Apex Law Journal
Apex Law Journal
An online law journal reporting latest and important judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.                                                                                                                         Click here to get free legal updates via email                                                                                                                          Click here to download forms (Address Form, List Of Documents and Memorandum Of Appearance)
User Name :
Password :
New Subscriber
Forgot Password
 

Editor

Neha Goel, Advocate

Advisory Board

S.C. Khunger, Advocate

Rohit Bansal, Advocate

Varinder Singh Kanwar, Advocate

Hittan Nehra, Advocate

Judgments on Indian Penal Code, 1860

Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 300, Exception 4 — All fatal injuries resulting in death cannot be termed as cruel or unusual for the purposes of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. In cases where after the injured had fallen down, the appellant did not inflict any further injury when he was in a helpless position, it may indicate that he had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner — Sukbhir Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 327 relied.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 300, Exception 4 — Dealing with the provision of Exception 4 to Section 300 this Court in the case of Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh (1989) 2 SCC 217 observed:

“….. To invoke this exception four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (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. The cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor is it relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The 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. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this exception provided he has not acted cruelly.”

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304, Part II — Where the nature of the injury inflicted by the accused, the part of the body on which it was inflicted, the weapon used to inflict the same and the circumstances in which the injury was inflicted suggest that he had no intention to kill the deceased and all that can be said is that the appellant had the knowledge that the injury inflicted by him was likely to cause the death of the deceased, the case, held, would more appropriately fall under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

 
Friday, July 19, 2013
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — No mark of injuries on the genital organs of the body of the deceased — Conviction cannot be set aside on this ground alone.

 
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304 Part I r/w Section 302 — Injuries caused with deadly weapons — Presumption — Appellants, in the present case, caused the injuries with deadly weapons, therefore, intention can be presumed regarding causing injuries as are likely to cause death, which falls under Section 304 Part I IPC and hence the conviction ordered by the trial court under Section 302 IPC is converted to Section 304 Part I IPC.

 
Monday, January 14, 2013
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 306 — Whether one or two beats are sufficient in the ordinary course of woman to commit suicide — Held, assault on a woman offends her dignity — What effect it will have on a woman depends on facts and circumstances of each case — There cannot be any generalization on this issue so as to mean that in all cases of assault suicide must follow.

 
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498-A — Demand of dowry — Acquittal not assailed before the higher forum — Held, allegation of demand of dowry was incorrect and untruthful and it can unhesitatingly be stated that such an act creates mental trauma in the mind of the husband as no one would like to face a criminal proceeding of this nature on baseless and untruthful allegations — Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1) (ia), Mental cruelty.

 
Saturday, June 09, 2012
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 376(2)(f) and 201 — Father committed rape and murdered (next day) her 4 year old daughter — Imposition of  death penalty — Held, it is not a rarest of rare case where imposition of death penalty is warranted — However, considering the nature of offence, age and relationship of the victim with the appellant and gravity of injuries caused to her, appellant cannot be awarded a lenient punishment — Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the death sentence awarded is set aside and life imprisonment is awarded — The appellant must serve a minimum of 30 years in jail without remissions, before consideration of his case for pre-mature release. 

 
Wednesday, May 02, 2012
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 149 — Allegations made against a large number of persons — Held, where general allegations are made against a large number of persons the court would categorically scrutinise the evidence and hesitate to convict the large number of persons if the evidence available on record is vague — It is obligatory on the part of the court to examine that if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object, it may yet fall under second part of Section 149 IPC, which states that if the offence was such as the members knew was likely to be committed — Further inference has to be drawn as to the number of persons involved in the crime; how many of them were merely passive witnesses; what arms and weapons they were carrying alongwith them — Number and nature of injuries is also relevant to be considered — “Common object” may also be developed at the time of incident.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 149 — Injuries on the person of the accused — No grievance raised by him in this regard — He could not explain as under what circumstances such injuries have been caused to him — Held, the provisions of Section 149 have rightly been applied. 

 
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 2 — The Code, held, applies to a foreigner who has committed an offence within India notwithstanding that he was corporeally present outside — Mobarik Ali Ahmed vs. The State of Bobay (1958) SCR 328 relied.

