule that such evidence should not  be admitted unless there is corroboration by third party or independent witness. (State Vs Sheku alias Shekhara Poojary) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 640 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.323, 324, 326, 34 – Conviction under sections 323, 324, 326, 34 IPC – Parties compromised – Occurrence took place 13 years back – One of the accused has undergone 13 days imprisonment – Sentence reduced to that already undergone – Fine of Rs.5,000/- imposed out of which Rs.4,000/- be paid to the complainant. (Raju Lal & Ors. Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 772 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.323, 324 & 326, Cr.P.C.: S.320 – Compromise – Acquittal of accused u/s 323 and 324 IPC but matter kept pending for offence u/s 326 – No use of proceeding with trial when complainant does not want to pursue the matter – Trial Court directed to permit parties to compound the offence and close the proceedings. (Banwari & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 707 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.323, 325, 326 and 34 – Grievous hurt by dangerous weapons – Appellants alleged to have attacked deceased when he was going towards his home – Occurrence witnessed by PW6 and PW7 – Defence contended that prosecution version based on testimony of relatives of deceased i.e. PW6 and PW7 – Held, there is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses – No generalization that delay in lodging FIR makes the prosecution case suspicious – No infirmity found in evidence – Courts below justified in relying evidence of prosecution – Conviction confirmed. (Harbans Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 570 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.324, Punjab Excise Act, 1914, S.61(1)(a) – Illicit liquor – Recovery of – Accused inflicted knife injuries to constable who attempted to apprehend him – Accused can be tried simultaneously in both the offences though committed under different Acts. (Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 671 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.324 – Expression “an instrument, which used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death” – To be construed with reference to the nature of the instrument and not the manner of its use – Prosecution has to establish that accused voluntarily caused hurt and that such hurt was caused by means of an instrument referred to in the provision. (Anwarul Haq Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 654 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 752 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.324 – Injury by knife on chest – Injury simple in nature and only a clean cut – Offence falls u/s 324 IPC. (Makbool & Ors. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 142 (M.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.324 – Weapon of offence – Assault with knife – Plea that weapon used was not a dangerous weapon not taken in Courts below and the same cannot be allowed to be taken for the first time in Supreme Court. (Anwarul Haq Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 654 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 752 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.324, 323, 248, 249, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 – Offence u/ss 324, 323, 148 & 149 IPC – Dispute settled and an attempt made by parties to live in peace – FIR and subsequent proceeding quashed. (Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 563 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.324, 452/34 – Conviction by trial Court, upheld by Sessions Court – High Court in revision set aside conviction – High Court exceeded its revisional power by in-depth re-examination of evidence – Undue importance given to minor discrepancies – Some exaggeration would not falsify happening of alleged incident – Judgment of acquittal cannot be sustained and conviction liable to be restored. (State of Maharashtra etc. Vs Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 399 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.324 and 34 – Causing hurt by dangerous weapons – Evidence of eye witnesses showing that accused caused hurt by means of weapons referred to in section and corroborated by recovery of weapon from scene of incident and further corroborated by medical evidence – Non examination of I.O. though serious infirmity, is not fatal to prosecution case when prosecution case is sustainable on its own credibility – Order of acquittal set aside – Accused, convicted but subjected only to sentence of fine, with direction to pay fine amount to injured as compensation. (State of Karnataka Vs Jagadisha) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 125 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.324 and 326, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.320 – Conviction u/s 324 IPC – During revision parties compromised – Parties allowed to compound offence – Conviction set aside. (Lakhbir Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 405 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.324 and 452, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.357 – Reduction in sentence – Conviction u/ss 324 and 452 IPC – Incident 16 years old – Sentence reduced to already undergone (38 days) – Sentence of fine of Rs.50/- enhanced to Rs.4,000/- to paid to victim. (Devinder Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 723 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.324/34, 326 and 302 – Assault by A1 to A4 – None of the accused used any deadly weapon carried by them on any vital part of body – Injury No.4 which proved to be fatal was caused by fall caused by A1 who kicked deceased after the fall – A2 to A4 used iron rods and oars to hit deceased and not cause his death – High Court was wrong in convicting appellants for offence u/s 302/149 IPC – Appellants held guilty of causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons punishable u/s 326/34 IPC. (Hamlet @ Sasi & Ors. Vs State of Kerala) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 333 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.325, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.97,99 – Injuries on the person of accused – Opinion of doctor that they could have been self inflicted or caused by a friendly hand – Merely because the prosecution has not been able to explain the injuries on the person of accused it would not go to the root of the matter – Conviction upheld. (Gurcharan Singh & Anr. Vs The State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 312 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.325, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.360, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, Ss.4, 5 – Conviction u/s 325 IPC – Occurrence 8 years old – Accused first offender – Accused released on probation and amount of fine converted into compensation to be paid to victims. (Banwari Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 401 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.325, Probation Of Offenders Act, S.4, –   Conviction u/s 325 – Accused less than 21 years old at the date of commission of the offence – Incident 11 yeas old –  Accused released on probation. (Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 303 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.325 – Conviction u/s 325 IPC – Incident 17 years old – Sentence reduced from 2 years to six months rigorous imprisonment. (Gurcharan Singh & Anr. Vs The State of Punjab)   2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 312 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.325 – Right hand fractured due to twisting by accused – Doctor opined that injury might have been caused by blunt object – Prosecution did not elicit that injury would have been caused by twisting – PW2 though claimed to be eye witness stated in cross examination that he saw PW 1 fell down in an unconscious state – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Ambati Vykunta Rao Vs State of A.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 564 (A.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.325, 323, 34 – Evidence against accused consistent and trustworthy – Injuries sustained by accused minor and superficial – Injuries caused by accused not in private defence – Incident all of a sudden – Deceased dying after six days – Which injury proved to be fatal not clear – Common intention of accused merely to commit assault and inflict injuries – Not clear as to which accused caused fatal injury – Accused liable only u/ss 34,  325 and 323 IPC – Incident of 1982 – Sentence reduced to already undergone with fine of Rs.20,000/- on each accused. (Ram Niwas & Bhanwarlal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 582 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.325, 323, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, S.4 – Conviction of accused u/ss 325, 323 – Incident 10 years – Accused first offender and of young age – Accused released on probation. (Ram Lal alias Ramiu Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 237 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.325, 323 & 34, Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.3, 35 & 45 – Wound certificate – Non examination of doctor – Not fatal where defence not disputing wound certificate – Examination of doctor is more important from angle of defence as it is open to defence to question correctness of wound certificate and of entries in official records by examining doctor – Acquittal on ground of non examination of doctor is not sustainable in law. (State Vs Sheku alias Shekhara Poojary) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 640 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.326 – Conviction u/s 326 IPC – Occurrence 19 years old – Accused also received 3 injuries – Sentence reduced to already undergone – Amount of fine enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.5,000/-. (Kapur Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 275 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.326 – Conviction – Appeal against – Reduction in sentence – Accused convicted and sentenced to two and a half years with a fine of Rs.2500/- – Accused faced trial for 14 years – Sentence reduced to already undergone and fine enhanced to Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the victim. (Amarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 115 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.326 – Conviction – Reduction in sentence – Occurrence 15 years old – Accused also received injuries – Sentence reduced to already undergone (One and half month) – Sentence of fine enhanced to Rs.10,000/- – In case of fine is deposited the same to be disbursed to the injured. (Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 750 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.326 – Essential ingredients to attract the provision are (1) voluntarily causing a hurt; (2) hurt caused must be a grievous hurt; and (3) the grievous hurt must have been caused by dangerous weapons or means. (Mathai Vs State of Kerala) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 698 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.326 – Knife blow injury on head – Injured examined as a witness and other witness withheld – Conviction can be based on testimony of injured where her evidence is credit worthy, corroborated by medical evidence and prompt lodging of FIR though other witness withheld by prosecution. (Bhudeo Singh Vs State) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 142(Allahabad)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.326 – S.320 IPC clause 8 can be divided in three parts (a) any hurt which endangers life, (b) which causes the sufferer to be during he space of twenty days in severe bodily pain and (c) or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits – Third part has to be read ejesdum generis in light of earlier parts – Injured assaulted with knife in scuffle but there was no fracture – No sufficient evidence that injury will fall in clause 8 of S.320 IPC – Conviction liable to be altered to one u/s 324 IPC. (Abdul Sajid Abdul Sadiq Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 712 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.326, 307 – Offence committed under section 307 IPC – Trial Court convicted accused u/s 326 IPC – Offence under section 326 IPC being of smaller degree conviction cannot be altered to one under section 307  IPC. (Surjeet Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 277 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.326, 324, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, S.4 – Conviction u/s 326, 324 IPC – Occurrence 16 years old – Accused on bail for 12 years and he did not misuse concession of bail – Accused released on probation. (Gurmail Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 695 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.326, 324 – Charge u/s 326 IPC – Doctor declared the injury grievous by visual observation without x-ray – Offence rightly converted from S.326 to S.324 IPC. (Kashmir Singh Vs Sardul Singh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 259 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.326, 324 – Injury on waist caused by sickle blow – No fracture or dislocation of bone – Held, injury is not serious but simple in nature – Offence u/s 324 IPC is made out. (Lakhbir Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 405 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.326, 325 – Conviction u/s 325 & 326 IPC and sentence of two years RI passed – Occurrence 21 years old – Accused and victim co-villagers – Purpose of criminal law is not only to bring discipline, peace and harmony in the society but is also to give an opportunity to an erring individual to reform himself – Sentence reduced to already undergone (1-1/2 months) – Sentence of fine however enhanced from Rs.300/- to Rs.20,000/- to be paid to victims. (Dalel Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 410 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.326, 325 – Dangerous weapon – Facts involved in a particular case, depending upon various factors like size, sharpness, would throw light on the question whether the weapon was a dangerous or deadly weapon or not and it would determine whether it is Section 326 or 325 which is applicable. (Mathai Vs State of Kerala) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 698 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.326, 325 – Stone – Used as weapon of offence – Cannot be described to be dangerous weapon in every case. (Mathai Vs State of Kerala) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 698 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.326 and 304 Part II, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.428 – Offence u/s 326 – Imprisonment for three years – Appellate Court convicted accused u/s 304 Part II warranting heavier sentence of imprisonment for a longer period – Accused in prison for over seven years till disposal of State’s appeal – Held, sentence restricted to period of detention already undergone by him. (State  Vs Gurappa alias Gurava) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 706 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.326/34 – Appellant caused injury to victim by spear –  Conviction of Appellant and three others with aid of S.34 – No pre-planning or meeting of mind – Incident occurred all of a sudden when appellant accused No.1 was taking his bullock cart through field of complainant and other accused were not present there – By the time A1 caused injury accused A2 to A4 had not arrived – Conviction of A2 to A4 for offence u/s 326 cannot be sustained and they held to be liable for conviction u/s 323 IPC for having caused simple injury – Compromise application with A2 to A4 allowed but the same not allowed against A1 as offence committed by him u/s 326 IPC is not compoundable – Sentence of A1 reduced to already  undergone with fine of Rs.5,000/- and fine if recovered Rs.4,500/- to be paid to complainant. (Harisingh & Ors. Vs State of M.P.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 170 (M.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.330, 331 – Custodial death – Life or personal liberty includes right to live with dignity – Torture and custodial violence violates constitutional right – As direct evidence is not available as such custodial crime mostly goes unpunished – Amendment in Evidence Act recommended that burden to prove that injury was not caused by Police Officer must be discharge by Police Officer. (Smt.Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan Vs Vasant Raghunath Dhoble & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 837 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.342 – Wrongful confinement – Essential ingredients are that the accused should have wrongfully confined a person and such restraint was to prevent the person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribed limits beyond which he/she has a right to proceed. (Raju Pandurang Mahale Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 189 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.344, 366, 376 and 384 – Prosecutrix 35 years of age, having three children went with the appellant voluntarily – Prosecutrix earlier also eloped with a person – Prosecutrix a consenting party – From statement of prosecutrix it nowhere appears that she was kidnapped or taken away forcibly by the appellant – Conviction set aside. (Gauttam Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 153 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.352 r/w S.149 – Unlawful assembly – Common object was to assault – Subsequent change of common object by those members who entered the house and caused grievous hurt – Members outside did not knew what actually transpired inside the house – Conviction modified from S.326 r/w S.149 to S.352 r/w S.149 IPC.  (Bhimrao @ Ramesh Pandhari Bhade & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 269 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.353 – To attract the provision it must be proved that the person who was assaulted was in execution of his duty as public servant – One who is going from his residence to the place where he has to attend to public duty cannot be said to be on duty. (Mohammed Kutty   Vs State of Kerala  ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 52 (Kerala)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.353 – Unauthorised construction –  Municipal employees visited spot to check the same – Assault on employees – Employees had no authority to check construction and were thus not performing any official duty – No offence u/s 353 IPC is made out. (State of Karnataka Vs Irappa Dhareppa Hosamani) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 410 (Kant.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.354, Cr.P.C., Ss.154 – Offence punishable u/s 354 IPC – Report lodged on the next day of occurrence – Some attempts were made to reconcile the issue and when the conciliations did not fructify the complaint was longed only after due deliberations – Possibility of implicating the innocent persons due to failure of such deliberations cannot be ruled out – One day’s delay in normal circumstances is not vital but in the circumstances of the present case there is every possibility to introduce some body like P.W.3, to strengthen the case of the prosecution. (Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Vs Nammi Narayana) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 323 (A.P.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.354, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, S.4 – Outraging the modesty of woman – Release on probation – Accused about 20 years old – Court below concluded that accused cannot be at any rate more than 21 years old – No adverse antecedent found against accused – He had already suffered 12 days imprisonment – Court maintained conviction under S.354 IPC – Accused released on probation. (Roshan alias Ram Gopal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 420 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.354 & 376 – Attempt to commit rape – Accused could not penetrate as he had discharged – Offence would fall u/s 354 IPC. (Kishan Lal Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 496 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.354 – A victim of molestation and indignation is in the same position as an injured witness and her witness should receive same weight. (Vidyadharan Vs State of Kerala) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 516 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.354 – Attempt to commit rape – Minor girl of 7 years – Incident 8 years old – Sentence reduced to already undergone (15 months). (Kishan Lal Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 496 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.354 – Charge for offence u/s 354 is very easy to make and very difficult to prove – Besides the woman it should be supported by independent evidence or it should be corroborated by her conduct and surrounding circumstances and should be consistent with ordinary probabilities – Where solitary evidence of prosecutrix does not appear to be reliable, the accused is entitled to acquittal – Where new allegations have been levelled and overt acts were attributed to the accused at the trial which were not mentioned in the FIR then accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. (State Vs Jawar Singh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 252 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.354 – Dragging a woman by pulling her saree forcibly – It cannot be said that accused had no intention or knowledge of outraging the modesty of complainant. (Smt.Jayanti Mohapatra Vs Sri Narayan Mohanty) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 7 (Orissa) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.354 – Essential ingredients of the offence punishable under S.354 IPC is that the person assaulted must be a woman and the accused must have used criminal force on her intending thereby to outrage her modesty – What constitutes an outrage to female modesty is nowhere defined – The essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex – The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter – Reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive – The act of pulling a woman, removing her dress coupled with a request for sexual intercourse, is such as would be an outrage to the modesty of a woman, and knowledge, that modestly is likely to be outraged, is sufficient to constitute the offence without any deliberate intention having such outrage alone for its object. (Aman Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 212 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.354 – Intention or knowledge is one of the essential ingredients of offence u/s 354 IPC – The ingredients being state of mind may not be proved by direct evidence and may have to be inferred from the attending circumstances of a given case. (Smt.Jayanti Mohapatra Vs Sri Narayan Mohanty) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 7 (Orissa) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.354 – Offence u/s 354 IPC – Accused alleged to have forcibly lifted the victim dragged her to a jute crop field with intention to outrage her modesty, tore her jacket, pushed her on the ground and tried to commit rape against her – Many discrepancies in the prosecution evidence – Discrepancy between evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3, said to be independent witnesses – Presence of P.W.3 doubtful – Complaint filed after due deliberation – one ‘M’ who accompanied P.W.1 at the time of occurrence not examined – P.W.1 received no injuries, though she is alleged to have struggled – Accused rightly acquitted. (Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Vs Nammi Narayana) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 323 (A.P.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.354 – Outraging modesty of a woman – Mere knowledge that the modesty of a woman is likely to be outraged is sufficient without any deliberate intention having such outraged alone for its object – Essential ingredients of the offence are : (i) that the person assaulted must be a woman; (ii) that the accused must have used criminal force on her, and (iii) that the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty – Intention is not the sole criteria of the offence punishable u/s 354 IPC. (Vidyadharan Vs State of Kerala) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 516 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.354 – Outraging modesty of a woman – No cogent evidence available but accused convicted on the ground that no woman would put her character at stake – Evidence showed that parties had strained relations – A woman can make false allegations – Exact place of occurrence and manner in which purported offence of outraging modesty was committed materially differing in the assertion of witnesses – Conviction set aside. (Pandurang Sitaram Bhagwat Vs State of Maharashtra) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 50 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.354 – Outraging modesty – Act of pulling a woman, removing her saree, coupled with a request for sexual intercourse, is such as would be an outrage to the modesty of a woman. (Raju Pandurang Mahale Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 189 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.354 – Outraging modesty – Culpable intention of accused is the crux of matter – Reaction of woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive. (Raju Pandurang Mahale Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 189 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.354 – Outraging modesty – Essential ingredient are : (1) That the assault must be on a woman; (2) That the accused have used criminal force on her and (3) That the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty. (Raju Pandurang Mahale Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 189 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.354 – Sexual teasing and assault by teacher of primary class girl students – Sexual assault, teasing and indulging in outraging modesty and molestation of girl students by calling them in office room and after closing the office room to unwear their undergarments and then teasing their private parts so also forcing them to tease his private parts for kissing, touching, sitting on his lap and further showing his penis for being caught in their hand for doing sexual act – All of the child witnesses (girls) deposed against the accused – Conviction by Courts below after carefully analysing their testimonies found the same pure and unpolluted from external omissions in police statement or even inconsistency between the Court on material particulars as to the commission of culpable act against the petitioner – Conviction upheld. (Tarachand Vs State of Raj.)  2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 327 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.354, 376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.222 – Charge framed u/s 306 IPC – Accused found not guilty – Accused cannot be convicted u/s 354 IPC – Offence u/s 354 IPC is not a minor offence of S.306 IPC. (Avvaru Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 429 (A.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.354 & 377 – Rape or child sex abuse – Provision of S.327(2) Cr.P.C. shall apply to inquiry or trial of offences u/ss 354 and 377 IPC and (i) a screen or some such arrangements may be made where the victim or witnesses (who may be equally vulnerable like the victim) do not see the body or face of the accused; (ii) the questions put in cross-examination on behalf of  the accused, in so far as they relate directly to the incident, should be given in writing to the Presiding Officer of the Court who may put them to the victim or witnesses in a language which is clear and is not embarrassing; (iii) the victim of child abuse or rape, while giving testimony in court, should be allowed sufficient breaks as and when required – These directions are in addition to those given in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh.  (Sakshi Vs Union of India & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 209 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.361 – Kidnapping – Three requirements to be satisfied are – (1) that the girl must be under 18 years of age; (2) she is taken away or enticed by the accused; and (3) without the consent of her lawful guardians. (Talla alias Cakkula Sampath Vs State of A.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 144 (A.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.361 – Minor – Kidnapping – Consent of minor who is taken or enticed is wholly immaterial – It is only the guardian’s consent which takes the case out of its purview. (Parkash Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 305 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.361 – Minor – Kidnapping – If the minor leaves her parental home completely uninfluenced by any promise, offer or inducement emanating from the guilty party, then the latter cannot be considered to have committed the offence as defined in S.361 IPC. (Parkash Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 305 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.361 – Minor – Kidnapping – Minor girl of 5-1/2 years – Contention of accused that he was falsely implicated as he had litigation with father of victim – Contention not believable – It is highly improbable that for making false implication a child of 5-1/2 years would be used as a pawn unmindful of the dispute she would have to suffer in public with a stigma for the rest of her life. (Parkash Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 305 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.361 – Minor – Kidnapping – To constitute the offence it is not necessary to show that taking or enticing was by means of force or fraud – Persuasion by the accused person which creates willingness on the part of the minor to be taken out of the keeping of the lawful guardian is sufficient to attract the Section. (Parkash Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 305 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.362 – Abduction – Money advanced to needy persons – Inducement to go outside the State and to work by making 1500 bricks per day on payment of Rs.30/- till date of repayment of advance amount and thereafter 1000 bricks on payment of Rs.30/- per day – Held, exploiting a needy person with the thrust of compulsion to leave his home and to go outside the State in the alleged manner for making bricks, prima facie case of abduction is made out. (Dhanurjaya Putel Vs State of Orissa) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 217 (Orissa) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.362 – Abduction – Offence is made out if it is proved that there was inducement in one form or other to go from any place and in that respect a deceitful means is applied i.e. the mode of compulsion with deceitful means is applied. (Dhanurjaya Putel & Anr. Vs State of Orissa) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 217 (Orissa) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.362 – Abduction – There must be inducement in one form or other to go from any place and in that respect a deceitful means is applied i.e. the mode of compulsion with deceitful means. (Dhanurjaya Putel & Anr. Vs State of Orissa) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 217 (Orissa) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.362 – ‘Deceit’ – Means cheating or misleading – One of the ingredients of cheating, as in S.415 IPC is intentionally inducing a person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. (Dhanurjaya Putel & Anr. Vs State of Orissa) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 217 (Orissa) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.362 and 364-A – Abduction for ransom – Nature of offence – Offence of abduction is a continuing offence. (Malleshi Vs State of Karnataka) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 200 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.363 – Appeal against conviction – Prosecutrix, less than 18 years of age, eloped with accused with her own consent – Appellant remained in custody for about 20 days – Appellant suffered the rigour of protracted trial of long 13 years – Sentence reduced to already undergone. (Mohar Pal Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 449 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.363 – Girl in her statement stated that she of her own went alongwith accused and she got out of the house after informing her parents and that accused was affectionate towards her and he was taking up private classes exclusively for her and that he was touching her frequently and used to caress her and kiss her – Girl though less than 18 years but she attained the age of discretion on the date of offence – She left her parents house of her own and lived with accused at different places – Held, it cannot be said that accused has taken away or enticed the girl and committed the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC – Accused acquitted of the offence. (Talla alias Cakkula Sampath Vs State of A.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 144 (A.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.363 – Prosecutrix less than 18 years taken away from school – No evidence that she was enticed or taken away from lawful guardianship – Prosecutrix rather went away with accused with her will and had enjoyed movie and sweets – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Narinder Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 306 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.363, 360 – Kidnapping – Protective custody of father does not come to an end even if minor himself or herself abandons the custody of his/her parents – For proving kidnapping or taking away from the lawful guardianship, age is material but consent is not material – If anyone takes away or entices any minor then the offence is made out. (Ashwani Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 539 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.363, 366, 506 – Major girl – Leaving her parental home and marrying major boy of her own free will – Both being adults the law does not prohibit them to love each other – They have a right to live with dignity and honour and make their life meaningful – This is their constitutional right under Articles 19 & 21 – FIR quashed. (Shamsher Alam alias Sheru Vs State of U.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 40 (Allahabad) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.363, 366, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.320 – Offence u/s 363/366 IPC – Girl left the house of her parents of her own and with her own consent she was married with the petitioner and she living happily with the petitioner – Occurrence took place when she was 17 years of age – Parties allowed to compound the offence – Modern trend of penology is reformatory – If the parties have settled their dispute amicably, Court should not come in their way – Rather the purpose of law is to eradicate the litigation between the parties. (Rakesh Kumar alias Sonu Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 379 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.363 and 366, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, S.4(3) – Conviction under sections 363 and 366 IPC – Accused released on probation in view of adolescent age. (Davinder Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 83 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.363, 366 and 376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 – Prosecutrix aged 17 years induced by applicant to go with him promising her to marry her – Case registered u/s 363, 366 and 376 on recovery of girl – Prosecutrix had moved with the applicant from 30.6.2002 to 7.9.2002 from place to place – Shows prosecutrix a consenting party – Bail allowed. (Bisahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh)  2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 260 (Chhattisgarh)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.363, 366 and 376 – Offence u/ss 363, 366 and 376 – Acquittal u/s 376 IPC –  As offence u/ss 363, 366 is technical in nature as such a lenient view with regard to sentence is to be taken – Accused facing trial for the last more than 17 years – Appellant not indulged in any other criminal activity before or after registration of the case – Sentence reduced from 2 years to two months – Sentence of fine maintained. (Ashwani Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 539 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.363, 366 & 376 – Age of prosecutrix – School register – Entries in school register are not of much value unless there is evidence to show that on what material and at whose instance the date of birth was written in the school register – Original school register not produced – Fact of prosecutrix below 16 years not proved. (Makhan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 378 (M.