 
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 141 r/w Section 149 — Acquittal of three of the five accused persons comprising the unlawful assembly does not in the light of the settled legal position make any material difference.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 149 and Section 302 — Whether the commission of murder by a member of an unlawful assembly that does not have murder as its common object would attract the provisions of Section 149 IPC? — Held, the answer to this question will depend upon the circumstances in which the incident had taken place and the conduct of the members of the unlawful assembly including the weapons they carried or used on the spot.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 149 — Non-use of arms by the members of the unlawful assembly which they were carrying, held, is a relevant circumstance — Evidence Act, 1872, Section 8.

 
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Death penalty — In Section 302 of IPC death penalty is not mandatory but it is optional.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376(2), Proviso — Rape — Sentence — In the absence of any special and adequate reasons, recourse to proviso to Section 376(2) IPC, held, cannot be applied in a casual manner

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Conviction — Reduction of sentence — Victim, in the case on hand, was aged about 7 years on the date of the incident and the accused was in the age of 18/19 years — Incident occurred nearly 10 years ago — Held, the award of life imprisonment which is maximum prescribed is not warranted — In view of the mandate of Section 376(2)(f) IPC, ends of justice would be met by imposing RI for 10 years — Further, held as the accused hails from a poor family and was working as an agricultural labourer, therefore, fine amount of Rs. 20,000 imposed by the trial court is reduced to Rs, 1000/-. 

 
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 364A — Kidnapping for ransom — Conviction — Imposition of sentence — If the prosecution establishes beyond doubt that the kidnapping was for ransom, the sentence provided in this Section is death or imprisonment for life and also be liable to fine. 

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 364A — Kidnapping for ransom — If it is established that the offender after kidnapping a person keeps the said person in detention or threatens to cause death or hurt in order to pay ransom, undoubtedly, Section 364A attracts.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 364A — Kidnapping for ransom — To pay a ransom, as stated in Section 364A, in the ordinary sense means to pay the price or demand for ransom — This would show that the demand has to be communicated.  

 
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 354 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 320(2) — An offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC is in terms of Section 320(2) of the Code compoundable at the instance of the woman against whom the offence is committed.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 394 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 320 — An offence punishable under Section 394 IPC is not compoundable with or without the permission of the Court concerned.

 
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 307 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 320 — Whether the prayer for composition of the offence under Section 307 IPC could be allowed having regard to the compromise arrived at between the parties? — Held, no — However, the settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties can be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the quantum of sentence to be awarded to the accused.

 
Monday, December 05, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 r/w Section 34 — Person charged under Section 302/34 IPC — Other accused persons stand acquitted — Held, the person charged Section 302/34 IPC can be convicted alone if his involvement is proved beyond reasonable doubt — Lok Pal Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1985 SC 891 relied. 

 
Monday, October 31, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 34 and 149 — Distinction between common intention and common object — A clear distinction made out between common intention and common object is that 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 pre-concept.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 34 and 149 — Difference between Section 34 and Section 149 — Though there is substantial difference between the two sections, namely, Sections 34 and 149 IPC, to some extent they also overlap and it is a question to be determined on the facts of each case.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34 — There is no bar in convicting the accused under substantive section read with Section 34 if the evidence discloses commission of an offence in furtherance of the common intention of them all.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 34 and 149 — In order to convict a person vicariously liable under Section 34 or Section 149 IPC, it is not necessary to prove that each and every one of them had indulged in overt acts in order to apply Section 34, apart from the fact that there should be two or more accused — Two facts must be established, namely a) common intention b) participation of accused in the commission of an offence — It requires a pre-arranged plan and pre-supposes prior concept. Therefore, there must be prior meeting of minds — It can also be developed at the spur of the moment but there must be pre-arrangement or pre-meditated concept.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34 — In order to seek the aid of Section 34 IPC, it is not necessary that individual act of the accused persons has to be proved by the prosecution by direct evidence — Common intention has to be inferred from proved facts and circumstances and once there exist common intention, mere presence of the accused persons among the assailants would be sufficient proof of their participation in the offence. 

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34 — The existence of common intention amongst the participants in the crime is the essential element for application of Section 34 and it is not necessary that the acts of several persons charged with the commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identically similar.