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.363, 366 & 376 – Kidnapping, abduction and rape – Prosecutrix alleged to be  kidnapped and taken to various places and subjected to rape by accused – No evidence that prosecutrix was less than 18 years of age at the time of incident – Prosecution did not produce even  a single person of various places where prosecutrix was taken – No evidence that prosecutrix was actually taken away against her will and was subjected to rape – Conviction of accused set aside. (Kasan Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 620 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.363, 366 & 376 – Rape – Age of prosecutrix – No direct evidence – Ossification test revealing age of prosecutrix between 14-16 years – Benefit of fluctuation upto 2-3 years, must go to accused – Age of prosecutrix held to be 18-19 years – Prosecutrix on her statement proved to be a willing party – Evidence of prosecutrix not supported by medical or other evidence – Charges not established – Conviction set aside. (Nand Kishore Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 703 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.363, 366 – Abduction – Accused 19 years of aged alleged to have abducted a woman aged 30 years and having 5 children – Prosecutrix was kept in a house for eight days where many other people were residing and that house was situated in a Mohalla –  She did not tell anything to inmates and other neighbours though accused was not present all the time in the house – Prosecutrix travelled in a bus but made no hue and cry – It can reasonably be presumed that it was a case of elopement and not a case of abduction/kidnapping. (Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 667 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.363, 366 – Kidnapping of girl – Age – 15 years in School Leaving Certificate – Age certified to be 19 years by Chief Medical Superintendent – Opinion of doctor only expert opinion and not conclusive – Conduct of City Magistrate who directed doctor to examine girl about her age not approved – FIR not to be quashed – Investigating Officer to get girl medically examined by way of ossification test to ascertain her age. (Kamlesh & Anr. Vs State of U.P.) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 288 (Allahabad) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.366, 376 – Kidnapping and rape – Conviction – Prosecutrix married lady of 25 years and earning his livelihood by selling flowers – Accused alongwith another woman became friendly and gaining her confidence – Accused offered cup of coffee laced with drug and after drinking coffee prosecutrix became unconscious and when she regained consciousness she found herself in Bangalore – Accused made her believe that he was taking her back to her place but actually took her to Mumbai and lodged her in hotel room and committed rape on her – Subsequently he sold her to a brothel house where she was forced to lead life of prostitution for nearly two years – She was rescued by police – Production of corroborative evidence can be dispensed with and conviction can be based solely on evidence of prosecutrix if the same taken as a whole, strikes judicial mind as probable – Refusal to act on her testimony and insisting on corroborative evidence is adding insult to injury – Evidence of prosecutrix merits to be given weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding – Conviction upheld. (Raja alias Dosaval Vs State by Devaraja Police Station, Mysore) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 77 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.363, 376, 300 – Kidnapping, rape and murder – Dead body of minor girl recovered from pond in early morning – Accused immediately arrested and cloths worn by him sent for chemical examination – Accused could not give any rational explanation for presence of blood stains on his clothes mixed with semen – Evidence that accused was moving around during night and he was having a child on his shoulder – Previous conduct of accused though not strictly admissible in evidence would prove that he was prone to do such crime – Conviction of accused for offences u/ss 363, 376 and 302, proper. (Surendra Pal Shivbalakpal Vs State of Gujarat) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 809 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.363/34 – Kidnapping of minor child and demand of 3 lakhs ransom – PWs 2, 4, 5 and 6 brought fake currency notes bag on prefixed place where A2 came to collect it and was apprehended – At instance of A2, A1 with child apprehended from forest – Acquittal by trial Court in view of the manner in which witnesses dealt with matter without informing police – Conviction by High Court as it found reasoning for acquittal unsustainable and that minor contradictions in evidence did not render evidence unacceptable – No embargo on appellate Court reviewing evidence upon which acquittal was based – Paramount consideration is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented – Discrepancies highlighted by appellants merely trivial and could not be termed to be contradictions to affect credibility of evidence – No interference called for. (Shashidhar Purandhar Hegde & Anr. Vs State of Karnataka) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 716 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.363/366, 120-B – Kidnapping – Merely calling girls and telling them that they are called by another accused does not show any conspiracy or that of helping another accused in kidnapping the girls – Accused acquitted. (Davinder Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 83 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.364 – To attract the provision it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the abductor had the intention, at the time of abduction, that the abducted person may be murdered or his body may be disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered. (Major Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 269 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.364-A – Abduction for ransom – Ingredients – To attract 364-A it is required to prove – (i) Accused kidnaped or abducted the person (ii) Kept him under detention after such kidnaping and abduction (iii) The kidnaping or abduction was for ransom. (Malleshi Vs State of Karnataka) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 200 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.364-A – Abduction for ransom – This fact told to victim and he was even conveyed the amount to be paid – Merely because demand was not conveyed to the person who was to pay for the victim would not take out the offence out of the purview of Section 364-A – It is not relevant who pays the ransom – Demand made by conveying it to the victim – Intention and demand of ransom to be seen – No definite mode to make demand is required – Conviction upheld. (Malleshi Vs State of Karnataka) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 200 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.364, 302 and 201 r/w 34 – Child kidnapped and murdered to appease deity on the asking of a Tantrik and causing disappearance of dead body – Appellant 3 was caught red handed by PW 7 while throwing dead body in a pond – Murder by A1, A2 and A4 witnessed by PW 14, an employee of appellant 1 – Trial Court awarding death penalty to all the four which was confirmed by High Court – Held, sole testimony of PW 14 is not sustainable who is an accomplice without any corroboration – In its absence  only A3 can be convicted – A1, A2 and A4 acquitted on benefit of doubt. (Kalpana Mazumdar Vs State of Orissa) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 363 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.364A, 365, 387, 307, Evidence Act, 1872, S.118 – Child – Abduction of child of 10 years for ransom – Accused gave injuries and threw the child when he became unconscious – Accused convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment mainly on statement of child – Child could not be shattered in cross examination – Court found him fit to make statement after putting questions – There is no bar for Court to act upon the testimony of a child witness. (Ajay Kumar Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 554 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.365 – Kidnapping – Not done for murder of the victim – Offence be reduced from S.364 to S.365 IPC. (Shiv Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 21 (Patna)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.365, 302 – Kidnapping and murder of two minor boys – Conviction of appellant and other absconding accused and death sentence passed and upheld by High Court – Case based on circumstantial evidence and confession – Deceased last seen in company of accused was against absconding accused and no witness named the appellant – Recovery of silver chain which one of deceased had on his person was at instance of absconding accused – Extra judicial confession of appellant made in presence of Executive Magistrate before PWs 25, 26 and 28 was unreliable and did not inspire confidence to be credible – Doubt as to whether PWs 25, 26 and 28 were within the hearing distance from accused and did really hear what accused said – No corroboration to retracted confession of appellant – Confession by appellant that he killed boy by strangulation was contrary to medical evidence which showed death was due to head injury – It would not be safe to convict appellant solely on alleged confession – Conviction set aside. (Parmananda Pegu Vs State of Assam) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 522 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.365, 366 & 376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.164 – Abduction and rape – Statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. that she was major and went with accused of her own accord – Bail granted. (Kala alias Krishan Pal Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 436 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.365/511 r/w S.149 – Sentence – Reduction – Prolonged trial by itself is no ground to reduce the sentence. (Deo Narain Mandal Vs State of U.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 583 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.365/511 r/w S.149 – Victim had love affair with accused – This does not give right to accused to forcibly take her away from her lawful guardianship. (Deo Narain Mandal Vs State of U.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 583 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.366 – Kidnaping – If the accused played some role at any stage by which he either solicited or persuaded the minor to abandon the legal guardianship, he shall be guilty of kidnaping. (Moniram Hazarika  Vs  State of Assam ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 606 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.366 – Kidnaping – Minor girl – Accused promised to marry her – She went with him on promise of marriage – Preparation of marriage at accused house were made – Promise of marriage amounts to enticement of minor – Conviction upheld. (Moniram Hazarika  Vs  State of Assam ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 606 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.366 – Reduction in sentence – Kidnapping by promise to marriage – Victim was 16 years of age – Accused sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years – Reduced by High Court to already undergone i.e. 1 months and 3 days – Accused uneducated labourer from rural area and aged 21 years – High Court has unreasonably reduced the sentence which is ridiculously low sentence – Order of High Court set aside and that of trial Court restored. (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Rameshwar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 920 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.366A – Rape – Age – Evidence of father that prosecutrix was 19 years whereas Doctor found that age was 17 years – Evidence of father relied and not of Doctor – Accused acquitted of offence under S.366A IPC. (Jinish Lal Sah Vs State of Bihar) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 173 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.366, 367, 365 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 – Rape – Name of petitioner not mentioned in FIR – Statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. that she had gone of her on accord – Bail allowed to accused. (Krishan Vs Sardaras) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 152 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.366, 368, 376, 120-B, 148 & 149, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 – Abduction and rape case – Evidence showing that prosecutrix was roaming about with one of accused earlier to abduction – Prosecutrix aged 23/24 years – Two accused already granted bail – Bail allowed. (Parshant Pathak alias Micky Vs State of Punjab) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 329 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.366, 376 – Rape – Testimony of prosecutrix contrary to her statements recorded u/s 161, 164 Cr.P.C. – Considerable delay in FIR – Accused previously known to prosecutrix – No injury on body of prosecutrix – Photograph of prosecutrix with accused not indicating of her unwillingness – Prosecutrix concealing her marriage with main accused – Prosecutrix taken to various places on foot as well as by public transport but she never raised hue and cry nor put up any resistance – One important witness not examined by prosecution – Acquittal upheld. (State of Rajasthan Vs Toma Ram) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 368 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.366, 376 – Statement of prosecutrix shows she was a willing party to sexual intercourse – She accompanied the accused to different places where they had sexual intercourse several times – Chemical examination report revealing no stain of blood or semen in saya, blouse etc. – Age of prosecutrix would be above sixteen years at the time of alleged occurrence – Finding of trial Court that accused kidnapped the prosecutrix, compelled her to marry and committed rape are erroneous and not to be sustained – Accused acquitted. (Dhobeidhar Naik Vs State) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 71 (Orissa)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.366, 376(2)(g) – Conviction u/s 366 & 376(2)(g) – Two injuries on body of prosecutrix stated by doctor to be self inflicted – No hue and cry made when prosecutrix was being taken away from well to place of occurrence in broad day light in a populated area – Hymen not ruptured – Only redness found on vaginal orifice – Sexual intercourse ruled out by medical evidence – No semen found in vaginal smear and swab – Presence of semen on skirt and underwear of no significance – Semen marks found on pant or underwear of accused of no significance – Accused arrested after three days – Prosecutrix not narrating incident to her uncle meeting prosecutrix soon after alleged incident – Offence not proved – Conviction set aside. (Durga Lal & Anr. Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 300 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.366, 376/34 – Rape – Age – Birth certificate or reliable evidence to prove age of prosecutrix not produced – In ossification test approximate age determined between 14.9 and 15.8 years and doctor stated that six months margin could be allowed as such age of victim girl could be upto 16.3 years – Doctor did not found any sign of struggle on body of prosecutrix and admitted that lateral tear of hymen could be caused if external object like stick penetrated through it – Materially different versions given in cross-examination of prosecutrix – To her Phupa PW4, prosecutrix when met first did not allege rape committed by accused upon her but only alleged teasing at the hands of accused – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Puran Tirwa Vs State of Sikkim) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 383 (Sikkim) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.366 and 376 – Abduction and rape – Accused and prosecutrix boarded a bus, a truck and train from time to time – At a place accused took her to a jungle and raped her and repeated the same – Prosecutrix admitted the presence of a number of passengers in the bus and that she did not make any complaint to anybody – Absence of injuries on the person of prosecutrix show her to be consenting party – Medical evidence shows her to be habitual to sexual intercourse – Persons to whom she narrated the story on her meeting not produced in evidence – A case of consent – Conviction set aside. (Chhoga Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 537 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.366 and 376 – FIR registered u/s 366/376 – Boy and girl, both major, married of their own, as parents were angry and annoyed – FIR quashed. (Sukhdeep Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 889 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.366 and 376/34 – Rape – Conviction on basis of sole testimony of prosecutrix – Conviction for the offence of rape can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it is reliable, unimpeachable and does not suffer from any infirmity. (Puran Tirwa Vs State of Sikkim) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 383 (Sikkim) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.366 & 376 – Conviction – Appeal against – Defence plea that prosecutrix went with appellant of her own free will and volition – Prosecutrix aged 22 years and she was taken from place to place in various villages – No injury or other compelling circumstances to suggest that she was forcibly taken by appellant – Going from place to place in different transport systems suggest that prosecutrix was taken not under any threat or against her wish – Inference can be drawn that she accompanied appellant of her own free will – Medical report shows that she was used to sexual intercourse – Evidence of prosecutrix does not inspire confidence – Held, conviction cannot be sustained. (Mohd.Laddu Vs State of H.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 118 (H.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.366-A and 363 – Prosecutrix 17 years of age – Allegation of kidnapping – No evidence that prosecutrix was forced to have intercourse with another person – Offence u/s 366-A not made out – Conviction set aside – Offence u/s 363 IPC is made out. (Bhagwant Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 739 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.367, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.164 –  Rape – Statement of victim before Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before her medical examination – Held, there is no law that the victim of rape should be first medico-legally examined and then she should be produced before Magistrate for recording her statement. (Krishan Vs Sardaras) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 152 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.367, 371 – ‘Slave’ & ‘Slavery’ – Meaning – Deprivation of the freedom of movement and right of expression with respect to person or property is ‘slave’ or ‘slavery within the meaning of Ss.367 & 371 IPC. (Dhanurjaya Putel Vs State of Orissa) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 217 (Orissa) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.375 Clause Second & S.376 – Rape – Promise to marry – Intercourse with consent of prosecutrix on genuine promise to marry – Promise was genuine but marriage did not materialise due to family pressure – Accused not guilty of rape, but only of breach of promise. (Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 655 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.375 – Rape – Absence of injury either to the genital part of the victim or to the male organ – Complete penetration of penis with emission of semen and rupture of hymen is not necessary to constitute offence of rape – Partial penetration of the penis with the labia majora or the vulva or pudenda with or without emission of semen or even an attempt at penetration is sufficient – It is quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape without producing any injury either to the genital part of victim or to the male organ. (Durgalal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 281 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.375 – Rape – Doctor opined that vagina admitted one finger with difficulty – Absence of penetration canot be inferred on that basis. (Durgalal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 281 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.375 – Rape – Minor girl of 8 years –  Mother of prosecutrix had enmity with accused – It is absurd that mother would falsely involve her daughter in rape case because of enmity. (Durgalal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 281 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.375, 354 and 323 – Appeal against acquittal – Rape – Evidence of prosecutrix not corroborated by medical evidence to sustain charge of rape – Order of acquittal cannot be interfered with – However, medical evidence of injuries on body of prosecutrix and her oral evidence that accused forcibly dragged her out of her house to secluded place closely, make out offence of using criminal force to outrage her modesty and of causing her hurt – Accused convicted for offence  u/s 354 and 323 read with S.34 only. (State Vs Rangaswamy alias Narayanagowda) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 454 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.375, 376, 90 – Rape with consent – Submission does not involve consent – Submission under fear or terror cannot be construed as a sexual act with consent. (Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 655 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.375, 376 and 511 – Rape – Sine qua non of the offence of rape is penetration and not ejaculation – Ejaculation without penetration amounts to attempt to rape. (Koppula Venkat Rao  Vs.  State of Andhra Pradesh ) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 511 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 502 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.375, 376 – Rape – Accused forcibly entering house in night when prosecutrix and her younger sister were there – Accused driven out younger sister and committed rape – Testimony of younger sister that when she came back home at 11 p.m. she found prosecutrix lying on floor and writhing with pain – FIR lodged in the morning and prosecutrix subjected to medical examination – Visible marks on person of prosecutrix prove that she was not consenting party – Presence of human semen on her clothes proves commission of offence – Testimony of prosecutrix corroborated by medical evidence and evidence of her sister found reliable – Interference with conviction is not warranted. (H.Chandrakanth & Anr. Vs State of Karnataka) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 297 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.375, 376 – Rape – Minor – Defence is entitled to rely on the higher side of age given by doctor. (Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 655 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.375, 376 – Rape – Promise to marry – Intercourse with consent of prosecutrix on genuine promise to marry – Marriage did not materialise – Prosecutrix got pregnant and gave birth to female child – Accused directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-. (Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 655 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.375, 376 – Rape – Prosecutrix had intercourse with accused several times – Held, prosecutrix was a consenting party – If rape was committed against will of prosecutrix she would not have volunteered to submit to his wish subsequent to the alleged first incident of rape. (Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 655 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.375, 511, 506 Part II, 300 and 354, Cr.P.C., 1973, Ss.386(a) and 222(2) – Main charge – Failure to prove – Acquittal is not automatic – Court has duty to examine whether charge of lesser offence can be made out on basis of evidence brought on record in course of trial for main offence – If so, accused to be convicted for such lesser offence – Where trial Court overlooked to do so, Appellate Court can convict accused for such lesser offence – Where charge of rape is not proved against accused he can be convicted for lesser offence of indecent assault on woman. (State by CPI, Gadag Rural Police Station Vs Shivaputrappa) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 652 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.375, 511, 506 Part II and 300, Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.3 & 45 – Rape and murder – No firm medical opinion that death was due to strangulation – Minor injuries recorded in post-mortem report not sufficient to cause death – No medical evidence to prove that death was homicidal – No evidence of rape in medical report – Only circumstance against accused was his presence, immediately after incident, at spot close to where deceased woman was last found alive and shouting for help and later her dead body was found – Conviction not possible on sole basis of such solitary circumstance – Order of acquittal, confirmed. (State by CPI, Gadag Rural Police Station Vs Shivaputrappa) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 652 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.375 and 90 – Allegation of prosecutrix that accused had sexual intercourse with her by force and on promise made by accused that he would marry her at later date, she remained quiet – Thereafter prosecutrix having sexual intimacy with accused consciously for several months – Prosecutrix became pregnant – Complaint of rape lodged just before three days prior to birth of child when accused refused to marry her as per his promise – Act of accused does not constitute offence of rape. (Lakshmana Naik Vs State by Bantwal Police, Mangalore) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 194(Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, 228-A – Rape – Name of victim should not be indicated in the judgment. (State of Punjab Vs Ramdev Singh) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, 313, 315 and 506, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 – Bail – Accused, a self proclaimed sidh/saint – He exploited the prosecutrix  and impregnated her several times because of which she gave birth to four children and there were abortions thrice – None of the children so born survived – Skull of a child recovered during investigation on identification of a place by prosecutrix – Accused refused his blood sample for DNA test – No case for grant of bail made out. (Baba Sohan Giri Vs State of H.P.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 832 (H.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, 366, 363, 342 – Age – Birth certificate of prosecutrix not produced – Mother not examined as a witness inspite of the fact that her statement was recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. –  Doctor opined age 17-18 years  – Doctor admitted in evidence that age can fluctuate either way – Held, prosecution has failed to establish that prosecutrix was less than 18 years on day of occurrence. (Balwant Singh & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 717 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, 366, 363, 342 – Prosecutrix taken in a bus which was full of passengers and she did not raise any hue and cry – Prosecutrix did not made any attempt to approach the ‘Police Post’ which was just near the house where she was kept – Prosecutrix did only state that there was “Bura Kam” and she never mentioned that sexual intercourse was actually performed and that there was penetration – Held, statement of prosecutrix falls much short of establishing that sexual intercourse was performed against her wishes. (Balwant Singh & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 717 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, 366 & 366A  – Abduction and rape – Prosecutrix above 18 years – Remained with accused for 10 days and travelled by train and tempo without protest and made no effort to seek help from others – Held, prosecutrix was consenting party – Failure to establish threat, coercion or inducement – Accused is not guilty of offence under Sections 376, 366 & 366A IPC. (Jinish Lal Sah Vs State of Bihar) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 173 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.154, 157 – Rape – Delay in lodging FIR and delay in FIR reaching Court – Not a ground to reject the prosecution case unless there is a material to show that the delay has been caused by the prosecution to implicate accused falsely. (Rajendran & Ors. Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 290 (Madras) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.153 – FIR – Rape – Delay of 4 days in lodging FIR – FIR lodged after Panchayat failed to give redress to prosecutrix – It is satisfactory explanation of delay. (Akhtar Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 64 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.154 – FIR – Rape – Delay of 4 days – Prosecutrix when reached home after the incident there was no male member and when her uncle returned from job, entire incident narrated to him and thereafter a report was lodged – Delay sufficiently explained. (Sawailal & Anr. Vs State) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 807 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.154 – FIR – Rape – Delay of two days – Explained that it was due to interference by Panchayat as to whether to take the matter to Court or not – Explanation is reasonable one – When respect of married woman is involved members would certainly decide whether to take the matter to Court or not. (Devinder Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 673 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.154 – Rape of child of 10 years – Delay of 3 days in lodging FIR – Child was threatened with dire consequences – Mother noticed blood on clothes after 3 days and report lodged to police – In such like matters, where honour of entire family is at stake, family members will take some time to deliberate and it requires a lot of courage to report the matter to police – Delay in such like cases is natural. (Rajbir alias Fouji Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 130 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.154 – Rape – Delay in lodging FIR – Delay per se is not mitigating circumstance when accusation of rape is involved – Delay not to be used to discard prosecution case – It only puts court on guard – If explanation is offered for cause of delay, Court to see whether same is satisfactory or not – If prosecution fails to explain it satisfactorily then delay is relevant factor – However satisfactory explanation of delay is weighty enough to reject false implication – Delay explained – Accused convicted. (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Shree Kant Shekari) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 158 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.154 – Rape – FIR – Delay of 18 days in lodging FIR – Prosecutrix belonged to conservative society of rural area – Father of prosecutrix was seriously ill and family members did not want to create tension in the his mind – No other person informed due to shame of sexual assault and to avoid publicity – Held, delay is satisfactorily explained.  (State of Punjab Vs Ramdev Singh) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.154 – Rape – FIR – Delay – Delay per se is not a mitigating circumstance for the accused when accusations of rape are involved – Victim was totally unaware of the catastrophe which had befallen to her – That being so, the mere delay in lodging of first information report does not in any way render prosecution version brittle. (Tulsidas Kanolkar Vs State of Goa) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 718 (S.C.) : 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 302 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.154 – Rape – FIR – Delay – In such like cases prosecutrix for the sake of not being dishonoured in the eyes of general public, do not want to narrate the story at an early stage and time is taken to convince and encourage the prosecutrix to come forward and lodge FIR. (Karan Singh & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 516 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.154 – Rape – FIR – Delay – Matter first reported to Sarpanch and a Panchayat was called in which family of accused was also present – It was agreed that accused be punished by blackening their faces – This was not done – Ultimately FIR lodged – Held, delay in lodging FIR is explained. (Karan Singh & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 516 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.154 – Rape – FIR – Lodged after 4 days – Delay in filing complaint in regard to an offence of this nature by itself is not fatal so as to vitiate the prosecution case. (State of Chhattisgarh Vs Derha) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 631 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.154 – Rape – FIR – Undue delay in lodging FIR without acceptable evidence – Contributes doubt in the prosecution case. (The State of Karnataka Vs Mapilla P.P.Soopi) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 685 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.154 – Rape – Non examination of First informant – FIR cannot be used for any purpose to base conviction. (Suresh  Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 326 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.154 – Rape – Non examination of First informant – FIR proved and exhibited through I.O. – FIR can only be read that in fact it was recorded at the date and time mentioned by the I.O. in his evidence – Contents of the F.I.R. cannot be used for any purpose to base the conviction save and except in a situation where the F.I.R. is a statement as contemplated under section 32 of the Evidence Act. (Suresh  Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 326 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.320 – Rape – Offence is not compoundable. (Sanjay Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 528 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.377(3) – Appeal by State against reduction by sentence by High Court to that already undergone – In such an appeal accused can argue for an acquittal. (State of Rajasthan Vs Kishanlal) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 556 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.377(3) – Rape – Minimum sentence of 7 years – Reduced by High Court without assigning any adequate or special reasons – Appeal against sentence to Supreme Court – Held, it is an appeal for enhancement of sentence. (State of Rajasthan Vs Kishanlal) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 556 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 – Bail – Rape – Prosecutrix had gone to collect wages from accused where rape was committed upon her – She however did not support charge in her evidence – Fit case to admit accused to bail. (Jailal Lakda Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 672 (M.P.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Cr.P.C., 1973, S.154 – FIR – Rape – Delay of 26 hours – Explanation – Arrival of elders is awaited before lodging complaint in police when the offence of this nature is committed – Girl was unconscious in the day – Police station was at a distance of 15 kms and no mode of conveyance was available – Held, the delay in reporting the matter is thus fully explained. (State of Rajasthan Vs Om Prakash) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 64 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Cr.P.C., 1973, S.438 – Rape – Committed for the first time in 1997 and repeated thereafter several times – Matter not reported to police prior to 4.10.2001 – Anticipatory bail allowed. (Mangal Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 182 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Evidence Act, 1872, S.6 – Rape of married woman – She immediately narrated entire occurrence to her mother-in-law – This evidence is admissible under S.6 of Evidence Act. (Gajjan Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 206 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Evidence Act, 1872, S.9 – Rape – Identification of accused – Identification of the accused either in test identification parade or in Court is not a sine qua non in every case if from the circumstances the guilt is otherwise established – Many a times, crimes are committed under cover of darkness when none is able to identify the accused –  Commission of crime can be proved also by circumstantial evidence. (Visveswaran Vs State Rep. By S.D.M.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 138 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Evidence Act, 1872, S.114A – Rape – Consenting party – Deposition of prosecutrix that she was subjected to sexual intercourse against her will and without her consent – Held, it is for the accused to prove that prosecutrix was consenting party. (Akhtar Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 64 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Evidence Act, 1872, S.114A – Rape – Testimony of prosecutrix not suffering from any infirmity – In such a case Court will presume that victim did not consent. (Devinder Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 673 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Evidence Act, 1872, S.114-A – Rape – Court shall presume that the victim did not consent, where the victim makes a statement in Court that she did not consent and mere absence of mark of external injury do not negate the prosecution case. (Prem alias Ballu Vs The State of Haryana) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 473 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Evidence Act, 1872, S.114-A – Rape – Presumption – If a woman says that she was raped, it has to be taken that she was raped – It is for the accused to show that no sexual intercourse was committed upon her without her consent. (Baba Jagga Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 278 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Evidence Act, 1872, S.114-A – Rape – Proved by evidence of prosecutrix corroborated by medical evidence – When rape is proved, presumption is that victim did not consent – Conviction u/s 376 IPC maintained. (Dev Kishan & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 124 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Evidence Act, 1872, S.114-A – Rape – When sexual intercourse by the accused is proved, the Court shall presume that victim was raped and she did not give consent for sexual intercourse. (Rajendran & Ors. Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 290 (Madras) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Evidence Act, 1872, S.118 –  Rape – Of child aged 5/6 years – Victim was under great trauma and this could be reason that after a lapse of 15/16 months of the incident she was not in a position to even raise a finger of accusation towards the appellant – Conduct of victim does not create any doubt in the mind of Court so far as involvement of accused is concerned – Case otherwise proved by eye witnesses – Conviction upheld. (Kapoor Singh alias Kapoora Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 692 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Evidence Act, 1872, S.118 – Rape of 5 years child – Statement of child witness natural, true and voluntary and supported by Medical evidence – There was no motive to make false statement – A father would never expose his daughter to ignominy except when unavoidably necessary – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, upheld.  (Malkiat Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 269 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Evidence Act, 1872, S.118 – Rape of child aged 5 years – Statement of victim not recorded during investigation and she not named as a witness in the list of prosecution witnesses – Victim brought in witness box at the instance of Court – Opportunity to cross examine given – Lacuna, if any, in not recording statement of victim at Investigation stage does not make any difference as proper opportunity was given to defence to cross examine the victim. (Malkiat Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 269 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Evidence Act, 1872, S.119 – Rape victim – Deaf and dumb – Statement recorded by signs without assistance of an expert – Her testimony cannot be discarded solely on the basis of non assistance by an expert in recording her statement – Victim had narrated incident to her mother and brother immediately and they supported the version of prosecutrix – Victim was a married lady having three children – Absence of injury in her private parts not a reason to disbelieve her – No material to draw any inference as to her consent or that her testimony was unnatural or improbable – Conviction and sentence calls for no interference. (Deshraj Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 264 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376, Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.146 & 155 – Rape – Video recording of prosecutrix having sex with two boys – Recording sought to be shown to prosecutrix in order to demolish her credibility and establish her character being immoral – Held, under amended provisions of Evidence Act accused cannot be allowed to adduce any evidence that the prosecutrix was having any immoral character, prior to the date of occurrence – Accused also not allowed to place on record the said recording. (Dilbhajan Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 24 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 Proviso – Rape – Minimum sentence of 7 years – Reduced by High Court to period already undergone without assigning any adequate or special reasons – Order reducing sentence is illegal. (State of Rajasthan Vs Kishanlal) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 556 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Case of the prosecutrix even without corroboration can be relied upon by Court, in case her evidence is found to be free from blemishes. (Raja Ram Yadav Vs State of Bihar) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 493 (Patna)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Attempt to rape minor aged 9 years – Accused convicted and sentenced to 5 years RI and a fine of Rs.500/- – Accused 19 years of age – No leniency in sentence on ground of age. (Pawan Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 768 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Attempt to rape minor girl aged 9 years – Defence version that accused was falsely implicated as mother of accused had an altercation with mother of prosecutrix – Contention repelled – No mother would like to allege false allegation of rape on a person just to take revenge on minor issue like an altercation and put the honour of her family at stake and to diminish the repute of her unmarried minor daughter. (Pawan Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 768 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Corroboration is not the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. (Bhupinder Sharma Vs State of Himachal Pradesh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 193 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Delay in lodging FIR and no satisfactory explanation – P.W.2 contradicted his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. – Evidence of prosecutrix unsatisfactory – Conviction set aside. (Ram Rai Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 238 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Gang rape – Appellants dragged prosecutrix to nala and raped her one by one – No infirmity in testimony of prosecutrix – Defence plea of false implication because of enmity not substantiated by evidence – Prosecutrix would not go to extent of staking her reputation – Absence of spermatoza could be due to reason that offence was committed on 21.5.1991 night and medical examination took place on 23.5.1991 – One lacerated injury 5 mm x 3 mm x mucusal depth found in fourchette – Minor discrepancies have no importance – Corroboration not a sine qua non for conviction in rape case when testimony of victim is reliable – No interference in order of conviction. (Sano Murmu & Ors. Vs State of Orissa) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 218 (Orissa)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Gang rape – Character and reputation of victim has no relevance in the matter of adjudging guilt of accused for imposing punishment. (Rajesh Namdeo Mhatre Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 55 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Gang rape – Conviction on basis of uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix – Corroboration is not the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case when testimony of victim is reliable. (Sano Murmu & Ors. Vs State of Orissa) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 218 (Orissa)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Gang rape – Evidence of prosecutrix only – Accused acquitted as (1) Rape committed at night time when it was dark in the room and prosecutrix had only glimpse of accused persons in torch light and no identification parade held (2) Prosecutrix did not tell the incident to neighbours in the morning (3) FIR lodged six days after (4) Prosecutrix habituated to  intercourse   and medical  evidence did not affirmatively show that prosecutrix was subjected to assault. (Devinder Singh & Ors. Vs State of Himachal Pradesh) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 533 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Gang rape – In cases of gang rape the proof of completed act of rape by each accused on the victim is not required – Accused who waited for his turn and did not actually commit rape – Is guilty of offence. (Bhupinder Sharma Vs State of Himachal Pradesh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 193 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Gang rape – It is not necessary that the prosecution should adduce clinching proof of a completed act of rape by each one of the accused on the victim or on each one of the victims where there are more than one in order to find the accused guilty of gang rape – It is not necessary that each accused should indulge in sex while member of a gang and sharing common intention. (Dhruvendra Singh & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 307 (Raj.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Intercourse with consent – Prosecutrix below 16 years – Accused sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years for technical offence of rape committed by him instead of seven years. (Hanmant Ramhari Ghodake Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 309 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Offence committed when accused was 16-1/2 years of age – May be the offence was committed without knowing its consequences – Accused now a grow up man and residing with his family – Sentence reduced to already undergone i.e.  17 months. (Islam Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 445 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Prosecutrix did not raise hue and cry out of shame and fear – Version of prosecutrix believed. (Akhtar Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 64 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Prosecutrix earlier lodged a false complaint u/ss 436 and 336 which was found to be false – Possibility of false implication of accused by lodging a rape case cannot be ruled out – Accused acquitted. (Gurmit Kaur Vs Joginder Singh & Ors.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 146 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Prosecutrix previously accustomed to sexual intercourse – It does not give licence to any person to rape her – Even if the victim is used to sexual intercourse earlier, she has a right to refuse to submit herself to sexual intercourse to anyone and everyone. (State of Punjab Vs Ramdev Singh) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape by uncle and nephew – Not improbable that nephew and uncle would rape same woman. (Akhtar Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 64 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape of child of 10 years – Name of accused not given in FIR – No identification parade held – Identity of accused not established – Evidence of prosecutrix that she was briefed by mother outside Court and earlier also when she made statement to police – Eye witnesses who saw accused when prosecutrix was taken away not examined – Medical examination did not fully support the rape – Conviction set aside. (Rajbir alias Fouji Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 130 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape of girl aged 5 years – Sentence – A rapist not only causes physical injuries but also indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman i.e. her dignity, chastity, honour and reputation – Inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system – It is the duty of the Court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it is executed or committed – Imposition of proper punishment is the matter in which the Court responds to the society’s cry for justice against the criminal. (Malkiat Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 269 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape of married woman – No violence injury on person of prosecutrix – It is no ground to reject her testimony – Prosecutrix had no axe to grind against accused – Testimony of prosecutrix can be acted upon to base conviction. (Gajjan Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 206 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape of minor child of 5/6 years – Accused aged 21/22 years and faced trial for 9 years – Accused married thereafter and leading a married life – No leniency in punishment on these grounds. (Kapoor Singh alias Kapoora Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 692 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape of minor girl – Testimony of victim fully corroborated by medical evidence – Conviction and sentence of 10 years imprisonment calls for no interference. (Kalasika Prashanta Kumar Vs State of A.P.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 765 (A.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape of minor – Minimum sentence – Court can award sentence lesser than the minimum sentence for adequate and special reasons – Reduction of sentence on ground that accused at the time of offence was of 17 years of age and was illiterate villager – Held, these are not special reasons to reduce the sentence than the minimum sentence prescribed. (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Balu) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 586 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape of pregnant woman in presence of her husband – Conviction by trial Court and sentenced to 5 years RI – High Court reduced it to already undergone (46 days) on the ground that accused was 22 years of age and there was delay in trial – Order of High Court set aside and sentence of 5 years restored. (State of Karnataka Vs Puttaraja) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 567 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape on 15/16 years girl by 55/56 years old – Accused should have felt ashamed – No leniency in matter of conviction and sentence of 7 years and fine of Rs.1000/-. (Baba Jagga Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 278 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape or intercourse with consent – Prosecutrix 29 years of age and according to medical evidence her vagina admitted two fingers easily and she had been habitually performing sexual intercourse – There was nothing in the medical evidence to suggest that she had been forcibly raped – Prosecutrix had no visible injuries on her person – It is probable that sexual intercourse was with consent of prosecutrix – Conviction set aside. (Hem Raj & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 157 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape with consent – Even a consent is not a defence when the consent obtained is out of fear of death or when she was made to believe that the accused is already married to her or while her mental condition was of unsound nature or affected by intoxication, etc., and she was unable to understand the nature of consequences of giving such consent. (Kumaresh Chikkappa Bagodi Vs State of Karnataka) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 538 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape with consent – Prosecutrix a maid servant – Forcible sexual intercourse for several days on pretext of marrying her – No evidence that prosecutrix was a minor girl – Incidents disclosed by her only after she became pregnant – No injury on private parts – Prosecutrix consent party – Defence of accused that he belonged to rich family and prosecutrix and her mother wanted that he should marry prosecutrix, probable – Accused acquitted (State of Maharashtra Vs Subhash Sitaram Sangare) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 129 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Approach of Court in rape cases has to be different – Broader probabilities are required to be examined – Courts are not to be get swayed by minor contradiction or insignificant discrepancies – Any deficiency or irregularity in investigation need not necessarily lead to rejection of prosecution case when it is otherwise proved. (Visveswaran Vs State Rep. By S.D.M.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 138 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Completion penetration of the penis with emission of semen and rupture of hymen is not necessary to constitute the offence of rape – Partial penetration within the labia majora of the vulva or pudendum with or without emission of semen is sufficient to constitute the offence of rape. (Aman Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 212 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – 14 years old girl – Accused teacher – Defence – False case/false implication – Prosecutrix was afraid of her teacher – Incident of failing brother of accused a decade ago cannot be foundation of false implication – No girl of a tender age and her parents would like to jeopardise her entire future by falsely implicating a person of rape charges – Accused convicted. (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Shree Kant Shekari) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 158 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Absence of External injuries – Prosecutrix overpowered by three persons and made motionless – Absence of external injuries does not negate the prosecution case. (Devinder Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 673 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Absence of injuries either on the accused or on the prosecutrix shows that prosecutrix did not resist but absence of injuries  is not by itself sufficient to hold that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. (Jagdish Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 574 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Absence of injuries on person of prosecutrix – Not necessarily an evidence of falsity of evidence or evidence of consent on the part of the prosecutrix – It depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. (Kuldip Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 104 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Absence of injuries on private part of prosecutrix – Her consent cannot be inferred. (Rajesh Namdeo Mhatre Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 55 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Absence of injury marks on body of prosecutrix – Generally gives rise to an inference that she was consenting party. (Vinay Krishna Ghatak Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 373 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Absence of injury marks on person of prosecutrix – Absence of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix is not by itself sufficient to discard the prosecution case. (Dastagir Sab & Anr. Vs State of Karnataka) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 399 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Absence of injury on prosecutrix – Not indicative of consent of prosecutrix. (Mahesh Chand Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 166 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Accused aged 20 years taken thrice to hospital to obtain semen but accused could not ejaculate – It is not conclusive proof that accused is not cable of performing sexual intercourse. (Rabu Vs State of NCT of Delhi) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 844 (Delhi)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Accused convicted and sentenced to 8 years R.I. – Accused at that time was 20 years of age and now has two minor children to support – Sentence reduced to already undergone i.e. 6 years. (Rabu Vs State of NCT of Delhi) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 844 (Delhi)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Age of girl 8 years – Accused aged 18 years – Accused convicted and sentenced to 8 years RI and a fine of Rs.1000/- – No leniency on ground of young age – Accused was savage and brute. (Bhupinder Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 639 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Age of girl 8 years – Statement of prosecutrix and another child witness recorded without oath, as they did not understand sanctity of oath – Both gave rational answers to questions put to them by Court – Court rightly found them truthful witnesses. (Bhupinder Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 639 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Age of prosecutrix – As per school certificate age of prosecutrix was 10 years and 5 months – As per ossification test she was of between 9 to 14 years – Held, that prosecutrix was around 11-12 years of age when offence was committed. (Dharamvir  Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 658 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Age of prosecutrix – In absence of school certificate or birth certificate age assessed by Doctor would prevail. (State of Rajasthan Vs Munsi alias Yonus) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 657 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Age of Prosecutrix – Radiologic test indicated age to be between 15 to 16-1/2 – As per school records it was 14 years – School record relied. (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Shree Kant Shekari) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 158 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Age – As per ossification test age of prosecutrix was between 14-1/2 to 15-1/2 years – As per report of Dental Surgeon who assessed age on basis of dental examination age of prosecutrix found to be 13 to 14 years – Since age of prosecutrix was below 16 years, as the ossification test is the surest test as such consent given by prosecutrix is not material. (Krishan Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 59 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Age – Determination by radiological examination – Margin of error is of two years on either side. (Vinay Krishna Ghatak Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 373 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Age – Name of prosecutrix appearing in voters list and she cast her vote in last Panchayat election – Held, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, it can be presumed that prosecutrix is more than 21 years of age. (Charanjit Singh & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 36 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Allegation that accused raped the prosecutrix several times -Prosecutrix 17-1/2 years of age made no complaint to any body in the village and not even to her relations for six months – Complaint lodged when her pregnancy became apparent – Altercation took place between father of prosecutrix and father of accused some time earlier – False implication of accused cannot be ruled out – Prosecution story doubtful – Accused acquitted. (Mahender Vs The State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 383 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Burden of proof – Is always on the prosecution to prove affirmatively each ingredient of the offence it seeks to establish and such onus never shifts – It is no part of the duty of the defence to explain as to how and why in a rape case the victim and her mother have falsely implicated the accused. (Shankar Singh & Anr. Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 110 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – By four persons – Absence of injuries – Leads to the conclusion that either no offence was committed or if committed, it was committed with her tacit consent. (Jogi Dan Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 486 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Consent – Age of Prosecutrix was 14 years – Question of consent does not arise. (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Shree Kant Shekari) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 158 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Consent – Burden of Proof – Question of consent is a matter of defence and it was for defence to show there was consent – No plea of consent taken up at the time of statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – Case of defence was of total denial and false implication – Burden of proof to show that there was consent is on prosecution. (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Shree Kant Shekari) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 158 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Contention that there was some enmity between the parents of the accused and that of the victim – Neither the nature of enmity nor gravity of the same has been stated – Explanation is of no assistance to establish the fact that accused is falsely implicated. (State of Chhattisgarh Vs Derha) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 631 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Conviction by trial Court and acquittal by High Court – Delay of 26 hours in lodging FIR fully explained – Accused 18 years of age fully capable of doing inter course – The two grounds for acquittal by High Court viz non examination of other independent evidence and minor contradictions in medical evidence and recovery of one or two underwear was not justified when the case against the accused otherwise stood proved beyond any reasonable doubt by the true and reliable testimony of prosecutrix, her parents and doctors. (State of Rajasthan Vs Om Prakash) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 64 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Conviction by trial Court – Acquittal by High Court – Conviction based on version of prosecutrix which was corroborated by medical evidence and the evidence of Chemical Reports of Forensic Science Laboratory – High Court in appeal reappreciated evidence and recorded acquittal on certain infirmities which were insignificant – Held, High Court rejected testimony of prosecutrix on extremely insignificant infirmities and adopted strange reasoning to convert the verdict of conviction into acquittal. (State of Orissa Vs Thakara Besra & Anr.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 63 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Conviction can be based on the uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix provided the testimony bears the stamp of confidence. (Rabu Vs State of NCT of Delhi) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 844 (Delhi)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Conviction for offence of rape can be based on sole testimony of prosecutrix only if her evidence is cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring. (Tara Chand Vs State of Himachal Pradesh) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 67 (H.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Conviction – Appeal against – Accused undergoing entire sentence during pendency of appeal – Accused a very poor man and living in Jhuggis – Sentence of fine set aside. (Umed Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 498 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Conviction – Reduction in sentence –  Parties entered into compromise – Incident 14 years old – Accused was 21 years of age at that time & prosecutrix was 16 years  of age – Sentence reduced from  seven years to already undergone (6 months) – Fine enhanced from Rs.250/-  to Rs.10,000/-. (Ravinder alias Binder Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 826 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Corroboration is required when prosecutrix is major and habitual to intercourse. (State of Rajasthan Vs Mahendra Singh) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 170 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Corroboration – Evidence of prosecutrix if inspire confidence, must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement – Seeking corroboration to the statement of the victim amounts to adding insult to injury. (Kartik Chhatria Vs State of Orissa) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 426 (Orissa)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Corroboration – (1) Corroboration is required as a matter of prudence and this rule of prudence has now almost hardened into rule of law; (2) That the rule of prudence which has been hardened into rule of law is that the rule as to corroboration must be present in the mind of judge and must have been incorporated in the judgment; (3) That if the evidence of the prosecutrix does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the probabilities factor does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule. corroboration should not be insisted upon; (4) That the corroboration of the prosecutrix evidence may be dispensed with where the circumstances of a case make it safe to do so – The reasons for dispensing with the necessity of such corroboration should be forthcoming in the judgment; (5) That corroboration should ordinarily be required in the case of woman having attained majority and who is habitual to sexual intercourse as in such cases there is likelihood of her having levelled such an accusation of account of instinct of self preservation or when the probabilities factor is found to be out of time; (6) That the view that though corroboration should ordinarily be required in the case of a grown up woman, it is unnecessary in the case of a child of tender years is not correct whether corroboration is unnecessary is a question in every case. (Vinay Krishna Ghatak Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 373 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Cross examination of prosecutrix disclosing that she was a consenting party and this was not her first sexual intercourse with appellant – FIR lodged late by father of prosecutrix after consultation – Medical evidence not supporting any injury on person of prosecutrix – Truthfulness of the prosecution case found doubtful – Accused acquitted. (Mohan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 112 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Delay in reporting matter to the police – Occurrence not kept a secret – Parents of prosecutrix indulging in making enquiries in the matter at different stages from different persons and in the presence of a huge number of persons and informing the entire village of the rape much before lodging of the complaint – Held, it is not a case wherein matter was not reported to the police for months together to keep it a secret to save honour of the prosecutrix or the family. (Tara Chand Vs State of Himachal Pradesh) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 67 (H.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Doctor who examined the victim found injuries on her private parts which is indicative of the fact that there was recent sexual intercourse –  Injuries found on the back of the victim suggest that she was protesting and struggling – Presumption can be drawn that sexual intercourse was committed on her without her consent. (Kartik Chhatria Vs State of Orissa) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 426 (Orissa)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Even if there is a slightest penetration that constitutes an offence of rape. (Krishan Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 59 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Even slight penetration is enough for offence of rape. (State of Maharashtra Vs Hanumanta @ Hanmappa Malappa Koli) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 536 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Evidence of prosecutrix that accused brought her in the house literally lifting her and then main accused committed sexual intercourse with her – The fact of commission of rape corroborated by evidence of her maternal aunt besides the evidence of doctor – Appellant convicted on the basis of evidence that he was present and facilitated main accused in his act – There was however no involvement of the appellant – Conviction of appellant set aside. (Khemraj  Vs State of Maharashtra) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 573 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Evidence of Prosecutrix – Evidentiary value – Whether a rape victim an accomplice – Victim is not an accomplice – Victim stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness – Injury to rape victim is physical as well as psychological and emotional – Accused can be convicted without corroboration on the testimony of prosecutrix – However, if court on facts finds it difficult to accept the version of prosecutrix on face value, it may search for evidence direct or circumstantial which would lend assurance to testimony of prosecutrix – Assurance short of corroboration would suffice. (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Shree Kant Shekari) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 158 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – False allegation of rape can destroy the name and reputation of an accused lowering him in the eyes of his family and the public – This fact to be kept in mind while discussing the evidence in such cases. (Gurpal Singh Vs The State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 39 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – FIR – Delay – In view of social conditions prevailing in India there may be delay in giving first information of such an offence to Police – A rape victim may think seriously before giving the information to the police about rape as the onslaught of a social stigma may haunt her for life –  Though the delay as such is not serious, but while considering broad probabilities of the case, the delay in giving the information to the police also assumes some importance. (Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo Vs State of Orissa) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 129 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Girl 10 years of age – As per FIR recorded on statement of prosecutrix, rapist had muffled his face with his shirt after taking it off – FIR did not show that during this period prosecutrix had recognised rapist – It is dangerous to rely on testimony of child witness and more so  when her version was improved or contradictory on material particulars – FIR appeared to be outcome of deliberators and consultations – Pant of accused with blood stains produced in Court during trial but parcel bearing seals of hospital where parcel had been sent to State Forensic Laboratory – Conviction not sustainable. (Tarvinder Kumar Vs State of Himachal Pradesh) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 791 (H.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Girl below 18 years – No evidence that sexual intercourse was without consent and by force – Conviction u/s 376 IPC cannot be sustained. (Allaudin Vs State of Assam) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 130 (Gauhati)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Girl if below 16 years of age, the question of consent is wholly irrelevant. (Dhruvendra Singh & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 307 (Raj.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Husband of prosecutrix reached the spot and found accused lying on his wife but he did not make an attempt to catch hold of the accused – After all, accused, to get up and to tie his clothes and then to run, would have taken some time – Testimony of prosecutrix is unreliable and untrustworthy – Conviction set aside. (Rambir Vs State of Haryana) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 396 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Identification parade – Rape case – Magistrate who conducted identification parade in Jail not examined as a witness – However, memo prepared regarding identification of accused persons in presence of Magistrate placed on record and that not challenged in cross examination – Prosecutrix in her cross examination stated that she had disclosed the four accused persons in the identification parade who had committed rape with her – Held, accused were identified in identification parade. (Sawailal & Anr. Vs State) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 807 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Identification – Contention that because of darkness it was not possible for prosecutrix to identify accused – Prosecutrix however in her statement stated that where rape was committed moon-light was there – Held, that it is unbelievable that a victim against whose wishes intercourse has taken place will ever forget the face of the person who had committed rape on her. (Sawailal & Anr. Vs State) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 807 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – If Court is satisfied from the evidence of the victim a conviction can be solely based on such evidence without looking for further corroboration. (State of Chhattisgarh Vs Derha) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 631 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – If Court is satisfied that the evidence of prosecutrix is free from blemish and is implicitly reliable, then on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, conviction can be recorded. (State of Rajasthan Vs Biram Lal) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 662 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 699 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Incident 14 years old – Accused was then 18 years of age – Accused thereafter married and having family – Sentence reduced from 10 years to 7 years. (State of Chhattisgarh Vs Derha) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 631 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Injuries – Evidence of Doctor that injuries suffered by prosecutrix could not have been self inflicted – There was blood on private part of prosecutrix, the hymen was torn and medial side of the labia-minora was inflamed – This was even 4 days of the incident – Doctor in specific terms stated that victim is not habituated to sexual intercourse – This by itself goes to show that injury suffered by the victim was one that could have been caused only by an act of rape as alleged by the prosecution. (State of Chhattisgarh Vs Derha) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 631 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Injury on the body of victim – Doubt regarding age of ruputure of the hymen – No other injury found on body of victim – It would be dangerous to pass a conviction merely on the fact that the hymen of victim was found ruptured. (Suresh  Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 326 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Intercourse with consent – A woman would not ordinarily put her chastity at stake by making a false allegation of rape but though this may be the general rule, exceptions thereto are not lacking. (Dinesh Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 383 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Intercourse with consent – Plea of consent not taken – Held, even if plea is not taken in defence it is still open to Court to infer that a case of sexual intercourse with consent was made out on the basis of the prosecution evidence. (Dinesh Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 383 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – It is not possible for a single man to commit sexual intercourse with a healthy adult female in full possession of her senses against her Will. (Sukru Gouda Vs State of Orissa) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 673 (Orissa)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Married woman – Doctor could not give any definite opinion as there was profuse bleeding – This is of no consequence in view of the unimpeached evidence of the victim. (Sri Narayan Saha & Anr. Vs State of Tripura) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 638 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Married woman – If a prosecutrix is an adult and full understanding the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy –  If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. (Sri Narayan Saha & Anr. Vs State of Tripura) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 638 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Material witness not examined – Testimony of prosecutrix not suffering from any infirmity –  No adverse inference can be drawn if the case  projected by prosecutrix is otherwise acceptable. (Devinder Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 673 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Medical evidence of prosecutrix being 19 years of age – No injury on any pat of body of prosecutrix – Main eye witness not supporting prosecution case – Report lodged after about 12 days – No evidence of resistance put up by the prosecutrix – Factors leading to consent on part of prosecutrix – Conviction set aside. (Shankar Singh & Anr. Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 110 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Mentally retarded woman – Consent – Every consent involves a submission but the converse does not follow, and mere act of submission does not involve consent – A girl whose mental faculties are undeveloped, cannot be said in law, to have suffered sexual intercourse with consent. (Tulsidas Kanolkar Vs State of Goa) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 302 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 718 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Merely because semen was not found in the swab it cannot be said that no rape has taken place. (State of Maharashtra Vs Hanumanta @ Hanmappa Malappa Koli) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 536 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Minimum sentence of 10 years – Sentence less than minimum can be imposed under special circumstances – No hard and fast rule can be laid in this respect. (Karamvir Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 390 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Minor girl of 9 years – Minimum sentence – Sentence less than minimum can be imposed under special circumstances – In the instant case sentence of 4 years awarded by way of mercy for the reasons that incident is 14 years old and that appellant is having three minor children of tender age and widowed mother to be looked after and wife of appellant pregnant of eight months – Prosecutrix also got married by now. (Karamvir Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 390 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Minor girl – Conviction for 10 years – In appeal High Court directed to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- to prosecutrix in addition to sentence awarded. (Dharamvir  Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 658 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Minor girl – Prosecutrix became unconscious – It could not be expected that a girl who became unconscious could give photographic version giving minute details – Medical evidence showed commission of offence – Discrepancies in statement of prosecutrix not fatal – Conviction upheld. (Dharamvir  Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 658 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Minor girl – Teacher taking advantage of absence of adult members present in house raped girl less than 16 years – Evidence of prosecutrix believable and corroborated by medical evidence – Doctor found injury marks in private parts & signs and symptoms of recent intercourse – Her evidence corroborated by evidence of her brothers – Conviction not to be interfered – Sentence of 10 years not reduced. (Ainal Uddin Ahmed alias Aynal Vs The State of Assam) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 120(Gauhati)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Occurrence took place in field of sugarcane – Version of prosecutrix that she thrice hit accused with legs but there was not an abrasion or bruise either on the person of accused or the victim – Prosecutrix absented from school and went to field of accused when her parents were away – It was not a normal time to ease – Prosecutrix caught indulging into sexual intercourse by three co-villagers – No evidence brought by prosecution with regard to samples that had actually been sent for chemical analysis – Presumption has to be drawn that if the same was done, it would have turned against the prosecution – Held, it a case of consent – Accused acquitted. (Ranbir alias Billa Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 236 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Offence committed in house of prosecutrix – No evidence of resistance – Mouth of prosecutrix not gagged – No alarm raised by her – Mother of prosecutrix appeared at the scene and only then prosecutrix stood up and made up a story – Acquittal upheld. (Charanjit Singh & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 36 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Once conviction is recorded Court is under an obligation to impose minimum sentence unless Court for special reasons awards less sentence – Offenders young at the time of commission of offence is not a adequate or special reason – Accused deserves to be imposed minimum sentence of 10 years imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-. (Rajendran Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 290 (Madras) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Once victim’s evidence is believed no corroboration is necessary. (Rajendran & Ors. Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 290 (Madras) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Onus is on prosecution to prove affirmatively each ingredient of the offence and such onus never shifts – It is no part of the duty of the defence to explain as to how and why in a rape case the victim and her mother have falsely implicated the accused – However great the suspicion against the accused and however strong the moral belief and conviction of the Judge, unless the offence of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt or beyond the possibility of reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on record, he cannot be convicted for an offence – There is an initial presumption of innocence of accused and the prosecution has to bring the offence home to the accused by reliable evidence – Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt. (Dhruvendra Singh & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 307 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Parents of prosecutrix resiled from their statements – Prosecutrix expired – According to school certificate she was above 17 years but below 18 years – Medical evidence showed that there was no injury marks either on the person of the prosecutrix or on the alleged rapist and that vagina admitted two fingers and she had been subjected to intercourse – Conviction set aside. (Hukkar @ Ismile & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 345 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Penetration up to vulva is sufficient to constitute an offence of rape. (Sheoji Shah Vs State of Bihar) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 108 (Patna) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Presumption as to absence of consent of woman – It is for accused to prove that the woman consented to sexual intercourse. (Rajesh Namdeo Mhatre Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 55 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Proof of age – Medical evidence can be taken into consideration only when birth certificate or school certificate is not available. (Shankar Singh & Anr. Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 110 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Proof of age – School certificate is the best evidence – So far as the medical evidence is concerned, since it has margin of error, it would be taken into consideration only when primary evidence which is found in the birth certificate or school certificate is not available. (Dhruvendra Singh & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 307 (Raj.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Proof – Evidence of prosecutrix can be relied upon without corroboration if it does not suffer from any basic infirmity – As a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except  from  medical  evidence. (Dhruvendra Singh & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 307 (Raj.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Prosecutrix 17 years of age – Evidence that she had love affair with accused – According to medico-legal examination vagina of prosecutrix admitted two fingers and that she was habitual to intercourse  – Prosecutrix was consenting party – Conviction set aside. (Bhagwant Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 739 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Prosecutrix a married lady – Remained with accused for three days and had sexual intercourse many times – No injury on her person and private parts – Had there been forcible intercourse, some sort of injuries must have been received by prosecutrix – Held, prosecutrix was a consenting party and it was not a case of forcible sexual intercourse. (State of Rajasthan Vs Munsi alias Yonus) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 657 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Prosecutrix a married woman – Unsatisfactory delay of 20 hours in lodging FIR – PW 3 who arrived at spot on hearing cries of prosecutrix was the eye witness but he did not support the case and turned hostile – Regarding place of occurrence there are serious contradictions – Testimony of prosecutrix and her husband do not inspire confidence – Simply on basis of abrasions found on person of prosecutrix, no inference could be drawn against accused – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Kana Ram Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 686 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Prosecutrix above 18 years of age and habituated to sexual intercourse as per medical evidence – Rape not proved – Evidence showed that prosecutrix lodged report at the instance of his brother who had enmity with accused over land dispute  and that her brother had executed a pronote of Rs.42,500/- in favour of accused prior to the present occurrence and that accused had instituted suit for recovery of pronote amount against him – Conviction set aside. (Gurpal Singh Vs The State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 39 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Prosecutrix below 16 years of age – Made to enter house on pretext that she was called by her friend, the sister of appellant No.2 – Both appellants raped her by turn, one holding and silencing her – Prosecutrix cannot be held to be consenting party in view of being aged 15 years and ability to offer resistance in presence of both appellants when one of the appellants was thwarting her efforts to resist. (Ramesh & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 101 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Prosecution did not produce medical report in regard to examination of victim by doctor but produced only certain clarifications given by doctor in response to questions by I.O. – Though clarification note stated that victim had recent signs of forcible sexual intercourse, in absence of medical report regrading observation of doctor, it is difficult to accept subsequent clarificatory note – Medical evidence not establishing case of rape – Unexplained delay in lodging FIR – No injuries on person of prosecutrix – Acquittal cannot be interfered with. (The State of Karnataka Vs Mapilla P.P.Soopi) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 685 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Prosecutrix less than 16 years of age – Question of consent of prosecutrix does not arise. (Ramesh & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 101 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Prosecutrix habitual to intercourse – Accused not to be acquitted on this ground if offence of rape is otherwise proved. (State of U.P. Vs Pappu alias Yunus & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 387 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Prosecutrix habitual to intercourse – To base conviction on statement of prosecutrix it must be corroborated in some material particulars from independent source. (Vinay Krishna Ghatak Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 373 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Prosecutrix if found habitual to intercourse , her statement to base conviction of accused persons, must be corroborated in some material particulars from independent source. (Jagdish Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 574 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Prosecutrix is a witness interested in outcome of charge levelled by her – Court has to circumspect and seek corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. (Rajesh Namdeo Mhatre Vs State of Maharashtra)   2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 55 (Bom.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Prosecutrix picked up from kitchen and removed to cot  – Accused tied her hands with a rope and gagged her mouth with a Chuni and then committed rape – Prosecutrix had time and opportunity to raise hue and cry when she was physically lifted and taken to the cot and also during the period when her hands were being tied with rope – This version of the prosecutrix is not confidence inspiring. (Tara Chand Vs State of Himachal Pradesh) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 67 (H.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Prosecutrix unmarried and 29 years of age – Her version that she was virgin but Medical evidence showed that she was habitual to sex – Accused acquitted on this ground and other infirmities such as no marks of violence on her body – No stains of semen on her clothes and delay of 2 days in lodging FIR.  (Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo Vs State of Orissa) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 129 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Reduction in sentence – Rape of minor girl of 9 years – Accused sentenced to life imprisonment – Accused did not inflict any grievous bodily harm – Nevertheless the  extent of psychological harm cannot be measured – Conviction of life imprisonment reduced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years without remissions, furlough or parole and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and  in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. (Narotam Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 388 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Refusal to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration is adding insult to injury – Corroboration is not the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. (Kalia @ Kalakar Naik Vs State of Orissa) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 353 (Orissa) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Sentence – Leniency in matters involving sexual offences is not only undesirable but also against public interest – Such types of offences are to be dealt with severity and with iron hands – Showing leniency in such matters would be really a case of misplaced sympathy. (State of Karnataka Vs Puttaraja) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 567 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Sentence – Prosecutrix less than 16 years of age made to enter house on pretext that she was called by her friend the sister of appellant No.2 and raped by both the appellants – Young age of appellants and no past bad record are no grounds to earn leniency on question of sentence in view of shameless and inhuman act of ruining life of prosecutrix. (Ramesh & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 101 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Sentence – Sentence of 5 years RI awarded to accused – Sentence is less than minimum of 7 years – There is no scope of further reduction. (Prem alias Ballu Vs The State of Haryana) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 473 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Sexual intercourse with complainant who is aged more than 16 years and with her consent – Offence u/s 376 IPC is not made out. (Suram Kiran Kumar Reddy Vs State of A.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 308 (A.P.)  

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Sole testimony of prosecutrix – Can be the basis for conviction provided it is safe, reliable and worthy of acceptance – Victim is not treated as accomplice but could only be characterised as injured witness – It is also reasonable to assume that no woman would falsely implicate a person in sexual offence as the honour and prestige of that woman also would be at stake. (Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo Vs State of Orissa) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 129 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Sole testimony of prosecutrix – Neither natural and truthful nor inspiring confidence – Conviction cannot be based on it without corroboration that she is making a truthful statement. (Vimal Suresh Kamble Vs Chaluverapinake Apal S.P. & Anr.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 28 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Sole testimony of prosecutrix by itself is sufficient to record conviction if that testimony inspires confidence and has complete link of truth. (State of Maharashtra Vs Hanumanta @ Hanmappa Malappa Koli) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 536 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Solitary testimony of prosecutrix can be relied only when it inspires confidence – Allegation of rape by six persons – Incident not disclosed to anyone by prosecutrix for two-three days – Delay of 10 days in lodging FIR unexplained – Report of medical examination not brought on record – Under circumstances, uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix could not be relied on – Conviction liable to be set aside. (Surjan Vs State of M.P.) AIR 2002 SC 476

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Testimony of prosecutrix clear, consistent and free from natural infirmities and also corroborated by medical evidence – Non detection of spermatozoa on the private part – Not a ground to disbelieve the prosecution story. (Kalia @ Kalakar Naik Vs State of Orissa) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 353 (Orissa) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Testimony of a rape victim cannot be disbelieved merely for the ground that she did not raise hue and cry or did not offer any resistance – Each person reacts in a particular manner when faced with an adverse and hostile situation. (Rabu Vs State of NCT of Delhi) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 844 (Delhi)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – To hold accused guilty of the offence Court has to be satisfied that the accused, when he laid hold of the prosecutrix, not only desired to gratify his passions upon her person, but that he intended to do so at all events and notwithstanding any resistance on her part – To prove so materials must exist – Surrounding circumstances many times throw beacon light on that aspect. (Aman Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 212 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Uncorroborated evidence of victim – Prosecutrix 20 years of age, carried physically to an open cow-shed in broad daylight in the middle of the village and raped – No injuries of any type occurred – Even clothes of victim have neither been damaged nor they stained – Police not seized even a single material object – Serious doubts arise as to whether at all the incident has taken place – Order of acquittal confirmed. (State by Revoor Police Vs Dattappa @ Dattu) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 562 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Under threat of knife – Knife neither exhibited nor recovered in the course of investigation – Non seizure of knife raises a serious suspicion about the truthfulness of the prosecution version that accused had sexual intercourse with prosecutrix under threat. (State of Rajasthan Vs Kishanlal) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 556 (S.C.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Unmarried girl above 16 years – Acquittal as prosecutrix was consenting party as (i) Prosecutrix an unmarried girl was above 16 years and habitual to intercourse and there corroboration is not available  (2) No recent tears of hymen (3) Vagina admitted two fingers (4) Prosecutrix did not tell incident to anybody or raised hue and cry (5) No sign of resistance (6) Washed her clothes which eliminated corroborative evidence; (7) Made improvements in her statement. (Vinay Krishna Ghatak Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 373 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Until and unless there is reliable and acceptable evidence to come to a conclusion that it was the accused who committed rape, he cannot be convicted even if the factum of rape on the prosecutrix is established beyond reasonable doubt. (Rajbir alias Fouji Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 130 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Victim is not an accomplice after the crime – There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars – She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness – In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. (State of U.P. Vs Pappu alias Yunus & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 387 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Victim of rape is not an accomplice after the crime – There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars – She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness – If Court of fact finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecution on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct and circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. (Aman Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 212 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Victim of rape is not an accomplice – There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars – She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness – If Court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony – Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice would do. (State of Punjab Vs Ramdev Singh) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – When some sort of injuries are not received by the prosecutrix then the allegation of rape is negatived and it shows that accused had sexual intercourse with prosecutrix on her tacit consent. (State of Rajasthan Vs Mahendra Singh) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 170 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Where evidence of prosecutrix and medical evidence cannot be reconciled, the fact of commission of rape cannot be said to have been proved. (Ashok Shamrao Thakare Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 731 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Sentence – Gang rape – Lesser sentence than prescribed – Can be awarded on adequate and special reasons – Fact that accused waited for his turn, but actually did not commit rape is not a special ground to warrant sentence lesser than minimum. (Bhupinder Sharma Vs State of Himachal Pradesh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 193 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Statement of prosecutrix without corroboration if unblemished – Relied upon – Medical examination after 20 hours of the incident – Presence of spermatozoa in vagina would be very remote – Delay in reporting the matter to police stood explained as the incident took place at night – Prosecutrix scared due to night –  Sufficient explanation – Trial remained pending for 14 years and in the meantime accused became old – No interference in sentence. (Raja Ram Yadav Vs State of Bihar) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 493 (Patna)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – “Bura Kam” – Prosecutrix not stating that sexual intercourse was actually performed and that there was any penetration but only stating that it was a “Bura Kam”  – Held, statement of prosecutrix falls short of establishing that sexual inter course was actually performed. (Balwant Singh & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 717 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376(2) Expln. (1) – Gang rape – Accused present on terrace where Prosecutrix was raped and played some or other role – Conviction of 4 out of 7 accused u/s 376(2)(g) – Trial Court could have convicted the 3 acquitted accused under Section 376(2)(g) by taking recourse to explanation (1) to clause (g) of sub-section (2) of S.376 IPC. (Rajesh Namdeo Mhatre Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 55 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376(2)(F) – Rape – Accused did not suffer any injury on his private part – Is of no help to him because accused was medically examined 4 days after the incident. (State of Chhattisgarh Vs Derha) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 631 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376(2)(g), Evidence Act, 1872, S.114A – Rape – Gang rape – Consent – In gang rape if the prosecutrix states that she did not consent to sexual intercourse then Court is to presume that she did not consent. (Kuldip Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab)  2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 104 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376(2)(g) – Gang rape – Girl below 16 years – Consent – Process of sexual intercourse continued for more than one year – Report lodged with police when matter came to notice of father of prosecutrix – Benefit of delay cannot be given to accused. (Dhruvendra Singh & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 307 (Raj.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376(2)(g) – Gang rape – Prosecutrix 28 years of age, unmarried – Identification of accused by prosecutrix in Court without holding test identification parade – Crime was perpetrated in broad daylight and prosecutrix had sufficient opportunity to observe features of appellants – She had reason to remember their faces and had abundant opportunity to notice their features – Prosecutrix appears to be a witness on whom implicit reliance can be placed – No reason to interfere with concurrent finding of Court below that identification of appellant in Court did not require further corroboration. (Malkhansingh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 206 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 331 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376(f) – Conviction on basis of confession and plea of guilt to charge – Confession recorded on the day accused was produced by police in custody and time not given to him to make reflection and nothing to ascertain that it was made voluntarily – During trial accused not represented by an Advocate – Examination of victim girl, her mother and doctor remained uncrossed – Doctor did not find any injury on the person of victim or of accused and no seminal stains were noted – Conviction cannot be sustained – Matter remanded to be tried afresh. (Lalhunpuia Vs State of Mizoram) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 612 (Gauhati)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376/511, Evidence Act, 1872, S.73 – Love letters – Proof of handwriting of prosecutrix – Court can direct any person present in Court to give his handwriting for comparison with the writing alleged to have been written  by such person – Order of trial Court declining request of accused for an order of specimen handwriting of prosecutrix cannot be sustained and the same quashed. (Ram Dev Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 717 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376, 107 – Rape – Abetment – Accused No.2 obliged accused No.1 by taking gifts to prosecutrix knowing relationship between prosecutrix and accused No.1 – Held, accused No.2 cannot be convicted for abetment of rape as he did not instigate anybody, nor engage anybody to do illegal act or caused any wilful misrepresentation or concealment of fact. (Hanmant Ramhari Ghodake Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 309 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376, 302 – 11 years old girl – Rape and murder – Death sentence – Appellant was 20 years at the time of incident and was a student – No evidence that he will be a danger to society – No record of any previous heinous crime – Case does not fall in category of rarest of rare case – Death sentence modified to life imprisonment. (Amit @ Ammu Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 555 (S.C.) : 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 786 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376, 302 – Rape and murder – Last seen together – School girl aged 11 years – Victim child and appellant last seen together in the forest and body of victim deceased was found lying next day in a dilapidated building in jungle – Circumstances of case cast a heavy responsibility on appellant to explain and in absence thereof suffer conviction – No explanation offered and defence was of complete denial – Conviction rightly recorded. (Amit @ Ammu Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 555 (S.C.) : 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 786 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376, 302 – Rape and murder – Single eye witness – Evidence of PW 1 that deceased was first raped was rendered false by medical evidence – His further evidence that he was rendered immobilised because of attack on him by accused also not supported by any medical evidence – Unnatural conduct of PW 1 that he did not resist or ran or shout for help – All these factors render presence of PW 1 doubtful – Accused would not have left PW 1 alive if he was known to them – No interference in acquittal. (State of Karnataka Vs Daya @ Dayananda) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 555 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376, 304 Part II – Gang rape – Committed in a violent manner – Accused A5, A6, A7 & A11 found to be rightly convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable u/s 376 IPC – However, the nature of injuries inflicted upon the person of the deceased indicate that accused persons had not intended to cause her death – Accused person are assumed to have the knowledge that by gang-rape committed in a violent manner, their action was likely that the deceased would have died – Accused therefore are guilty of offence punishable u/s 304 Part II. (State of Orissa Vs Dibakar Naik & Ors.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 196 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376, 323 r/w S.34 & Evidence Act, 1872, S.114-A – Three accused persons committed acts of sexual assault at three different places – Medical evidence and particular positive evidence as to tenderness of the vaginal portion of the prosecutrix proved multiple acts of intercourse – Even by taking assistance of S.114A Evidence Act, prosecution failed to prove the act of sexual intercourse attributed to accused persons constituting a gang rape which was without the consent of the prosecutrix – Conviction and sentence set aside. (Sudhakar & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 692 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376, 323 – Rape – Injuries on person but not on private parts of prosecutrix – Report lodged on arrival of husband of prosecutrix – Delay not fatal – Prosecutrix corroborated by medical evidence, statement of her husband and fact of broken bangles – Mere absence of spearmatozoa not sufficient to cast doubt on the correctness of the prosecution case – Conviction sustained. (Mahesh Chand Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 166 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376, 326/120-B – Sex scandal involving 11 accused persons – Newspaper report that young school and college girls lured by a gang which misled them and took them to places for parties etc. – Girls were thereafter forcibly subjected to sexual exploitation and photographed in obscene poses and thereafter blackmailed by threatening their exposure and adopting other means –  Evidence of victim girls – Prosecution for offence u/ss 120-B, 292, 292/120-B, 507/120-B, 376 and 376/120-B IPC – Trial Court convicted appellants of offences u/ss 120-B and 292/120-B IPC also – However High Court affirmed their conviction u/ss 376/120-B IPC and S.376 IPC only – Four appellants were named by several witnesses – Evidence on record establishing offence u/s 376 IPC against appellants ‘P’ and ‘I’ and offence u/s 376/120-B IPC against ‘A’ and ‘M’ – Their convictions rightly recorded. (Moijullah @ Puttam etc. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 819 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376, 354 – Attempt to rape – Prosecutrix tried to shout – Accused tied sari around neck and tightened – Death of prosecutrix – Two circumstances found established beyond doubt that victim prosecutrix was seen walking past the field very shortly before accused was seen running away from that place – Secondly there was hardly any time between assault on victim and accused running away from spot and that victim had screamed for help – Defence contention that it was just coincidence, not believable – There was, however, no evidence of any injuries to genital area – Wearing clothes of victim were intact – There were some injury marks on thigh – Accused found guilty of using force for outraging modesty of victim – Accused convicted u/s 354 IPC and sentenced one year imprisonment. (State of Karnataka Vs Shiva Putrappa) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 490 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376, 363, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.320 – Compromise – Keeping the interest of the girl in view who is stated to have already been engaged to be married to some other person, it would be in the interest of justice to put an end to the criminal proceedings. (Sharan Deep Singh Vs State) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 145 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376, 363 and 366 – Abduction and rape – Age – Proseuctrix stated to be 18 years of age at the time of her medico legal examination – Proseuctrix while appearing as a witness stated her age to be 16-1/2 years – As per birth certificate age of prosecutrix was 16 years 11 months – Father of prosecutrix stated her age 17 and 18 years – Age of prosecutrix can be taken to be above 18 years as when there is divergent view about age, benefit of doubt should go to accused. (Raman Kumar Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 50 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376, 363 and 366 – Rape – Age – Proof – Name in birth certificate mentioned as Sushma –  Prosecutrix while appearing as a witness gave her name as Meena Rani alias Sushma-Seema – No challenge thrown to this fact in cross examination of the prosecutrix and her father – It cannot be said that trial Court wrongly held the certificate to be one pertaining to the prosecutrix. (Jagir Singh Vs State of Haryana)  2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 503 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376, 363 and 366 – Rape – Age – Proof – Ossification test and school record showing age of prosecutrix below 16 yeas – Prosecutrix was incapable of giving consent – Conviction upheld. (Jagir Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 503 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376, 363 and 366 – Rape – Conviction u/s 376 IPC – Accused faced trial for 14 years – Accused was 18 years at the time of commission of offence and now of 32 years – Sentence reduced from 7 years to 4 years. (Jagir Singh Vs State of Haryana)  2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 503 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376, 375 and 90 – Rape with consent – Major girl – Consent based on promise of accused to marry – Sexual intercourse repeated for one year – Prosecutrix delivered a child by hiding pregnancy – Offence of rape is not made out – Accused acquitted. (Kumaresh Chikkappa Bagodi Vs State of Karnataka) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 538 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376, 375 & S.90 – Rape – Promise to marry – Consent – Prosecutrix gave consent to sexual intercourse with a person with whom she is in love on a promise that he would marry her on a later date but known to the prosecutrix that their marriage may not take place at all on account of caste consideration – Cannot be said that consent was given under a misconception of fact – However, whether consent was voluntary or given under misconception of fact would depend on facts of each case – In the instant case accused not guilty of offence of rape. (Uday Vs State of Karnataka) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 229 (S.C.) : 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 700 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376, 376/120-B – Sex scandal luring young girls, sexually exploiting hem by taking their photographs in obscene poses – Two accused were more concerned with developing of films and printing of photographs – Prosecution case that with the help of such photographs the victim girls were sought to be blackmailed – No evidence that these photographs were recovered from these two accused – No obscene photographs recovered from their Labs – Held, High Court was justified in acquitting these two accused. (Moijullah @ Puttam etc. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 819 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376, 417, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.53 – Blood sample – Paternity of child – Medical examination of accused for deciding paternity of accused sought by prosecution – Report of Chemical Analyser indicating blood groups of prosecutrix and accused – There was no attempt by him to find out as to whether the child begotten by the prosecutrix was child of the accused – Prosecution had examined all material witnesses and closed case for recording statement of accused – By itself not a ground for rejection of permission for medical examination of accused for deciding paternity of child. (State of Maharasthra Vs Ranjit) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 589 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376, 452 and 325, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, S.12, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 – Juvenile – Offence under sections 376, 452 and 325 – Bail – Refused on ground that it will defeat ends of justice – Material in support thereof not produced by prosecution – Bail to a juvenile can only be declined in exceptional circumstances where it appears to Court that release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice – No such ground existing in the instant case – Petitioner directed to be released on bail. (Ramesh alias Meshu Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 216 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376, 511 – Rape – Semen detected on under-wear of accused and salwar of prosecutrix – Cannot be concluded that there was rape – In order to constitute offence of rape penetration of male organ in the vulva of the vagina of the prosecutrix is a condition sine-qua-non. (Krishan Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 59 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376 and 306, Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.32, 6 and 157 – Rape – Girl aged committing suicide within an hour of rape – Prosecutrix narrated the incident to her mother – Statement of victim is admissible – S.32 is an exception to the rule of hearsay and makes admissible the statement of a person who dies, whether the death is homicide or a suicide, provided the statement relates to the cause of death – Conviction u/s 306 and 376 IPC upheld. (Sunil Kumar Arjun Das Gupta Vs State of M.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 124 (M.P.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376 and 511 – Rape – Attempt to Rape – Attempt to commit offence – Scope and ambit – In every crime, there is first, intention to commit, secondly preparation to commit it, thirdly, attempt to commit it – If attempt is successful then crime is complete – If attempt fails the crime is not complete – Section 511 makes all attempts to commit crime punishable if not made punishable by other specific sections – Attempt begin with the preparation are complete and culprit commences to do something with the intention of committing the offence and which is step towards the commission of offence – Moment one commences to do an act with necessary intention he is guilty of attempt to commit offence – Attempt to commit offence is to be distinguished from intention to commit – Mere intention not followed by an act is not an attempt – Preparation is punishable only in case of offence covered by Section 122 (waging war against the Government of India) and u/s 399 (preparation to commit dacoity) – Dividing line between attempt and preparation is sometimes thin and has to be decide on facts of each case. (Koppula Venkat Rao  Vs.  State of Andhra Pradesh ) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 511 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 502 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376 r/w S.511 & S.342 – Conviction u/s 376 r/w S.511 and S.342 IPC – Appeal against – Accused faced trial for 14 years – Prosecutrix married and settled in matrimonial home – Accused also married and having three minor children – Sentence reduced to already undergone (nine months) – However amount of fine to the tune of Rs.200/- u/s 376/511 IPC enhanced to Rs.10,000/- to be paid within three months and in default of payment of fine accused to undergo RI for six months. (Narender Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 517 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376 & 306 – Rape of 14 years girl – Victim reached home and narrated incident to her mother and committed suicide within half an hour – Evidence of mother is admissible u/ss 6 & 32 of Evidence Act – Deceased must have narrated truth before her mother and her statement found support from her blood stained underwear – Post mortem report observing no injury mark on private part of girl – Reveals that there as no proper examination as genital of deceased was described to be healthy – It would not rob sterling character of testimony of mother of deceased – Conviction suffers from no illegality. (Sunil Kumar Arjun Das Gupta Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 245 (M.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376 & 366 – Four witnesses from village who were stated by PW1 to have accompanied her to police station to lodge report contradicted testimony of PW1 – Delay of 11 days in lodging FIR – Bitter hostility between parties – Non consideration of defence evidence caused grave injustice to accused – Contradictions in FIR and oral evidence – Credibility of prosecution evidence shaken – Held, conviction cannot be sustained. (Ashok Kumar Vs State of Bihar) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 18 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376/34, 302/34 & Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.273 & 299 – Appellant absconded when trial took place against other three accused – Eight prosecution witnesses examined – Three other accused acquitted – Appellant arrested and put on trial – Appellant himself moved application to consider evidence of eight witnesses without calling them – Conviction of appellant – Appellant’s application to adopt evidence recorded behind his back is of little consequence – Trial Court was required to make endeavours to procure presence of those witnesses – Nothing to suggest that witnesses were either dead or incapable of giving evidence – Trial was in breach of S.299 Cr.P.C. – Conviction cannot be sustained – Retrial ordered. (Kamal Prasad Singh Vs State of Bihar)   2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 506 (Patna) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.378 – Uprooting and removal of standing crop without consent of owner is theft. (Malhu Yadav Vs State of Bihar) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.378, 379 – Standing crop – Cutting and removal – A thing attached to the earth as soon as it is severed in order to take dishonestly such commodity out of the possession any person without his consent, the commission of the offence of theft stood completed. (Malhu Yadav Vs State of Bihar) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.379, Electricity Act, 1910, S.39 – Electricity – Theft – Notice issued to deposit compensation within 48 hours failing which FIR would be registered and without waiting for the deposit demanded case got registered on the same day – Amount of compensation deposited within requisite time – FIR quashed. (Harish Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 16 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.379, Electricity Act, 1910, S.39 – Offence u/s 39 – To constitute an offence under the provision it is necessary to prove dishonest intention and that some artificial means or means not authorised by the licencee exists for the abstraction, consumption or use of energy by the consumer. (Pawan Kumar Vs The State of Haryana) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 163 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.379 – Theft – Oral evidence firmly establishing the theft – Mere non recovery of stolen goods would not  entitle acquittal. (Malhu Yadav Vs State of Bihar) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.379, 447 & 426 – Co-sharers – Theft and trespass – Khasra Girdawari showing the land in self cultivation of co-sharers – When land is joint then every co-sharer has an interest in every inch of land and there can be no offence of trespass and theft by a co-owner – Continuing of complaint will be abuse of process of Court – Complaint quashed. (Gurmeet Singh Vs Rachhpal Singh) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 728 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.380, 457 – Witnesses to recovery turning hostile – Recovery of tape recorder from open place – Difficult to connect accused with possession of tape-recorder – Acquittal upheld. (State of Rajasthan Vs Kishna) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 300 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.386 & 506 –  Extortion and criminal intimidation – Asking an employee to resign otherwise his services will be terminated and that information will be sent to other organisations employing same kind of personnel and that he may not get job – Act does not fall within the mischief of extortion – No clear allegations of intimidation – Magistrate was wrong to take cognizance after police submitted a final report. (Dr.Kapil Garg Vs State) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 27 (Delhi)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.392 – Conviction u/s 392, 307 and 307 r/w 34 – Five years sentence awarded – All the three accused also received injuries – Incident 14 years old – Sentence reduced to already undergone. (Nagina & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 264 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.392 – Robbery – Accused tied the hands of victim, removed her ornaments and took away Rs.2 lacs – Accused remained in the house for half an hour – Testimony of victim and others with regard to identification of accused relied upon. (Munna Vs State (N.C.T. of Delhi)) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 277 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.392/120B, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, S.19, Evidence Act, 1872, S.6 –  Robbery in house during day time – Four persons entered the house at 11.00 a.m. and tied the hands of PW3, broke open steel almirah and removed currency notes – PW3 and PW6 were inmates of house – PW5 Head Constable reached spot after hearing shouts – All the three witnesses stated that appellant was one of the robbers who take part in the commission of the crime and jumped from balcony and ran away – PW3 assigned a very specific role of removing her golden bangles to appellant – Participation of appellant in crime proved – Appellant himself declined to participate in test identification parade – Prosecution is justified in relying upon testimony of witnesses recorded in Court – Conviction upheld. (Munna Vs State (N.C.T. of Delhi)) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 201 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.392, 302 r/w 34 – Murder and robbery – Murder in car – Deceased hired a car – Three accused found in car – Murder on the way – Accused miserably failing to explain their lawful possession of those articles with them that belonged to and were in possession of deceased – Keeping in view the proximity of time within which the act of murder was committed and body found and articles recovered from the possession of the accused it was legitimate for the Courts below to draw a presumption that the offence was committed by the accused. (Ezhil & Ors. Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 431 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.394 – 60 years old woman came out of house to go to toilet at 1.15 a.m. – Accused with co-accused gagged her mouth and took away gold chain and gold studs – Identity of accused – Woman had named accused in FIR as they were working with her brother-in-law – No reason why she would name them falsely – Evidence supported by recovery of robbed articles – Prosecution succeeded in proving its charge. (Girish Vs State of Kerala) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 145 (Kerala)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.394 – Robbery – Accused convicted on basis of identification parade and corroborated evidence in the form of recovery of looted currency notes which is unimpeachable in nature. (Lal Singh & Ors. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 606 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.394 – Robbery – Accused in such cases more often than not are unknown persons – The fact that their names are not mentioned in FIR is not of much significance – Prosecution can prove its case on the basis of recovery of articles which are the subject matter of offence and identification of the culprits in a test identification parade. (Lal Singh & Ors. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 606 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.394 & 397, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 – Recovery of currency notes – No specific mark of identification on notes – No mark adverted to in FIR on these notes – Accused not subjected to any physical identification – Held, accused is entitled to be released on bail. (Sushil Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 627 (All.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.394 & 397Cr.P.C.: S.439 – Recovery of currency notes – No specific mark of identification on notes – No mark adverted to in FIR on these notes – Accused not subjected to any physical identification – Held, accused is entitled to be released on bail. (Sushil Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 627 (All.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.395 – Appellant No.1 not identified in test identification parade – Statement leading discovery of stolen article only available against appellant No.1 – No other material evidence available – Conviction under S.395 not justified. (Nimai Bhandari @ Barik & Anr. Vs State) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 690 (Orissa) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.395 – Prosecution story that dacoity took place on 8/9th night – Victim of dacoity deposed that dacoity took place on 26th – Official witness stated that accused were taken in custody on 8th or 9th – Prosecution version that accused were arrested on 14th – Conviction set aside. (German Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 292 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.395 – Speedy trial – Conviction u/s 395 IPC – Accused facing trial for 12 years – Sentence reduced to already undergone.  (Rishi & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 152 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.395 – Two of the accused not named in FIR  and FIR lodged after a delay of one day –  No reason as to why they were not named in FIR though well known to PW1 – Two accused acquitted on account of benefit of doubt. (Basanta Pradhan & Ors. Vs State of Orissa) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 287 (Orissa)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.395, 380 – Charge framed u/s 395 IPC – Evidence on record making out a case u/s 380 IPC – Accused can be convicted u/s 380 IPC which is a lesser offence than offence u/s 395 IPC. (Basanta Pradhan & Ors. Vs State of Orissa) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 287 (Orissa)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.395, 397 – Dacoity by 5 persons – Identity of two could not be established – Their conviction set aside. (Rishi & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 152 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.395, 397 – Robbery of Rs.3.40 lacs – Description of robbers not mentioned in FIR – Basic information like age, complexion, height and language spoken are useful to note during police investigation if the police was to apprehend the robbers and successfully prosecute them – Whether any of them was sporting a beard, wearing spectacles or had some other unusual features are also some of the clues which could have lead to the identity of the culprits – No record of identity of car used by robbers – Failure of prosecution to link accused with robbery – Accused rightly acquitted. (State of Haryana Vs Balvinder Singh & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 62 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.395 and 412 – Conviction u/s 395 IPC – Dacoity where passengers of a bus, jeep and tractor on road were looted – None of the appellants known to witnesses or complainant prior to incident – Their identification in Court during trial without prior test identification parade is of no evidentiary value – Recovery of licenced gun of complainant and one trouser and one shirt looted in incident recovered at instance of appellants – They could be convicted u/s 412 IPC – Appellants in custody for more than four years – Sentence imposed for period already undergone. (Kerma & Anr. Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh And Nanu Ram Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 142 (M.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.396 – Dacoity with murder by five or more persons – Each one of the dacoits is liable to be punished under Section 396 irrespective of the fact whether he is the actual assailant or whether he had shared the common intention to kill anyone.  (Umesh Kamat Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 923 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.396 – Dacoity with murder – 8 to 10 dacoits came to house of informant, fired gun shots killing three persons – Conviction of appellant on his identification by witnesses – As per FIR dacoits were identified in torch lights – Possession of torches by dacoits was a subsequent development by witnesses – Evidence showing that witnesses had no sufficient opportunity to recognise faces of dacoits – Test Identification Parade was held after 35 days of arrest and 52 days after occurrence – No special feature of appellant disclosed by any witness – Held, conviction cannot be sustained. (Shyam Singh & Anr. Vs State of U.P.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 128 (Allahabad) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.396 – Dacoity – Test identification parade – Got held after a delay of one month and 10 days of arrest of accused – No explanation for delay – Appellant had surrendered after investigating officer had got initiated proceedings u/ss 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. against them – Nothing on record to show how I.O. suspected the involvement of those accused – Held, evidence of identification could not be relied on to base conviction. (Nirmal Pasi & Anr. Vs State of Bihar) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 32 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.396, 460, 461 – Dacoity – Conviction – Appeal against – Amount in safe looted after causing death of Munim – Recovery of blood stained knives, blood stained currency notes, blood stained clothes of accused, blood stained chappals at instance of accused – Human blood on nails of accused – No infirmity in statement of Investigating Officer – Evidence of recoveries not tainted – PW 9 hostile but admitting all facts in cross examination – Recovered articles identified by PW 13 – Exact amount not mentioned in FIR not significant as exact amount not ascertainable at that time – Articles though recovered from open place yet in concealed condition – Blood on inner side of nails of accused connecting them with crime – Not necessary to ascertain blood group on nails since articles recovered were also stained with blood – Seals on recovered articles found intact – Accused residing behind factory and aware of that premises – Conviction sustained. (Deepak & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 484 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.397, 395 – Dacoity by 5 persons – Dacoity proved but it was not proved that accused used any deadly weapon or had caused grievous hurt to any person or attempted to cause death or grievous hurt to any person – Held, offence u/s 397 IPC is not made out – Conviction u/s 395 IPC upheld. (Rishi & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 152 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.398/401, Cr.P.C.: S.439 – Offence u/s 398/401 IPC – Bail – Accused once jumped bail – Now in custody for a period of 4 months – Petitioner allowed bail keeping in view the totality of the circumstances. (Raj Pal Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 591 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.399, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 – Bail – Pistol made in England and five cartridges found in possession of accused without any authority or licence – Accused if enlarged on bail could administer threat to witnesses or could tamper with evidence – Court has to consider seriousness of offence and interest of society at large – Nature of offence is one of the basic consideration for grant of bail – Trial Court was justified in rejecting bail application. (Livarsing Tejsingh Vs State of Gujarat) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 546 (Gujarat) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.399, 402, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439- Offence for making preparation for robbery –  Accused in custody for 2 years – Bail allowed – It will be seen at the time of trial whether the petitioner alongwith his co-accused was making any conspiracy for committing the robbery or not. (Om Pal Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 75 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.399, 402 – Dacoity – Prosecution has to establish that an assembly of five or more persons was constituted for purpose of committing dacoity – Three persons arrested while attempting to commit dacoity and others alleged to have fled away – Number of persons who fled away not stated – No offence of dacoity made out – Conviction of accused u/ss 399 and 402 IPC set aside. (Asgar & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 31 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.399 & 402 – Dacoity – Preparation to commit – Appellants apprehended when armed with fire-arms they assembled and planned to commit dacoity – Police party took its position at a distance from spot where appellants had assembled and their conversation could not have been heard by police – Material contradiction as to number of dacoits who had assembled – Appellants did not retaliate by their fire-arms to avoid arrest was circumstance to create doubt – Recovery of arms and ammunition not proved by satisfactory evidence – Conviction set aside. (Chhotey & Ors. Vs State of U.P.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 278 (Allahabad)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.400 Clause Thirdly – Even if the intention of the accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and did not extend to the intention of causing death, the offence would be murder. (Parkash Chand Vs State of H.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 190 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.402 – Dacoity – Preparation – To constitute an offence u/s 399 some act amounting to preparation must be proved – It must further be proved that act for which preparation was being made was dacoity. (Asgar & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 31 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.403, 406 & 420 – Criminal and Civil liability – Failure to pay balance amount under the contract even though work stands completed – It is a dispute of civil nature – Criminal complaint quashed. (U.Dhar Vs State of Jharkhand) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 64 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 71 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.405 – Criminal breach of trust – Essential ingredients are: (1) Entrusting any person with property, or with any dominion over property; (2) the person entrusted (a) dishonestly misappropriating or converting to his own use that property; or (b) dishonestly using or disposing of that property or willfully suffering any other person so as to do in violation- (i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged; or (ii) of any legal contract made touching the discharge of trust. (Kailash Kumar Sanwatia Vs The State of Bihar & Anr.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 525 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.405 – Criminal breach of trust – Misappropriation of money by accused with dishonest intention – Intention is not a matter of direct proof, certain broad tests are  envisaged which would generally afford useful guidance in deciding whether in a particular case the accused had mens rea for the crime.  (Kailash Kumar Sanwatia Vs The State of Bihar & Anr.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 525 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.405 – Criminal breach of trust – Nothing either in the complaint and or in the sworn statement of complainant and witnesses that any property was entrusted to any of the accused or that the accused had domain over any of the properties of complainant which they dishonestly converted to their own use – Agreement between parties also not requiring entrustment of any property to the accused – Held, it cannot be said that accused committed offence u/s 405 IPC. (S.W.Palanitkar & Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Ors.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 360 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.405 – Criminal breach of trust – There must be clear and specific allegation that the accused was entrusted with some property or domain over it, by the complaint; that the accused has dishonestly misappropriated or converted the same to his own use or that accused refused to return back the articles when the same were demanded by the complainant. (Ms.Anu Gill Vs State) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 234(2) (Delhi)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.405 – Criminal breach of trust – To prove the offence it must be proved that accused dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he was made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do – The crucial word used in Section 405 IPC is “dishonestly” and, therefore, it implies the existence of mens rea, that is to say a guilty mind. (L.Chandraiah Vs State of A.P. & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 239 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.405, 406 and 420 – Criminal breach of trust and cheating – Advance taken to sell flat on completion – Sale of flat to third person on failure to pay additional amount demanded by accused towards cost of extra built up area –  Held, dispute is of purely civil nature and criminal complaint is not maintainable in absence of specific allegation of dishonest intention on part of accused right at time of entering into contract –  Charge of cheating and criminal breach of trust, not sustainable in absence of allegation and proof of mens rea. (Sharada Properties, Bangalore & Ors. Vs Dr.Nirmal Kumar Misra & Anr.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 432 (Kant.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.405, 406 – Criminal breach of trust – Two ingredients are (i) that the accused was entrusted with some property or with any dominion or power over it and (ii) that in respect of the property entrusted, there was dishonest misappropriation or dishonest conversion or dishonest use or disposal in violation of the terms of entrustment or violation of a provision of law. (Seema Vs Satish Sachdeva) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 202 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.405, 420 – Supply of seeds – Promise made by accused to pay compensation in case seeds fail to give expected yield of crop – Crop not yielded as expected – Failure of accused to pay compensation – Amounts to breach of agreement – No criminal offence is made out. (Nandakishore & Ors. Vs State) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 230 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.181(4) – Dowry articles – Misappropriation – Court at place where wife started residing after separation has jurisdiction. (Raginiben Gunvantsinh Tank Vs Gunvantlal Keshavlal Tank & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 119 (Gujarat)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.468 – Criminal breach of trust – Limitation – Is a continuing offence which continues until the property is restored to its true owner. (Mastan Singh Vs Jaswinder Singh Zora Singh Sandhu) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 05 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.27 – Divorce petition by husband – In written statement wife can pray for return of streedhan and her personal properties – Wife can also file separate complaint u/s 406 IPC. (Raginiben Gunvantsinh Tank Vs Gunvantlal Keshavlal Tank & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 119 (Gujarat)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406 – Agriculturist –  Selling of produce to Commission Agent – Commission Agent receiving the price of the produce but not passed it on to the agriculturist and consequently misappropriated the amount – Complaint u/s 406 IPC is maintainable. (Mastan Singh Vs Jaswinder Singh Zora Singh Sandhu) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 05 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406 – Civil Supplies Corporation entrusted paddy for dehusking – Accused did not return rice as per agreement – Corporation also initiated steps for arbitration proceedings on the basis of arbitration clause in the agreement – No offence u/s 406 IPC is made out. (Kailash Verma Vs Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 39 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406 – Criminal breach of trust and cheating – Advance taken to sell flat on completion – Sale of flat to third person on failure to pay additional amount demanded by accused towards cost of extra built up area – Held, dispute is of purely civil nature and criminal complaint is not maintainable in absence of specific allegation of dishonest intention on part of accused right at time of entering into contract – Charge of cheating and criminal breach of trust, not sustainable in absence of allegation and proof of mens rea. (Sharada Properties, Bangalore & Ors. Vs Dr.Nirmal Kumar Misra & Anr.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 432 (Kant.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406 – Pledged goods – Not redeemed within time – Pledged goods not returned inspite of offer of payment of loan amount with interest – Dispute arises out of contract of pledge which is purely of civil nature – Conviction set aside. (Khem Chand Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 26 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406 – Wife – Death – It is husband who is entitled to retain her property – Retention of dowry items by husband after death of wife does not amount to commission of offence u/s 406 IPC. (Azad Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 13 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406, 420, 504 and 506, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.202 – Credit card – Failure to pay dues payable for use of credit card –  It is only a civil liability –  Intention of cheating is not there. (Milind P.Pandit Vs Bank of Baroda, Pune & Anr.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 119 (Bom.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406, 420, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 – Deposits taken and post dated cheques issued when applicant was Director of the Company – Company closing office and fled away – Applicant resigned from directorship subsequently – Held, by resigning subsequently applicant is not absolved of responsibility – Going of company into liquidation also does not absolve director/applicant of his criminal liability – No ground to quash criminal proceedings. (Pran Murgai Vs State of U.P.) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 30 (Allahabad) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406, 420, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 – Hypothecation of machinery for taking loan – Accused removing machinery and stock without making repayment – No criminal offence under Ss.420, 406 IPC is made out – FIR quashed. (M/s.Deva Disc and Tiller, Hissar Vs Haryana Financial Corp.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 74 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406, 420, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138 – Dishonour of cheque – Insufficient funds – Offence is covered u/s 138 NI Act – Provision of S.420 IPC is not attracted unless mala fide intention of the person issuing the cheque is established – Dishonest intention and misrepresentation are to be specifically indicated to attract the provisions of S.406 or 420 IPC and in absence of specific allegations offence is covered only u/s 138 of NI Act. (S.Jayaswami & Anr. Vs State of Orissa & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 369 (Orissa)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406, 420 r/w S.34, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 –  Finance company inviting public to invest their money in company and subsequently cheating depositors by not paying interest and not refunding deposits – All Directors of company, having enjoyed fruits of cheating, cannot be permitted to plead that they were not concerned with collection of deposits – No case for quashing the proceedings. (Farooq Dadabhai & Anr. Vs State) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 138 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406, 420 – Acquittal in a theft case – Non payment of terminal benefits on termination of service – Constitutes labour dispute and not a criminal offence u/s 406 & 420 IPC. (The General Manager, Empee Distilleries Ltd. Vs State) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 17 (Madras)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406, 420 – Criminal breach of trust – Misappropriate of paddy entrusted to accused for shelling – Arbitration clause in the agreement and the matter pending before Arbitrator – Held, FIR cannot be quashed, especially when serious allegations of embezzlement and misappropriation have been levelled against the accused. (Manjit Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 1 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406, 420 – Hire purchase agreement – Sale of machinery and parting with possession contrary to agreement – Apart from filing a civil suit proceedings u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act also initiated – Not a bar for initiating proceedings u/s 406 IPC. (T.Aparna Vs M/s Rukmini Leasing Ltd.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 14 (A.P.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406, 420 – Hire purchase agreement – Sale of machinery and parting with possession contrary to agreement – Ingredients of S.405 IPC is made out. (T.Aparna Vs M/s Rukmini Leasing Ltd.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 14 (A.P.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406, 420 – Sale deed got executed without consideration – In Panchayat accused admitted this fact and executed agreement to pay Rs.1,20,000/- and also to retransfer half bigha of land – Accused neither paying said amount nor retransferring land as agreed – Dishonest intention is clear – Charge rightly framed. (Om Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 735 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406, 420 – When there is breach of terms of agreement then there is no criminal liability. (Lalan Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 358 (Jharkhand)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406, 498, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.319 – Misappropriation of dowry articles and demand of Rs.12 lacs and car by husband, parents and two sisters – Only husband sent up for trial after investigation – On application of wife others summoned as accused – Order of Magistrate u/s 319 Cr.P.C. quashed as there were omnibus allegations by wife to rope in all the accused. (Dr.Sant Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 134 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406, 498A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 – Unmarried sisters and brother – It is not believable that they would be entrusted with the dowry articles separately – There is tendency to involve all the relatives of husband when relations between husband and wife are strained – FIR against unmarried sisters and brother of husband quashed. (Anita & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 411 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406, 498A – Dowry articles – Misappropriation – When allegations in the complaint are vague and are of general nature and no specific allegations are made as to which article of dowry was entrusted to which of the accused, then filing of complaint is an abuse of the process of Court and the same is liable to be quashed. (Bimla & Anr. Vs Om Parkash) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 279 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406, 498-A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.320 – Compounding of offence – Offence u/s 406 and 498-A IPC – Parties settled their dispute amicably – Offence not compoundable but parties allowed to compound in their own interest and in larger interest of society – FIR quashed. (Kamlesh Rana Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 598 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406, 498-A – Dowry articles – Misappropriation – Accused directed to return Dowry articles as such offence u/s 406 IPC deleted. (Shailesh Kumar Verma Vs State of Haryana) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 499 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406, 498-A – Dowry articles – Misappropriation – Limitation to file complaint is three years – Offence is committed when accused refuses to return the dowry articles to the complainant and mis-appropriates the same. (Hussan Lal Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 646 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406 and 420 – Quashing of proceedings under S.482 Cr.P.C. – Complaint against Chief Manager of a Bank by an employee who was dismissed for misappropriation of Rs.2,00,000/- by misusing his official position, that his gratuity amount had been illegally withheld – Held that gratuity is a matter of calculations as per provisions of law and directions made by Magistrate for further inquiry, on the face of it not justified – Proceedings quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (S.K.Kothari Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 448 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406/420/120-B, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 – Bail – Dispute pertaining to money transaction and an amount of Rs.1.10 lacs paid back which was the subject matter of offence – Bail allowed. (Ranjodh Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 804 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.408 – Credit limit from Bank by hypothecating of stock – Stock sold but amount not paid to Bank – In case of hypothecation of goods ownership of the goods still remains with the person who has hypothecated such goods and they are free to deal with the same and dispose of the same being its owners – No offence is made out. (S.P.Bajaj Vs State of Haryana) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 361  (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.408, 477-A – Embezzlement – Sale of fertilizer bags – It is for prosecution to prove its case and not for the accused to prove that fertilizer bags were not sold. (Joginder Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 178 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.409, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.197 & –  Public servant – Sanction to prosecute – Incharge of Malkhana misappropriated amount and made false entries – Sanction to prosecute u/s 197 is not required. (State of Maharashtra Vs Shankar Narayan Wagh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 7 (Bom.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.409, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.197 – Misappropriation by police head constable incharge of malkhana – Sanction for prosecution is not required. (Vinayak Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 326 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.409 – Accused collecting revenue on behalf of Corporation and embezzled the amount – Witnesses not examined who actually gave the amount to accused – Accused acquitted. (Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Vs Kuldip Singh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 308 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.409 – Criminal breach of trust by public servant –  To sustain conviction two ingredients are to be proved (1) the accused, a public servant, or banker or agent was entrusted with property of which he is duty bond to account for; and (2) the accused has committed criminal breach of trust. (Kailash Kumar Sanwatia Vs The State of Bihar & Anr.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 525 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.409 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.197 – Sanction – Sanction under Section 197 of the Code is not a condition precedent for an offence under Section 409 IPC. (N.Bhargavan Pillai (dead) by Lrs. & Anr.  Vs  State of Kerala ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 575 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.409 – Entrustment of steel for fabrication and erection of trolley – Misappropriation of steel dishonestly and fraudulently – Though accused an independent contractor but he can be treated as an agent as property is voluntarily handed over for specific purpose – Accused is guilty of criminal breach of trust and is liable to be punished u/s 409 IPC. (S.Sadashiva Rao Vs State of A.P.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 30 (A.P.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.409 – Misappropriation – Prosecution to prove entrustment only – Actual mode of entrustment or misappropriation not to be proved by prosecution – Once entrustment is proved it is for the accused to prove as to how the property entrusted was dealt by accused – Shortage of stock –  Entrustment and shortage proved – Conviction upheld. (N.Bhargavan Pillai (dead) by Lrs. & Anr.  Vs  State of Kerala ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 575 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.409 – Reduction in sentence – Conviction in embezzlement case – Embezzled amount deposited by accused – Incident 20 years old – Sentence reduced to already undergone. (Ram Kishan Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 711 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.409 – Shortage of wheat stock – Godowns were open and without lock – It cannot be said that respondent had exclusive custody over the stocks – Not shown that there was misappropriation – Acquittal upheld. (State of Punjab Vs Amrik Singh) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 526 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.409, 405 – Criminal breach of trust – Complainant delivered money to cash peon for counting at instance of Head Cashier of Bank for issuance of bank draft – Money found missing from cash counter as such draft not prepared – Accused Head Cashier and cash peon were charge sheeted and convicted by trial Court – Conviction set aside in appeal – Question whether accused had dishonestly misappropriated the property entrusted – No case of prosecution that money entrusted to accused was taken away by them – Accused could not have been convicted  u/s 409 IPC. (Kailash Kumar Sanwatia Vs The State of Bihar & Anr.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 525 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.409, 405, 468 & 471 – Misappropriation – Accused an employee of Post Office – Accused allowed payment on some forged vouchers – No proof that accused had knowledge of forgery or had conspired with forgers – Mens rea not proved – Accused acquitted. (L.Chandraiah Vs State of A.P. & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 239 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.409, 467 & 468 – Conviction for misappropriation of small amount of Rs.1263/- and Rs.802/- – Accused faced trial for 25 years and also lost their jobs – Accused were then 40 years of age – Sentence reduced to already undergone and amount of fine marginally increased. (Darbari Lal & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 729 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.411, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, S.4 – Conviction u/s 411 IPC for recovery of stolen property – Incident 15 years old – Accused on bail for 10 years – Accused did not misuse concession of bail and committed no offence – Accused released on bail. (Parmjit Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 598 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.411, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, Ss.6, 4 & 3 – Conviction u/s 411 IPC – Accused was below 21 years of age at the time of conviction – It is mandatory for trial Court and Appellate Court to consider the release of accused on probation – Court is also required to record reasons for passing sentence of imprisonment on such offender – Object of the Act is to prevent the conversion of youthful offenders into obdurate criminals as a result of their association with hardened criminals of mature age in case the youthful offenders are sentenced to undergo imprisonment in jail. (Rajive Sandhu Vs State of Union Territory, Chandigarh) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 589 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.411, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, Ss.6, 4 & 3 – Conviction u/s 411 IPC – Accused was under 21 years of age at the time of conviction; has five brothers and sisters; is son of poor agriculturist and that the stolen articles recovered from him are not so valuable – Petitioner directed to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of six months. (Rajive Sandhu Vs State of Union Territory, Chandigarh) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 589 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.411 – Acquittal of offence u/s 411 IPC – Once acquitted accused are entitled to return of Rs.60,000/- recovered from them. (Punjab Tube-well Corporation Ltd. Vs Puran Singh & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 928 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.411 – Recovery of stolen wood of Forest Department – Forest Range Officer identified the recovered wood as one belonging to Forest Department – Accused produced no evidence that they purchased the wood from elsewhere – Stolen property thus is identified as belonging to  Forest Department. (Surjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 729 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.415 – Chastity or virginity of a woman is property within the meaning of word ‘property’ used in S.415 IPC. (Suram Kiran Kumar Reddy Vs State of A.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 308 (A.P.)  

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.415, 376 – Accused having sex with prosecutrix – On promise of marriage fact not disclosed – Accused refusing to marry when she became pregnant – Held, act of accused constituted offence of cheating and not offence of rape. (Lakshmana Naik Vs State by Bantwal Police, Mangalore) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 194(Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.415, 417, 420 – Promise to marry – Spending nights with her in hotels making her believe that she would become his wife and refusing to marry her after satisfying his sexual desire – Amounts to cheating – Chastity or virginity of a woman is property – Where in pursuance of deception, property passes, the offence is one u/s 420 and where it does not pass, it is u/s 417 IPC – Offence whether covered u/s 417 or 420 is a matter to be determined by Magistrate while framing charges – Prima facie the ingredients necessary for offence of cheating as contemplated u/s 415 IPC are found in the FIR – Directions given to proceed with the case for the said offences. (Suram Kiran Kumar Reddy Vs State of A.P.)    2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 308 (A.P.)  

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.415, 420 – Cheating – To constitute offence of cheating necessary ingredients to be satisfied are – (a) deception of any person; (b) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property to any person; and (c) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which in the absence of deception and which act is likely to cause harm. (G.C.Rohilla Vs M/s Gian Rice & General Mills)   2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 133 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.417, 418 and 120B – Sale deed executed and at the time of execution of sale deed some money paid and balance promised to be paid lateron – Balance not paid inspite of requests – Held, even after taking the allegations in the complaint to be correct no criminal offence is made out – Criminal proceedings quashed. (Bhugi alias Daya Ram Maurya & Anr. Vs State of U.P.) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 257 (Allahabad) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.417, 420, Cr.P.C.: S.482 – Offence of cheating – Failure of complainant to get any interim or final relief in Consumer Redressal Forum and Civil Court – Not a ground to quash the complaint – Scope and jurisdiction us/ 190 read with S.204 Cr.P.C. is distinctly different than that of a civil remedy – Prayer for quashing of the complaint is to be considered on the basis of the materials which exist on record i.e. the complaint and the statement of the complainant. (M.D. M/s Tata Finance Ltd. Vs M/s.Sanjay Agency) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 543 (ORISSA)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.418, 467, 120-B – Adoption – Dispute as to – Adoption deed alleged to be manipulated – Author of document cannot himself forge a document – Question relates only to validity of adoption – Order taking cognizance set aside as being an abuse of process of Court. (Mota Ram & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 08 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.419, 468 –  False caste certificate – On that basis accused secured Govt. job and served as such for a period of about eight years till detection and accused deceived the Govt. and dishonestly induced to disburse his salary – Held, accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 419 & 468 IPC. (State of Orissa Vs Rabindranath Sahu) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 231 (Orissa)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,  S.182(1) – Jurisdiction clause in the agreement – The same applies to civil claims/actions – Jurisdiction of Criminal Court is not ousted by such agreement. (Jimmy R.Jagtiani  Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 406 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.178, 182 – Jurisdiction – Agreement to sell – Accused not full owner and had no authority from other owners to sell the same –  Agreement entered into at place ‘A’ where he got some advance –  Deal finalised at place ‘B’ – Court at place ‘A’ has jurisdiction because deceptions started from place ‘A’. (Mohan Das, R. Vs M.Jayarajan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 89 (Kerala)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.389 – Suspension of sentence – Bank employee – Cheating – Appellate Court suspended the sentence, but not conviction during pendency of appeal – Non suspension of conviction could entail serious consequences of dismissal of accused from service – Conviction suspended. (K.Bhagyanath Vs State) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 669 (Delhi) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438 – Anticipatory bail – On promise of getting appointment as a Panchayat Secretary accused extracted Rs.1.25 lacs from complainant – Neither the amount returned nor the job procured for the complainant – Accused put off for two years – Complaint lodged after two years – Anticipatory bail refused – Offences concerning sale of jobs is on the rise – Interrogation of accused is necessary – Police may be able to unearth a bigger conspiracy than the one appear on the surface. (Kuldip Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 177 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 – Applicant took Rs.25,000/- promising to supply cement by misquoting his name – Complaint lodged after 18 days of taking money – No material to show that the applicant took money from the complainant – Bail allowed. (Sunder Singh Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 196 (Chhattisgarh)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 – Bail – Appellants floated various groups of companies – They got deposits of seven crores but failed to repay – Accused having assets of 40-50 crores – They have no objection if depositors are paid out of those assets – Appellants granted bail. (Arvind Mohan Johari Vs State of U.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 489 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 – Agreement to install rice plant – 75% work completed – Remaining work not done for want of payment – Dispute is of civil nature – No offence u/s 420 IPC is made out – Charge sheet and criminal proceedings quashed. (Sardar Amrik Singh Vs State of U.P.) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 398 (Allahabad) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 – Agreement to sell – Non disclosure of certain material facts at the time of execution of agreement – Offence u/s 420 IPC is prima facie made out – Petition to quash complaint dismissed. (Sandeep Goyal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 586 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 – Money taken for getting admitted niece of complainant in a Dental College – Admission refused – It gives rise to certain element of deception or fraud and/or dishonest inducement in the entire transaction – On the face of complaint itself, it appears that a prima facie case is made out as such complaint not liable to be quashed. (Hrishikesh Das Vs Nirmalaya Dasgupta) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 753 (Gauhati)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 -Agreement to sell –  Consideration amount of Rs.7,25,000/- alleged to be taken away by deceitful means and sale deed not executed – Neither possession of disputed land delivered nor process of registry completed – It cannot be said that this is purely a civil dispute – Not a fit case to exercise jurisdiction to quash the FIR. (Haji Abdul Mazid Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 301 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, S.4 – Conviction u/s 420 IPC – Case 21 years old – Accused released on probation. (Ashwani Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 586 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – A fraudulent representation got made through a person acting as an agent for the accused amounts fraudulent representation by and on behalf of the accused. (Ram Nath Marethia Vs Shashin H.Bhavsar) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 423 (Gujarat) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Accused taking shares against post dated cheque – Executing receipt acknowledging receipt and transfer of shares – No suggestion given to P.W. that shares has not been delivered – Merely because cheque was filed by complaint not sufficient to take away affect of receipt – Cheque signed by accused No.1 but given to complainant by accused No.2 – Presence of accused No.1 doubtful – Conviction of accused No.2 only upheld. (Devender Kumar Singla  Vs.  Baldev Krishan Singla ) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 673 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 508 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Agreement to sell house – Part of house already sold – No offence u/s 420 IPC is made out – It is a dispute of civil nature as  breach of agreement is to be enforced by a suit for specific performance.  (Chandra Kalla Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 565 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Agreement to sell – Failure to execute sale deed – Offence of cheating not made out –  It is breach of contract – To attract the provision, fraudulent or dishonest intention should be there right from the beginning of the transaction – Held, in the instant case as there is nothing to show that intention was fraudulent or dishonest from the very beginning as such dispute between parties is purely of civil nature. (Shashi Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 339 (All.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Agreement – Breach of every agreement cannot lead to a conclusion that offence of cheating is committed – There must be a false promise by accused and relying on that false promise complainant is put to loss or injury  and words “fraudulently”, “wrongful gain”, “wrongful loss” “dishonestly” etc. has to be taken into consideration – It has to be seen at least whether the act falls within the jurisdiction of Civil Court or whether it is an offence which is triable by a Criminal Court – If the act of breach of contract coupled without mens rea does not satisfy the ingredients as indicated by provisions of Ss.415, 417 and 420 IPC, Court has to restrain itself from proceeding further. (Merino Leathers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Wentzel and Schmit Gmbh & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 656 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Allotment of plot – False affidavit by accused that he or his family members did not have any plot in India – Accused is guilty of offence of cheating – This is an inducement to Authority – Conviction u/s 420 IPC upheld. (Karamjit Singh Vs State (U.T.) Chandigarh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 910 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Bogus drafts – Amount withdrawn from bank – Person who introduced accused to Bank to open account is not guilty of abetment or cheating. (Manoranjan Das Vs State of Jharkhand) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 112 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Breach of conditions of hire-purchase agreement do not amount to offence of cheating. (Mahesh Kumar K.S. Vs State of Karnataka) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 593 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Car – Manufacturing defects not removed when brought to notice of manufacturer and dealer within warrant period – Complaint against Company and joining of its Managing Director is perfectly justified. (Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs Amit Kumar Bhowmik) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 565 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Car – Manufacturing defects – Brought to the notice of the manufacturer and dealer within the warranty period – Defects not removed till filing of complaint – Complaint for offence u/s 420 IPC is maintainable.  (Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs Amit Kumar Bhowmik) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 565 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Cheating – Arbitration clause in the agreement – Cannot prevent criminal prosecution if an act constituting a criminal offence is made out even prima facie. (S.W.Palanitkar & Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Ors.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 360 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Cheating – Business agreement – Accused associating other persons in deal long after – Persons who were not in picture at the time of original deal are not guilty of offence of cheating – FIR quashed. (Ajay Mitra Vs State of M.P. & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 77 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Cheating – Cheque obtained for Rs.10 lakhs as security to enhance cash limit of complainant, drawer of cheque by Manager of Bank and then getting it encashed in other term loan account of complainant – It amounts to cheating. (D.P.Dhawad Vs S.C.Jain) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 781 (Chhattisgarh)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Cheating – Goods sold on credit basis – During transaction buyer issued a cheque – Cheque dishonoured on ground that signatures differed – Offence of cheating is not made out as there was no inducement or deception to deliver any property which are the basic ingredients of offence of cheating. (Satya Narayan Mohapatra Vs State of Orissa & Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 658 (Orissa)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Cheating – Ingredients – Dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security – Mens rea of the accused at the time of making inducement – Making of a false representation is one of the ingredients for the offence of cheating under section 420. (Devender Kumar Singla  Vs.  Baldev Krishan Singla ) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 673 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 508 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Cheating – Intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was made – A mere failure to keep up promise subsequently cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating. (S.W.Palanitkar & Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Ors.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 360 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Cheating – Sale of property by deliberating concealing fact that Debt Recovery Tribunal had already passed order attaching property – Complaint cannot be said not disclosing ingredients of offence. (T.Susheela & Anr. Vs State By Jayanagar Police Station, Bangalore) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 443 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Cheating – Supply of goods on credit and accused not paying the value of the goods – Dispute is of a civil nature – Proceedings quashed. (M/s Shri Srinivasa Cut Pieces & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 357 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Cheating – To constitute an offence of cheating it is necessary to establish that the accused has cheated or dishonestly induced a person to deliver property or a valuable security. (Seema Vs Satish Sachdeva) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 202 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Cheating – To hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. (Suresh Vs Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 150 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Cheque issued – Request for not presenting within validity period – Accused revalidating the cheques – Dishonour of revalidated cheques – Offence of cheating prima facie is made out. (Punjab Tyre House & Ors. Vs State of Gujarat) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 18 (Gujarat) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Credit limit from Bank – Failure to keep promise of repayment – Not sufficient to bring the case within the domain of  S.420 IPC in absence of allegations that the credit limit was got sanctioned by the firm or its partners by practising any fraud upon the Bank. (S.P.Bajaj Vs State of Haryana) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 361  (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Daughters executing power of attorney in favour of their mother, to sell property of their father, stating that they are legal heirs of their father, suppressing the fact that there is another legal heir – Held, daughters even though not parties to the sale deed can be prosecuted u/s 420 IPC. (Chinnamma Vs Thomas) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 399 (Kerala)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Dishonest inducement – Must be at the initial stage to constitute an offence of cheating – Mere failure to keep up promise subsequently cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating. (Ram Nath Marethia Vs Shashin H.Bhavsar) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 423 (Gujarat) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Fraud – Delay of 12 years in filing complaint – Cause of action arises only when fraud comes to notice. (Chinnamma Vs Thomas) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 399 (Kerala)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Goods purchased – Part payment made – Promise to pay the balance amount – Failure to pay – No offence of cheating is made out – Allegation as made out appears to be of civil nature – Order taking cognizance quashed. (Munna Vs State & Anr.) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 458 (Jharkhand) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Hire purchase agreement – Failure to pay instalments regularly – Offence of cheating is not made out – Failure to keep up  promise subsequently cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating. (Mahesh Kumar K.S. Vs State of Karnataka) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 77 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Hire purchase agreement – Some instalments paid – Dishonest intention cannot be inferred from the mere fact that promise could not be fulfilled subsequently – To constitute an offence under the provision there should be dishonest intention at the time of making the promise – Case is purely of civil nature and no offence under S.420 IPC is made out. (Basanteshwari Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand)  2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 249 (Jharkhand) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Initially payment made for goods purchased – Subsequently cheques issued – Cheque dishonoured – Offence of cheating made out – This shows that by making payment at the first instance, accused tried to create a trust and confidence. (Punjab Tyre House & Ors. Vs State of Gujarat) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 18 (Gujarat) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Post dated cheques issued knowing that there was no sufficient amount in the Bank – Prima facie offence of cheating is made out – FIR not to be quashed on the ground that there is no specific averment in the complaint that there was dishonest intention at the time when post-dated cheques were issued – Investigating agency to go into question of intention. (Rajan Vs State of Kerala) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 439 (Kerala) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Sentence – Incident 12 years old – Sentence reduced to 3 months. (Devender Kumar Singla  Vs.  Baldev Krishan Singla ) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 673 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 508 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – When there is no inducement there cannot be dishonest intention. (Ram Nath Marethia Vs Shashin H.Bhavsar) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 423 (Gujarat) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.420, 120-B – Complaint – Land sold concealing fact that revenue suit is pending – Attesting witness – Held, attesting witness cannot be said to be aware of the fact that a revenue dispute is pending with respect to the said land and it is not for the attesting witness to verify the correctness of the contents of the document – Order taking cognizance against attesting witness rightly set aside. (Haji Shaukat Ali Vs The State of Rajasthan & Anr.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 547 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.420, 406 – Breach of contract – Not cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. (M.Cheluviah Vs Smt.Amruthamma) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 800 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.420, 467, 468 and 471 – A person impersonated and drawing money from bank – Said person acquitted as prosecution could not prove the offence – Petitioner a co-accused who identified the accused at the time of withdrawal of amount cannot be convicted when accused who received the amount is acquitted. (Malkiat Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 238 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.420, 467, 468 and 471, Criminal Procedure Court 1973, S.320 – Compounding of Offence – Offence u/ss 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC – Parties amicably  settled the dispute and compromised the matter – Offence not compoundable – However, High Court in exercise of power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the proceedings. (Inderjit Singh Uppal Vs State of U.T., Chandigarh & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 830 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.420, 468, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.256, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138 – Death of complainant –  Cognizance of offence u/ss 420, 468 IPC and S.138 NI Act – Death of complainant does not ipso facto terminate the criminal proceedings more so when the son of complainant has stepped in and wanted to continue with the case. (Ajay Kumar Agarwal & Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand & Anr.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 600 (Jharkhand) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.420, 506, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.468 – Offence u/ss 420 and 506 – Sentence which could be awarded is seven years – No period of limitation is prescribed for an offence for which punishment prescribed is more than three years. (Karnail Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 44 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.420 and 120-B, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.13(1)(c) and (d) and 13(2),  Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 – Embezzlement – Personal malice and ill-will alleged by accused against investigating officer – Where no material are placed on record to prove such allegation and where investigation has revealed materials to make out prima facie case, proceedings cannot be quashed. (Dr.N.Nagamabikadevi Vs Central Bureau of Investigation) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 255 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.420 and 120-B, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.13(1)(c) and (d) and 13(2) – Embezzlement – Investigation entrusted to CBI – Consent given by State Govt. mentioning name of two suspects – Does not restrict investigation in respect of only persons so mentioned preventing further investigation in respect of others who may eventually be found involved – Consent given is in respect of offence and not in respect of offenders – Investigation carried out in respect of public servant cannot be held void ab initio just because his name is not mentioned in letter of consent given by State Govt. (Dr.N.Nagamabikadevi Vs Central Bureau of Investigation) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 255 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.420/120-B – Complaint – Cloth purchased and price agreed to be paid afterwards but the same not paid – Dispute is of civil nature – It is a business transaction and the real dispute between the parties is regarding the payment of the goods taken – Complaint is filed only with mala fide intention to harass the petitioners and to extract unlawful gain from them. (Nauratan Mal Daga Vs State of U.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 588 (Allahabad)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.420 – Agreement to sell – Non performance – Accused denied execution of agreement and receipt of advance – No allegation that accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of executing agreement – It is a dispute of civil nature – Summoning order set aside. (Suresh Vs Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 150 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.427, 504, 506, 451, 452 & 453 – Compliant for offence U/ss 427, 504, 506, 451, 452 & 453 IPC – Allegations in complaint at variance with statement recorded on oath – Prosecution of petitioner quashed. (Vasant Waman Pradhan Vs Dattatraya Vithal Salvi & Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 27 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.436 – Reduction in sentence – Conviction u/s 436 IPC – Appeal against – Appellant suffered the rigour of protracted trial of long 14 years – Sentence reduced from 10 years to 3 years – However sentence of fine increased from Rs.100/- to Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine appellant to further undergo RI for six months. (Jaipal  Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 682 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.447 r/w S.120-B and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, S.3(1)(v), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.211, 397, 401 – Charge – Merely on the basis of single statement that accused had also had a hand in offence – Charge against accused cannot be sustained – Proceedings quashed. (Asha Ram Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 259 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.448 – In order to sustain the conviction under Section 448 IPC it must be found that the intention of the accused was to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the complainant – There must be unlawful entry and there must be proof of one or other of the intentions mentioned in Section 441 IPC. (Vidyadharan Vs State of Kerala) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 516 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.448, 326, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.374(2) – Prosecution for house trespass, robbery and causing grievous hurt – Charge of robbery not proved but lesser offences of house trespass and causing hurt proved – Conviction for said offences based on oral evidence of witnesses and medical evidence, cannot be held bad in law – No interference with order of conviction. (Deepak Kumar Vs State of Karnataka) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 287 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.450, 376(1)/109(1) – Reduction in sentence – Conviction u/s 376 and 450 – High Court reducing sentence to already undergone on the ground that accused are from rural areas – This is not adequate and special reason to reduce the sentence – Order of High Court set aside. (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Munna Choubey & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 988 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.452 – Conviction and sentence of 2 years rigorous imprisonment – Accused suffered trial for 13 years – Sentence reduced to already undergone (One month). (Shyam Sunder & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 755 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.452, 307 r/w S.34 and S.302 r/w 34 – Conviction by Sessions Court – Acquittal by High Court – Appeal against acquittal – High Court acquitted on ground of no proof of light, improvements and contradictions in testimony of prosecution and difference in occular and medical evidence regarding injuries  – Supreme Court finding view of High Court based on grave illegality in coming to said conclusions – Appeal allowed. (State of U.P. Vs Premi & Ors.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 572 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.463 – Forgery – To constitute the offence of forgery, it is necessary that the false document must be made with the intent to cause damage or injury to the public or any person or to support any claim or title or to cause harm to any person to part with property or to enter into any express or implied contract or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. (State of Maharashtra Vs Ramchandra Keshav Bhala) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 249 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.467, 468, 471, 199, 200 & 120-B, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 – Bail – Petitioner alleged to have hatched conspiracy for grant of personal loan on basis of forged documents prepared by loanee – Petitioner held, entitled to bail. (Mohanjeet Singh Juneja Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 597 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.467, 468, 471, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 – FIR u/ss 468, 471 IPC – Charge sheet submitted – High Court has power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR even after filing of charge sheet. (Gian Chand Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 523 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.468, 471 – Forgery – Not to be presumed – It has to be proved. (Dalip Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 616 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.471, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, S.4 – Sentence – Forgery – Speedy Trial –  – Incident 25 years old – Accused seeking admission in medical college on the basis of forged mark sheets thereby depriving eligible candidates to get seats – Offence very serious in nature – Uncalled for leniency or undue sympathy will be misplaced and actually result in miscarriage of justice – No case for probation – Sentence upheld. (A.S.Krishnan & Anr.  Vs.  State of Kerala ) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 534 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 447 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.471 – Forgery – Ingredients – (i) fraudulent or dishonest use of document as genuine – (ii) knowledge or reasonable belief on the part of person using the document that it is a forged one – To attract section 471 it is not necessary that accused himself had forged the document or person independently charged for forgery of the document must of necessity be convicted – Necessary ingredients is fraudulent and dishonest use of the document as genuine – The act need not be both dishonest and fraudulent – Prosecution to prove that accused knew or had reason to believe that the document is a forged one. (A.S.Krishnan & Anr.  Vs.  State of Kerala ) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 534 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 447 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.471 – Words and Phrases – Intention  –  Knowledge  – Reason to believe  – Are state of mind –  Reason to believe  is not the same thing as  suspicion  or  doubt  and mere seeing also cannot be equated to believing – Reason to believe is a higher level of state of mind – Knowledge  is slightly on higher plane than  reason to believe – If a reasonable man would, by probable reasoning, conclude or infer regarding the nature of the thing concerned he has reason to believe – Such circumstances need not necessarily be capable of absolute conviction or inference. (A.S.Krishnan & Anr.  Vs.  State of Kerala ) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 534 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 447 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.471, 463 – Complaint about forgery of partition deed – Civil Court finding that partition deed is not forged –  Averments in complaint the same as raised in Civil Court – Criminal complaint quashed. (Preetam Singh Vs Sajjan Singh) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 441 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.471, 468 and 420 – Alteration in date of birth from 16.8.1929 to 1.10.1930 in official record – Civil Court gave a finding that date of birth was 1.10.1930 – In view of finding of Civil Court continuation of FIR is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. (Mohinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 339 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.471 & 120-B – Forgery – Acquittal of co-accused charged for conspiracy – Will not affect the accusations under S.471 – If the charge of conspiracy is followed by substantive charge of another offence there is nothing to prevent the Court convicting an accused for the substantive charge even if the prosecution had failed to establish conspiracy. (A.S.Krishnan & Anr.  Vs.  State of Kerala ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 447 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.489A – Provision of S.489A IPC is applicable when accused knowingly performed any part of process of counterfeiting. (K.Hashim Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 635 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.489-B – Counterfeit currency note – Petitioner depositing in Bank several bundles of currency notes on behalf of his employer – One currency note of five hundred denomination found from one of bundles to be forged – Held, it cannot be said that petitioner had knowledge or reason to believe that out of large number of currency notes one was forged – Petitioner cannot be fastened with liability for offence u/s 489-B IPC – Proceedings quashed. (Rajendra Prasad Vs State of U.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 669 (Allahabad) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.489-B, 489-C – Counterfeit currency notes – Mere possession is not enough – It must be established that accused knew that notes to be forged or had reason to believe it to be so, and that he had intended to use them as genuine – Onus lies on prosecution to prove circumstances which lead to inference that accused had knowledge and intention – This can be achieved by investigation into source or origin of notes  – Absence of such investigation – Held, it is fatal to prosecution case – In absence of evidence or circumstances showing that accused had such knowledge and intention, conviction is not possible. (State by Lashkar Police Station, Mysore Vs M.V.Srinivasa) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 538 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.489D – Provision of S.489D IPC covers a case where a person is found in possession of machinery, instrument or materials for the purpose of being used for counterfeiting currency notes, even though machinery, instruments or materials so found were not at all the material particularly required for the purpose of counterfeiting. (K.Hashim Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 635 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.489-B and 489-C – Counterfeit currency note – Knowledge of currency note being counterfeit is necessary –  Mere possession of counterfeit note has no presumption of the knowledge of the note being counterfeit. (Abdul Majeed Abdul Reheman Sarkhot Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 208 (Bom.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.489-B and 489-C, Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.45, 114 Illus. (g) – Counterfeit currency notes – Expert opinion – Expert not examined as a witness – Expert opinion has no evidentiary value. (State by Lashkar Police Station, Mysore Vs M.V.Srinivasa) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 538 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.489-C – Counterfeit currency notes – Mere possession of forged counterfeit notes is not sufficient in itself for convicting a person u/s 498-C IPC – In order to prove offence u/s 498-C IPC it must be proved that a person is in possession of forged currency notes and secondly that he has knowledge or reason to believe that the same is forged or counterfeit and is intended to be used as genuine or it is likely to be used as genuine – If both these ingredients are proved then accused is liable to be convicted. (Shakil Ahmed Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 580 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.489-C – Forged counterfeit currency notes – Prosecution has to prove that the offender has a reason to believe that the currency notes are forged or counterfeit or he has used those notes as genuine one. (Mohammad Ahmed Saddiqi Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 836 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.489-C – Provision of S.489C IPC covers both Indian and foreign counterfeit currency. (K.Hashim Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 635 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.493, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.198 – Offence u/s 493 IPC – Court can take cognizance of the offence only if complaint is filed by the person aggrieved. (Suram Kiran Kumar Reddy Vs State of A.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 308 (A.P.)  

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.493 – Offence under – Two essential ingredients are (i) deceit by the accused causing a false belief, in the victim girl, in the existence of a lawful marriage between them and (ii) cohabitation or having sexual intercourse with the woman after having caused such belief. (Suram Kiran Kumar Reddy Vs State of A.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 308 (A.P.)  

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.494, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.198, 2(d) – Offence u/s 494 IPC – A complaint has to be filed – The provision of S.198 Cr.P.C. do not authorise the conviction of an offence when no complaint has been made. (Simachal Mishra Vs State of Orissa) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 78 (Orissa)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.494, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.198, 482 – Second marriage by wife – Complaint can be filed by husband only – Cognizance taken on complaint filed by mother-in-law, quashed being without any jurisdiction. (Parminder Kaur @ Parvinder Kaur Vs Joginder Kaur) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 17 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.494, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.182(2) (As amended in 1978 w.e.f. 1978) – Bigamy – Jurisdiction – Complaint can be pursued in Court where wife has taken up permanent residence, at a place other than the place of cohabitation with the husband, irrespective of the fact whether that was only after the second marriage or even prior to second marriage. (Ganesh Harsingh Patil Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 345 (Bom.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.494, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.182(2) –  Bigamy – Jurisdiction – After amendment of S.182 Cr.P.C. in 1978,  Court at the place where the wife has permanently taken up residence has jurisdiction. (Usha Gurubaxani Vs Lalit Gurubaxani)  2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 279 (M.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.494, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.182(2) – Jurisdiction – No averment in complaint – Question of jurisdiction to be decided in favour of wife if there is sufficient material from which permanent residence of wife can be inferred irrespective of the fact that there is no such averment in the complaint. (Usha Gurubaxani Vs Lalit Gurubaxani) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 279 (M.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.494, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.198 – Offence u/s 494 IPC – Magistrate can take cognizance only when aggrieved person files a complaint – Magistrate cannot take cognizance of offence on a police report. (Surjit Singh Vs State of Punjab)   2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 273 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.494, Ranbir Penal Code, S.109 – Second marriage after passing of decree of divorce – Decree of divorce set aside – No offence of bigamy is committed as on the date second marriage was performed there was no subsisting first marriage. (Som Raj & Ors. Vs Mrs.Kunti Devi) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 451 (J&K)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.494 – Second marriage – Persons present at the time of such marriage – Fact of existing marriage disclosed to persons present at the time of second marriage – Even then it cannot be said that they abetted the offence of bigamy merely by being present there at the time of marriage. (Nafe Singh Vs Mohinder Dass) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 532 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.494 – Bigamy – Exparte divorce decree – Husband undergoing second marriage – Exparte divorce decree set aside – Held, husband cannot be convicted for the offence under S.494 IPC. (Krishna Gopal Divedi Vs Prabha Divedi) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 362 (S.C.)  

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.494 – Bigamy – Proof of valid marriage is a must to hold guilty of offence u/s 494 IPC – Living together or admitting marriage or showing in voter’s list as wife are not sufficient to hold guilty of offence u/s 494 IPC. (Kulwant Singh & Ors. Vs Surjit Kaur) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 227 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.494 – Bigamy – Second marriage – No averment in complaint that customary rites and ceremonies prevalent in the caste or tribe, if any, to which the complainant and her husband were belonging were performed or that Saptapadi was not a necessary ceremony of the marriage – Complainant making out case that there was chanting of Salokas and Mantras – No case is made out for even framing the charge. (Balasaheb Raghunath Katad Vs Gayabai Balasaheb Katad) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 653 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.494 – Bigamy – Trial – Procedure for trial is that of a warrant case. (Balasaheb Raghunath Katad Vs Gayabai Balasaheb Katad) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 653 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.494 – Complaint u/s 494 – Dismissed for default – Second complaint – Maintainable – However, it will be unfair to summon accused to face trial in view of passage of time. (Maya Devi Vs Satyawan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 376 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.494 – Second marriage – Divorce petition – Husband contested divorce petition but thereafter he did not appear – Exparte order of divorce passed – Wife contracting second marriage – No offence under S.494 IPC is made out – It was though an exparte decree, but it was not that ex parte decree where husband was absent from beginning – Complaint quashed. (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482). (Paramjit Kaur Vs Gamdoor Singh) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 672 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.494 – Second marriage – Husband undergoing second marriage after obtaining exparte divorce decree against wife – Husband cannot be convicted u/s 494 even though ex parte divorce decree is latter set aside. (Krishna Gopal Divedi Vs Prabha Divedi) AIR 2002 S.C. 389

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.494, 109 – Bigamy – Abetment – Mere presence of a person at the time of second marriage does not amount to abetment unless the person knows that first wife was alive. (Kulwant Singh & Ors. Vs Surjit Kaur) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 227 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.494, 198, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 – Cognizance u/s 494 IPC – Absence of complaint and non compliance of provisions of S.198 IPC – Order of cognizance set aside. (Simachal Mishra Vs State of Orissa) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 78 (Orissa)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.494, 482 – Bigamy – First wife lodging complaint after 10 years – Cannot be believed that first wife was unaware of family affairs of her husband – Summoning order quashed. (Kulwant Singh & Ors. Vs Surjit Kaur) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 227 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.494, 494-A and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Ss.3, 4 & 6, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.156(3) – Private complaint for offence under Ss.494, 494-A IPC and Ss.3,4 & 6 Dowry Prohibition Act – Magistrate referred complaint for investigation to police – Order set aside as cognizance of offence under S.494 IPC by Court can only be on a complaint by aggrieved person – Case remitted for fresh consideration and Court can take recourse to S.202 Cr.P.C. (S.G.Mallikarjun & Ors. Vs Smt.Asha) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 167 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.496 – Fraudulent marriage – Complainant has to establish that the accused knew that he was not lawfully getting married and he went through the ceremony dishonestly or with fraudulent intention of making the complainant believe that she was legally married to the accused. (Jayaram Vs Vijayamma) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 522 (Kerala)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, 304 – Second marriage during subsistence of first marriage – Such a husband comes under purview of S.304-B and 498-A IPC if he commits cruelty etc. – He assumes status of husband and commits cruelty under the colour of status of husband. (Reema Aggarwal Vs Anupam & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 676 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, 506, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438 – Offence u/ss 498-A & 506 IPC – Husband and father-in-law already arrested and interrogated – Anticipatory bail granted to mother-in-law and sister-in-law. (Jatto Bai Vs State of Punjab)  2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 598 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.320, 482 – FIR u/s 498-A IPC – Parties entering into compromise and getting divorce by mutual consent – FIR quashed – Proceedings are bound to fail as none of the prosecution witnesses will support the case of the prosecution. (Ravinder Sood & Ors. Vs Union Territory, Chandigarh)    2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 209 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.320 & 482 – Offence u/s 498-A IPC –  Not compoundable – However in the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure ends of justice, proceedings quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of Court. (Chiman Singh & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 455 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.378 and 386 –  Deceased young girl of 20 made to snuff out her life on account of coercing demand of dowry by husband and his illicit relationship with another woman – Amounts to cruelty – Accused acquitted – State’s appeal against acquittal – Delay of 16 years in hearing of appeal – Held, mere delay in hearing of appeal need not benefit accused when guilt of accused is squarely established beyond all reasonable doubt – Accused convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. (State of Maharashtra Vs Ganpat Dinkar Shinde & Anr.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 367 (Bom.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.397(2) and 437(2) – Bail – Modifications in conditions of bail – Sessions Judge set aside the said order in revision – Order of Sessions Judge setting aside the order of Magistrate in revision is without jurisdiction and non est in the eye of law. (Brijesh Singh & Anr. Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 210 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.205 – Personal appearance – Exemption – Accused living at Delhi and facing trial at Faridabad u/s 498-A IPC – Personal appearance of accused exempted unless it is specifically required at a particular stage. (Shailesh Kumar Verma Vs State of Haryana) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 499 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.320 –  Office u/s 498-A – Compounding –  Settlement between spouses to amicably live together – Offence u/s 498-A though not compoundable but parties allowed to compound in view of object of matrimonial law to facilitate a happy and harmonious matrimonial life between spouses. (Rameshwar alias Pappu Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 247 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.320 – Offence u/s 498-A IPC – Husband and wife started living together and performing conjugal rights – A pragmatic approach should be adopted irrespective of the fact that offence is not compoundable – Complaint quashed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (Ram Swaroop Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 600 Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.320 – Offence u/s 498-A IPC – Not compoundable – Cannot be compounded at all even with the permission of the Court. (Mrs.Anita Vs State of Punjab) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 609 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 –  “Streedhan” property said to have been given which is not the expectation of the accused is nothing but a dowry – Demand of dowry for expansion of business was the main circumstance to subject the victim to cruelty – Evidence collected during investigation showed that petitioners, husband and both parents-in-law of victim were subjecting victim to cruelty in respect of Streedhan property and also further demand of dowry – Allegations prima facie show offence committed by accused u/s 498-A IPC. (D.Surender Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 80 (A.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 – Offence u/s 498-A IPC – Parties compromising and divorcing each other and living separately – Offence is not compoundable – However,  proceedings quashed so that parties may live in peace and further litigation and bitterness may not continue between them. (Param Jeet & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 678 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 – Offence u/s 498-A – Dispute amicably settled – Joint petition by complainant and accused for quashing the criminal case – No chances of prosecution ending in conviction – Continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of process of Court – Prosecution quashed to secure ends of justice. (Jasmine Vipul Bhatia & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 219 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 – Prosecution u/s 498-A IPC – Husband and wife settled their dispute and moved petition u/s 13-B Hindu Marriage Act for divorce by mutual consent – No purpose would be served in continuing prosecution since wife was not likely to support prosecution case – Prosecution quashed and applicants acquitted of all charges. (Anant & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 71 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, Cr.P.C., 1973, Ss.397(2) and 437(2), 451 & 457 – Passport – Seizure – Order concerning seizure and release of passport, held, not interlocutory order simpliciter and hence revision lies against such order. (Brijesh Singh & Anr. Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 210 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, Cr.P.C., 1973, Ss.439(1), 451 & 457 – Passport – Accused on bail – Accused employed in Australia – Accused if remains in India till conclusion of trial he will be without job – Release of passport subjection to conditions that (i) he shall deposit Rs.1 lakh in trial Court (ii) he shall mark his attendance on first Sunday of every alternate month at office of Indian High Commission in Australia and (iii) he shall not shift himself from Australia to any other country without permission of trial Court. (Brijesh Singh & Anr. Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 210 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, 406, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, S.4, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 –  Married sister of husband – Allegation in FIR that on some occasions, she directed complainant to wash W.C. and that she used to abuse her and used to pass remarks such as “even if you have got much jewellery, you are our slave” and that she made wrong imputations to provoke her husband and would warn her that nobody could do anything to her family – Held, all these allegations, even if true, do not amount to harassment or unlawful demand for any property or valuable security – At the most this amounts to insulting and making derogatory remarks and behaving rudely – Bald allegations suggest the anxiety to rope in relations of husband – Proceedings against sister of husband quashed. (Ramesh & Ors. Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 504 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 440 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, S.4, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 – Quashing of proceedings – Matrimonial dispute – Compromise – Parties amicably settled their all disputes  – No grievance against each other – Genuine settlement arrived at between parties who are none else than husband and wife – Criminal Proceedings pending against husband quashed. (Nasrudin & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 470 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Sections 3 & 4, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 – Offence u/s 498-A – Compromise by parties whereby all proceedings against each other to be dropped – Criminal proceedings quashed. (Rajeev Verma & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 166 (Allahabad)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Ss.4 and 6 – Mohammadan – ‘Shia’ male is prohibited in marrying the woman to whom he has divorced by pronouncing ‘Talak’ – Even if parties are staying together, they cannot be called as husband and wife – Held, provision of S.498-A IPC and provisions of Ss.4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not applicable – Proceedings quashed. (Syed Hyder Hussain Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 423 (A.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.32, 113-A –  Suicide by wife – Cruelty by husband – Suicide note in handwriting of deceased, found in jacket of deceased, recovered at time of inquest – Suicide note implicating husband as person responsible for her committing suicide – Rejection of suicide note as “plant” and also on ground that handwriting was identified by deceased’s father and other relatives who were interested and unreliable witnesses – Rejection of suicide note, which is in nature of dying declaration not justified in background of cruel treatment meted out to deceased, as evidenced by depositions of other witnesses – Acquittal of accused on ground that demand for dowry was not proved is erroneous, as “cruelty” is wider and is not confined to dowry harassment – Order of acquittal, reversed. (State by Kamakshipalya Police, Bangalore Vs Maregowda & Ors.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 141 (Kant.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.5(i), 11 and 16 – When the fact of celebration of marriage is established it will be presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary that all the rites and ceremonies to constitute a valid marriage have been gone through. (Reema Aggarwal Vs Anupam & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 676 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – A Police Officer is entitled to investigate an offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC when the complaint is filed by an enumerated person before the Magistrate and the Magistrate in turn makes a reference under S.156(3) Cr.P.C. (Siddique Vs State of Kerala) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 552 (Kerala)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Beating of wife – Cruelty – Mere beating of wife by her husband does not constitute cruelty within the meaning of S.498-A IPC. (State of H.P. Vs Suvinder Kumar) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 297 (H.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Conviction u/s 498-A IPC – Accused to look after two minor daughters – Sentence reduced to already undergone (a month less than 3 years). (Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 561 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Cruelty by husband – Wife beating –  Wife unable to do household work after tubectomy operation – Oral evidence of beating confirmed by medical evidence as in post-mortem report it was found that there were six bruises on the body, three on right thigh and three on right hip part –  Held, wife was subjected to cruelty by husband – Offence u/s 498-A I.P.C. is clearly established – Order of acquittal of accused, set aside. (State Vs Gopal) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 313 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Cruelty to woman – Quarreling in the matrimonial house is not sufficient – Prosecution is bound to prove that it was in fact a cruelty of such a nature which may compel the victim to commit suicide or to cause injury to her person. (Khokan Patra & Anr. Vs State) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 626 (Calcutta) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Cruelty – Accused deliberately and irresponsibly squandering his earnings on gambling and other vices and virtually starved his wife and infant child to death – Hence such conduct is covered by definition of offence u/s 498-A IPC. (State of Karnataka Vs Moorthy) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 167 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Cruelty – Allegation that wife is not fit for conjugal happiness – Does not amount to cruelty. (Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad Vs Jangili Sammaiah alias Babu) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 847 (A.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Cruelty – Alleged for driving wife to commit suicide – Accused once gave pushes to the deceased – Taking away of the child from the deceased – Deceased was not allowed to sit on scooter – Accused frequently staying absent from house – Illicit relationship with sister-in-law – No legal evidence – Alleged cruelty not proved – Appeal allowed. (Gananath Pattnaik Vs State of Orissa) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 586 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Cruelty – Jurisdiction – Cruelty at matrimonial place – Wife has to go back to her parents place for shelter – Place where wife is forced to take shelter has jurisdiction to try the offence u/s 498-A IPC.  (Bina Dey & Ors. Vs Pratibha Dey (Baidya)) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 661 (Gauhati)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Cruelty – May not essentially relate to dowry – Cruelty may be of any kind – Cruelty must be wilful which may drive a woman to commit suicide. (Ravinder Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 480 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Cruelty – Misbehaviour by husband at the instance of sister-in-law who was married and lived separately – Held, allegations are totally vague, inherently improbable and unworthy of credence – Proceedings qua sister-in-law quashed. (Ms.Anu Gill Vs State) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 234(2) (Delhi)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Cruelty – Need not be physical – Even mental torture or abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty and harassment in a given case. (Gananath Pattnaik Vs State of Orissa) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 586 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Cruelty – Provision is also attracted when there is mental cruelty. (Nachhatar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 61 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Cruelty – Purpose and meaning – Difference in Explanation (a) and (b) – Explanation (a) involves three specific situations viz., (i) to drive the woman to commit suicide or (ii) cause grave injury or (iii) danger to life, limb or health, both mental and physical, and thus involving a physical torture or atrocity – In explanation (b) there is absence of physical injury – However, coercive harassment is equally heinous to match the physical injury. (Girdhar Shankar Tawade Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.) : 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 455 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Cruelty – Taking away of minor son by husband without consent of wife – Does not amount to cruelty within meaning of S.498-A IPC as he is legally entitled for the custody of the child. (Sumangala Vs Laxminarayan Anant Hegde)  2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 364 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Cruelty – Territorial jurisdiction – Cruelty committed at Delhi and FIR lodged at Faridabad – FIR not quashed – Trial Court to decide as to where the offence was committed after  taking  into  consideration  various  aspects. (Shailesh Kumar Verma Vs State of Haryana) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 499 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Deceased writing letter before death indicating harassment on account of demand of dowry – Demand of dowry established by other witnesses also  – Conviction u/s 498-A upheld. (Dalbir Singh  Vs.  State of U.P. ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 682 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Demand of dowry – Limitation – Demand of dowry on 9.11.1997 and complaint filed on 5.2.1998 – Offence u/s 498-A is a continuing offence – No illegality in proceedings. (Smt.Indubala Vs State of U.P. & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 650 (Allahabad)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Dowry death – None examined from village of deceased – Grand mother-in-law admitting some bickering between accused and deceased – Uncle of deceased stating that relations between deceased and accused were cordial – PWs. 12, 14, 15 & 16 turning hostile – Mother of deceased altogether denied prosecution story – Testimony of PW 5 of no consequence – Dying declarations of no value as there is absence of fitness certificate of deceased to make declaration – One of declarations only mentioning that deceased was conscious – Conviction set aside. (Bhanwar Lal  Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 246 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Father of deceased stated that demand of Rs.10,000/- was made on telephone by his own daughter and that accused had asked his wife to demand money from him – This evidence is not admissible u/s 32 Evidence Act – Conviction u/s 498-A IPC cannot be sustained. (G.M.Ravi @ G.Purushotham Vs State of A.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 84 (A.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Husband time and again expressing doubts about the character of his wife and beating her on that count – Amounts to cruelty – Trial Court was justified in convicting the accused under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. (Mithailal Jagram Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 21 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Husband used to give beatings to wife under the influence of liquor and would even take away money earned by her to buy liquor – Does not constitute cruelty within the meaning of S.498-A IPC. (State of H.P. Vs Suvinder Kumar) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 297 (H.P.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Ill treatment – Neighbour not examined – Held, it is not expected of newly married to go about in the neighbourhood complaining against her husband – This is not a good enough reason to reject the testimony of a large number of witnesses. (State of Karnataka Vs K.Gopalakrishna) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 200 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Ill treatment – No reference to ill treatment in one of the letters – Merely because in one solitary letter there is no reference to ill treatment is not a ground to arrive at the conclusion that deceased was never ill treated. (State of Karnataka Vs K.Gopalakrishna) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 200 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Ill treatment and demand of money – Inconsistency as to the exact amount demanded by accused – Held, quantum of demand differed from time to time as such evidence of witnesses cannot be rejected merely on the ground that there is no consistency as to the exact amount demanded by accused. (State of Karnataka Vs K.Gopalakrishna) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 200 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Marriage – Not performed with consent – Held, acquittal of  offence u/s 498A IPC on ground that marriage  had  not  been  performed with consent and hence offence u/s 498A is not made  out,  cannot  be sustained. (C.Kandammal Vs S.Chellaperumal & Ors.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 198 (Madras)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Matrimonial discord –   Involving all members of in-laws family – It has almost become a practice that whenever a police report is lodged consequent upon a matrimonial discord, there is always a tendency on the part of the complainant to involve practically all the relations of her in-laws’ family either out of vengeance or to curl out appropriate settlement – Such a tendency ought to be deprecated. (Ms.Anu Gill Vs State) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 234(2) (Delhi)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Offence u/s 498-A is a continuous offence. (Hussan Lal Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 646 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Offence u/s 498-A – Conviction – Neighbour turned hostile – Evidence of parents about torture of victim for non payment of balance dowry not shaken by cross examination – No reason as not to rely upon their evidence – Delayed recording of statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. due to casual approach of I.O. – Conviction and sentence of two years imprisonment confirmed. (Suradhani Darbar & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 521 (Calcutta)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Omission to do something fundamental and basic which the law castes duty on the husband – Amounts to commission of offence of matrimonial cruelty as defined u/s 498-A IPC. (State of Karnataka Vs Moorthy) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 167 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – Suicide – Parents of deceased wife not supporting the case of prosecution – Cause of misunderstanding between husband and wife was three children of sister of husband who were living with them and were being looked after by husband – Wife resenting this – This cannot be said to be act of cruelty – Conviction u/s 498-A set aside. (Lella Srinivasa Rao  Vs  State of Andhra Pradesh ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 390 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – “Soon before her death” – There should be a perceptible nexus between death and dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted. (Om Prakash & Ors. Vs State of U.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 102 (Allahabad)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A – ‘Woman’ subjected to cruelty need not necessarily be the ‘legally married’ to the man who harassed her – A man subjecting his mistress to cruelty would be liable under the provision if they had been living as man and wife. (Thirupathi Venkata Rangadasu Vs State of A.P.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 98 (A.P.) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 300, Evidence Act, 1872, S.32 – Dowry death – Charge of treating wife with cruelty for not bringing enough money from her parents and that on particular day he poured kerosene and set her on fire – Death of deceased within six days of incident – Her dying declaration recorded by doctor who treated her in hospital, coupled with conduct of accused in pledging ornaments of deceased few days before incident – Can be relied upon to convict accused. (Nirmal Louis Vs State by Banaswadi Police, Bangalore) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 855 (Karnataka)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 304-B, 300, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, S.4, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.313 – Several accused – Each of accused must be questioned separately about material substance against him – Requirement is mandatory and non compliance thereof vitiates trial and order of conviction – Where Magistrate had examined all three accused together and recorded their joint statement, conviction of only one of them, is not sustainable in law –  Such order of conviction is to be set aside and matter remitted to trial Court for retrial from stage of recoding statement of accused. (Venkateshappa Vs State by Mulbagal Police) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 169 (Kant.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 304-B, 302 & 201/34 – Death within six months of marriage at matrimonial home – Two written drying declarations recorded by police immediately after deceased was brought to hospital and one recorded by Executive Magistrate – In all these statements deceased disclosed that she caught fire while preparing tea – Two brothers of deceased spoke about oral dying declarations but trial Court disbelieved them – Reasons for not believing not perverse and conclusions plausible – Presence of kerosene on clothes of deceased was found not acceptable as clothes had remained in police station for four days in unsealed condition and tampering not ruled out – No interference in acquittal. (Chintaman Prasad Dhanushadhari Dubey Vs Kunjbihari Babulal Tiwari & Ors.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 107 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 304-B, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439 – In FIR no allegation of demand of dowry against petitioner – Bail granted. (Rukma Devi Vs State of Rajasthan)   2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 127 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 304-B, Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.113-A and 113-B – Brothers, sisters living separate and aged parents of husband are generally roped in litigation for demand of dowry – Court while framing charge should be very cautious – Charge should be framed when there is cogent and convincing evidence – If on the face of complaint it shows that complaint is false, charge should not be framed. (Mukesh Rani Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 123 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 304-B and 120-B – Husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law convicted – Death due to burn injuries – Marriage took place about 2-1/2 years ago – Dying declaration recorded by Magistrate that all three appellants had set her on fire after pouring Kerosene oil – Six months prior to incident deceased and her husband had separated from joint family – On the night of incident husband had come late after attending a marriage in relation of deceased but deceased was not allowed to attend – A lacerated wound on forehead and abrasion on hand of deceased showed that husband assaulted deceased before deceased set herself on fire – Dying declaration not believable as mother of deceased had been with her for 10 minutes exclusively – Husband was liable to be held guilty of abetment to suicide – No evidence that deceased was harassed by appellant for or in connection with demand of dowry – Conviction of husband to be recorded u/s 306 IPC – Other two accused entitled to be acquitted. (Smt.Batool Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 320 (Rajasthan) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 304-B and 306, Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.113-A, 113-B – Suicide by woman – Charge of cruelty against husband and in-laws – Gap of four years between incident of cruelty and commission of suicide – Held, there is no nexus between two and presumption, consequently, cannot be made – Acquittal is justified. (State Vs Srikanth) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 554 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 304-B and 306 – Matrimonial offences – Tendency to rope in indiscriminately whole of family including brothers, sisters, in-laws and even grandparents and great-grandparents – It is downright wrong to include whole of family as accused persons unless there is specific material against them. (State Vs Srikanth) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 554 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 304-B Evidence Act, 1872, S.32 – Bride burning – Kerosene sprinkled and match stick lit – Conviction of A1 and A2 father and mother of husband – Victim told this fact to PW1, PW4, PW5 and PW6 who came on spot – Medical Officer PW9 recorded statement that A1 and A2 poured kerosene on her and set fire – Similar statement recorded by police and certified by doctor and case registered on it – Magistrate also recorded dying declaration in presence of PW9 who certified that victim was conscious and able to give statement – Conviction challenged on plea that no cogent evidence to justify that there was dowry demand and that it was improbable to give statement with burns to great extent – Dying declaration can be acted upon without corroboration if Court finds it truthful and acceptable and free from any effort to induce deceased to make a false statement – No material to show that dying declaration was result of any imagination, tutoring or prompting – Dying declaration appeared trustworthy and credible – Conviction calls for no interference. (Muthu Kutty & Anr. Vs State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 859 (S.C.) : 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 389 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 304-B – Charge – Propriety – Dowry death within one year and four months of marriage – Death by hanging in house where deceased resided with her husband – Prima facie evidence that deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry demand – Grounds for presuming that accused committed offence – Charge sustained. (Jogendra Singh @ Jogendra Kumar Vs State & Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 663 (Rajasthan)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 304-B – Conviction set aside by High Court – State appeal – No evidence to connect accused with offence under section 498-A – No evidence to suggest that soon before occurrence deceased was subjected to torture and harassment – Medical evidence also ambiguous – No interference in order of acquittal. (State of Orissa Vs Niranjan Mohapatra & Ors.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 243 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 304-B – Cruelty – Every petty bickering or disagreement cannot be treated as cruelty – Cruelty should be to such an extent which would make the bride fade up and to abandon the matrimonial life by committing suicide – Harassment, illtreatment or cruelty should be of such an extent which would make her disinterested in living in matrimonial tie or in matrimonial home and that would be sufficient enough to prompt her to commit suicide – There has to be a nexus between such harassment, illtreatment, cruelty and the death. (Shivaji Janaba Patil & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 173 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 304-B/34 – Dowry death – Marriage on 1.3.1993 and death of wife of 19.11.1993 due to consumption of poison – Conviction of husband and his parents – Evidence that marriage negotiation proceeded with demand of heavy dowry amount – Evidence not disclosing that there was any ill-treatment or cruelty on deceased for or on account of non-fulfilment of dowry demand – No evidence that deceased during her stay in her parents house had complained of any ill treatment to her – Theory of oral dying declaration introduced by father of victim did not find support from any other evidence – Conviction cannot be sustained. (S.Tripat Patra & Ors. Vs State of Orissa) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 189 (Orissa) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 306, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 – Conviction u/s 498-A and 306 IPC – Matter amicably settled between parties – Sentence reduced to already undergone. (Kishan Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 752 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 306 –  Appeal against conviction – Incident 14 years old – Appellant remained in custody for about 16 months during pendency of trial and suffered ordeal of protracted trial of 14 years – Sentence reduced to already undergone. (Dharam Pal Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 480 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 306 – Cruelty – Husband and his parents thrifty and modest persons asked the deceased not to attend to kitchen to prevent the wastage – Does not amount to cruelty – Deceased was a hyper-sensitive lady not used to usual wear and tear of social life and does not have flexible temperamental compatibility to the changing circumstances of life. (U.Subba Rao Vs State of Karnataka) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 584 (Karnataka) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 306 – Dowry death – Suicide within 11 days of marriage – Deceased died of burns – Evidence of P.W.1 father, P.W.2 mother, P.Ws.3 and 4 sisters and P.W.6 the neighbour that deceased told them on different occasions that she was daily tortured and beaten by her husband – Attracts offence u/ss 498-A and 306 IPC. (Murugesan @ Subramaniam Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 657 (Madras)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 306 – Inability to handle the domestic work properly – Ill-treatment – Suicide by wife – Accused on date of incident, threatened the deceased that he would cut her neck by knife and that 2/3 days prior to the date of incident accused had pressed the throat of deceased and slapped her – Both these incidents took place because of quarrel between husband and wife on account of her inability to handle the domestic work properly – This by itself is not suggestive of the fact that it was of such a nature so as to drive the wife to commit suicide – Offence u/s 498-A and 306 IPC is not made out. (State of Maharashtra Vs Tanaji Shamrao Shalke) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 281 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A and 306 – Suicide by wife – Wife believed that her husband was already married to a German lady and her husband and in-laws did not like her – General and vague allegations of harassment and beating against husband – Offence u/s 498-A, 306 IPC not made out – Conviction set aside. (Balwinder Singh Vs The State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 461 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 405, 420, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439(2) – Bail – Cancellation – Offence u/ss 498-A, 405, 420 IPC – Bail cannot be cancelled by High Court by giving findings on factual issues which are to be decided at trial. (Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 164 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 406, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438 – Anticipatory bail – Offence u/ss 406, 498-A IPC – Bail granted subject to deposit of Rs.2.5 lakhs – Nothing on record to indicate that any of the dowry articles or any other articles have been misappropriated – Condition improper – Accused in the event of arrest be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-. (Dinesh Ahluwalia Vs State) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 696 (Delhi) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 406, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.468(2)(c) – Offence u/s 498-A, 406 IPC – Limitation – Last act of cruelty is the starting point of limitation. (Ramesh & Ors. Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 504 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 440 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 406, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.473, 468 – Offence u/s 498-A, 406 IPC – Limitation – Delayed complaints – Court to construe liberally S.473 Cr.P.C. in favour of wife who is subjected to cruelty, if on the facts and in the circumstances of the case it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice – When conduct of accused is such that applying the rule of limitation will give an unfair advantage to him or result in miscarriage of justice, the Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of period of limitation in the interests of justice. (1999(4) SCC 690) followed. (Ramesh & Ors. Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 440 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 406, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.473 – Cruelty and misappropriate of dowry articles – Limitation – Complaint filed after limitation – By virtue of provision of S.473 Cr.P.C. Court is competent to take cognizance even after the period of limitation – Moreso offence u/s 498-A IPC is a continuous offence. (Hussan Lal Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 646 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 406, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 – Cruelty to wife – Complaint against husband, parents and five sisters – Vague allegations against sisters – Proceedings against sisters quashed. (Harjinder Kaur & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 445 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 406, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.320, 482 – Offence u/ss 498-A and 406 – Wife and husband agreed to divorce by mutual consent – Petition to quash proceedings – High Court can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint  in exercise of its inherent powers and S.320 Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers u/s 482 of the Code. (B.S.Joshi Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 161 (S.C.) : 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 621 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 406 – Acquittal – Appeal against – Order is appealable by State – Revision by complainant – No criminal revision in respect of an order which is appealable at the instance of the State can be entertained except in exceptional cases where there is manifest error on a point of law and consequently there is a flagrant miscarriage of justice. (Lakhwinder Kaur Vs Piare Lal) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 252 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 406 – Complaint by wife –  Accused summoned – Complaint due to some misunderstanding – Wife appearing in Court and stating that matter having been settled between parties, she no longer intends to prosecute matter –  Magistrate yet taking cognizance – Order of taking cognizance set aside. (Diwan Singh & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 146 (Raj.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 406 – Offence u/s 406/498-A IPC – Roping in relatives – Complaint by wife against husband, his parents, his sisters and other relatives – Sisters married long before marriage of complainant and living separately at different places – Other relatives also living separately – FIR qua them quashed – Basic ingredients of offence u/s 406/498-A IPC not satisfied against them – They have been victimised on account of the prevalent syndrome of roping in every one in such type of matrimonial related criminal litigation. (Kamaljit Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 523 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 406 – Sister of husband living separate with her husband in a different village and employed as teacher – Held, sister and brother-in-law of accused rightly discharged. (Mukesh Rani Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 123 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 406 & 420 – Complaint u/ss 498-A, 406 & 420 IPC against husband and six other family members – Summoning order against maternal uncle, brother-in-law and sister-in-law quashed as they lived separately – Court while summoning relations of husband who are living separately should carefully analyse the incriminating material against those persons and only those persons should be summoned against whom there are strong and reliable material – Such relations should not be summoned in a casual manner. (Rajinder Mohan Kashyap Vs Om Parkash Sharma) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 285 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A, 506, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438 – FIR u/ss 498-A, 406 & 506 IPC registered against husband for demand of dowry and that wife was beaten mercilessly and turned out of matrimonial home – It was stated that on earlier occasion accused tried to kill the wife by opening knob of gas cylinder, but no report was lodged and thereafter parties lived together despite the incident – Anticipatory bail allowed. (Vinod Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 482 (P&H) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A and 306 – Dowry death – Conviction – Accused facing trial for 11 years – Sentence reduced to already undergone. (Rajbir Vs State of Haryana) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 115 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A and 323 – Husband had pronounced Talaq prior to alleged acts of cruelty – FIR & proceedings quashed. (Azaz Hussain Vs State of J & K.) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 45 (J&K) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-A and 406 – Proceedings u/s 498-A and 406 IPC – Wife alleged to be an enunch – Medical examination of wife sought – Held, question regarding womanhood of wife is not necessary and relevant in proceedings u/s 498-A and 406 IPC – This question may be relevant in matrimonial proceedings – Application rightly rejected by trial Court. (Gurdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 569 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.498-B and 498-C –  Fake currency notes –  Mens rea is very essential – Without Mens rea selling, buying or receiving from another person or otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine forged or counterfeit notes or bank notes is not enough to constitute offence u/s 498-B IPC – So also possession or even intending to use any forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes is not sufficient to make out a case u/s 498-C in the absence of mens rea. (Umashanker Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 403 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.499 Exception 9 – At summoning stage it is too premature to consider whether statement was made for public good – This is a matter to be considered based on prospective evidence – Burden in this regard lies on accused. (Meera Vs Mathew) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 461 (Kerala) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.499 – Defamation – Intention to cause harm is the very foundation of the offence – It can only be when the imputations are made public – Maker of the imputations without publication is not liable under S.499 IPC. (Harcharan Singh Vs Hari Singh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 75 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.499 – Public servant – Complaint to authorities – Complaints found to be false – Sending of complaints to authorities does not amount to publication – Offence of defamation not made out. (Harcharan Singh Vs Hari Singh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 75 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.499, 109, 120-B – Second marriage –  Persons present at the time of such marriage – Fact of existing marriage disclosed to persons present at the time of second marriage –  Even then it cannot be said that they abetted the offence of bigamy merely by being present there at the time of marriage. (Nafe Singh Vs Mohinder Dass) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 532 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.499, 500, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.199 – Defamation – Complaint – By some person aggrieved is a sine qua non under the mandatory provisions of S.199 Cr.P.C. (Dr.Swaran Singh, IAS Vs Jaswant Singh) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 176 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.499, 500, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.319 – Defamation – Complaint against two persons – Some material available against another person – Magistrate cannot suo moto array that person as accused unless a complaint is filed against him or application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is made to summon him as accused. (Dr.Swaran Singh, IAS Vs Jaswant Singh) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 176 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.499, 500 – Defamation – Action for defamation is maintainable only by the person who is defamed and not by his friends, relatives and family members. (Harsh Mendiratta Vs Dr.Maharaj Singh) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 336 (Delhi) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.499, 500 – Defamation – Complaint to authorities about public servant that he has purchased land without intimation to the department – Enquiry revealed that complaints were false – No offence of defamation is made out – Sole purpose of making complaints was to bring to the notice of authorities the factual position which they had gathered in good faith about the petitioner – It was not made public and rather, it was left to the authorities to take into account the allegations made for appropriate action in the matter – Cannot be said that accused intended to publish the contents of the letter to other persons. (Harcharan Singh Vs Hari Singh)    2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 75 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.499, 500 – Defamation – Necessary ingredients are : (i) Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person; (ii) such imputation must have been made by (a) words either spoken or intended to be read ; or (b) signs; or (c) visible representation. (iii) Such imputation must have been made with intention of harming or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will be harming the reputation of the person concerned to whom it is made. (Harcharan Singh Vs Hari Singh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 75 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.499, 500 – General remarks made by Authority against competence of subordinate – Does not amount to defamation. (Harsh Mendiratta Vs Dr.Maharaj Singh) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 336 (Delhi) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.500, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.199 – Defamation – Complaint through power of attorney holder – Leave of Court – If complaint is instituted through power of attorney holder then leave of Court is required – Even in the absence of a separate petition and specific orders, grant of such leave can be assumed – In the instant case complaint presented by power of attorney holder on behalf of the complainant was entertained, cognizance taken and summons issued – Held, there is assumed leave of Court. (Fr.Thomas Vs Thomas J.Padiyath) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 211 (Kerala) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.500, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.199 – Defamation – Personal appearance of complainant is not required for the filing of complaint – Complaint can be instituted in the name of person aggrieved through some other person with leave of Court. (Fr.Thomas Vs Thomas J.Padiyath) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 211 (Kerala) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.500, Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.320(5) – Conviction – Compromise – Matter settled between parties and a joint petition filed for compounding of the offence – Permission to compound granted – Appellant acquitted in terms of compromise. (K.Kandasamy & Anr. Vs K.P.M.V.P. Chandrasekaran) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 858 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.500, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, S.4 – Conviction u/s 500 IPC – Accused 70 years old and faced trial for 14 years – Accused released on bail – Fine imposed converted into costs which shall be payable to the complainant. (Randhir Singh Vs Krishan Kumar Goswami & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 325 (P&H)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.500 – Defamation – Complaint – Details of imputation containing the words alleged to be defamatory in character should be precisely set out in the complaint – It is the said imputation or the words so set out in the complaint that will constitute the foundation for defamation – Complaint and proceedings quashed as particulars of imputation not given in complaint. (Kalyanam Vs Ramesh) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 184 (Madras) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.500 – Defamation – Words complained of did not refer to any particular individual – Defamation by innuendo – Reference need not be explicit – If description is such that a reasonable person, in context in which it is made, would be able to understand it as a reference to a particular person, that would suffice – Held, complaint cannot be thrown overboard and in limine. (Meera Vs Mathew) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 461 (Kerala) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.500 – Defamatory article in magazine stating Jayalalitha and her party men – It means members of AIADMK party –  Party if defamed then Secretary can file a complaint and issue can be decided only on evidence. (R.Rajagopal @ R.R.Gopal & Anr. Vs V.Sathya Moorthy) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 39 (Madras) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.500 – Publication of imputation – Managing Editor of Newspaper cannot be held liable unless there are positive averments in complaint that Managing Editor was having knowledge of such publication. (Vivek Goenka Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 467 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.500 – Relevant averments – Complainant not averred that the said spoken imputations were intended to harm his reputation or the petitioners were knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation would harm his reputation – Held, no offence punishable u/s 500 IPC is spelled out. (Virendrabhai M.Chandalia Vs Mohan Kanayalal Parwani) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 310 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.500, 499(9), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.161 – Defamatory statement made u/s 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation of a case – Complaint u/s 500 IPC – Petition to quash complaint on the plea that statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. comes under Exception 9 of S.499 IPC –  Held, statement made u/s 161 Cr.P.C. is a “privileged statement” – However, the “privilege” is not absolute privilege but only “qualified privilege” – Criminal case pending not quashed – Petition dismissed. (P.Zainulabideen Vs KMH Sahul Hameed @ Abu Abdulah) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 505 (Madras)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.504, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.200 – Offence u/s 504 IPC – In complaint it must be alleged that the words, gestures were made by accused with intention of insulting the complainant and that these were sufficient enough to give provocation to complainant to such an extent which would make him to commit the breach of public peace or commit any other offence. (Vasant Waman Pradhan Vs Dattatraya Vithal Salvi & Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 27 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.504 – Complaint u/s 504 IPC – Exact words alleged to have been uttered have to be mentioned in complaint.(Virendrabhai M.Chandalia & Anr. Vs Mohan Kanayalal Parwani & Anr. ) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 310 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.504 – To constitute an offence u/s 504 IPC there has to be an intention to insult a person by uttering abuses – Failure in quoting those abuses would lead to conclusion that no offence has been prima facie made out – Mechanical acceptance of police report and issuance of summons to accused had resulted in miscarriage of justice – Prosecution quashed. (Madhavrao Gajanan Deshpande Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 291 (Bombay) 

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.506 – Criminal intimidation – Intention is the soul of definition of criminal intimidation – It can be gathered from surrounding circumstances also. (Vasant Waman Pradhan Vs Dattatraya Vithal Salvi & Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 27 (Bombay)

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.506 and 366 – Kidnapping – No evidence that kidnapping was on threat of murder – Accused had no deadly weapon with him – Offence u/s 506 IPC not made out. (Bhagwant Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 739 (P&H)