 
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 149 — Common object — For “common object”, it is not necessary that there should be a prior concert in the sense of a meeting of the members of the unlawful assembly, the common object may form on spur of the moment; it is enough if it is adopted by all the members and is shared by all of them.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 149 — Common object — In order that the case may fall under the first part, the offence committed must be connected immediately with the common object of the unlawful assembly of which the accused were members.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 149 — Common object — Even if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object of the assembly, it may yet fall under second part of Section 149 IPC if it can be held that the offence was such as the members knew was likely to be committed — The expression ‘know’ does not mean a mere possibility, such as might or might not happen — For instance, it is a matter of common knowledge that if a body of persons go armed to take forcible possession of the land, it would be right to say that someone is likely to be killed and all the members of the unlawful assembly must be aware of that likelihood and would be guilty under the second part of Section 149 IPC.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 149 — Distinction between the   two parts of Section 149 — There may be cases which would come within the second part, but not within the first — The distinction between the two parts of Section 149 IPC cannot be ignored or obliterated.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 141 and 149 — Unlawful assembly — Passive witnesses — It is relevant to consider whether the assembly consisted of some persons which were merely passive witnesses and had joined the assembly as a matter of idle curiosity without intending to entertain the common object of the assembly.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 149 — Allegations against a large number of persons — Held, where general allegations are made against a large number of persons the court would categorically scrutinise the evidence and hesitate to convict the large number of persons if the evidence available on record is vague — It is obligatory on the part of the court to examine that if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object, it yet may fall under second part of Section 149 IPC, if the offence was such as the members knew was likely to be committed — Further inference has to be drawn as what was the number of persons; how many of them were merely passive witnesses; what were their arms and weapons — Number and nature of injuries is also relevant to be considered — “Common object” may also be developed at the time of incident.

 
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120A — Criminal conspiracy — Held :-

 

 (a) In the case of S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2010) 8 SCC 233 this Court held that mere circumstantial evidence to prove the involvement of the accused is not sufficient to meet the requirements of criminal conspiracy and meeting of minds to form a criminal conspiracy has to be proved by placing substantive evidence.

 

 (b) In the case of Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal reported in (2002) 7 SCC 334 this court held that offence of conspiracy can be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence. In paragraph 24 at page 354 of the report the following observations have been made:-

 

   “Conspiracies are not hatched in the open, by their nature, they are secretly planned, they can be proved even by circumstantial evidence, the lack of direct evidence relating to conspiracy has no consequence.”

 

 
Friday, August 26, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A — Complaint under Section 498A IPC cannot be dismissed on the ground that since there was not valid marriage therefore the complainant is not the wife within the meaning of Section 498A and is not entitled to lodge an FIR for commission of offence u/s. 498A IPC.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A — A person who enters into marital arrangement cannot be allowed to take shelter behind the smoke screen of contention that since there was no valid marriage the question of dowry does not arise — Reema Aggarwal Vs. Anupam and others (2004) 3 SCC 199 relied.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 494 and 495 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 173(2), 198(1) — Criminal Procedure (Andhra Pradesh Second Amendment) Act, 1992 — Constitution of India, 1950, Article 254(2) — Whether Magistrate has power to take cognizance of offences under Sections 494 and 495 on the basis of police report? — Held, since the offences under Section 494 ans 495 have been made cognizable in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the learned Magisitrate has power to take cognizance of offences under Sections 494 and 495 on the basis of police report submitted by the Investigating Officer.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 495 — A married man who by passing himself off as unmarried induces an innocent woman to become, as she thinks his wife, but in reality his mistress, commits one of the grossest forms of frauds known to law and therefore severe punishment is provided in Section 495 IPC.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 495 — The reference to Section 494 IPC in Section 495 IPC makes it clear that Section 495 IPC is extension of Section 494 IPC and part and parcel of it — The concealment spoken of in Section 495 IPC would be from the woman with whom the subsequent marriage is performed — Therefore, the wife with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted after concealment of former marriage, would also be entitled to lodge complaint for commission of offence punishable under Section 495 IPC.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 494 — Right to file complaint — Whether restricted to the first wife? — Held, Section 494 does not restrict right of filing complaint to the first wife — It does not say that the complaint for commission of offence under the said section can be filed only by wife living and not by the woman with whom subsequent marriage takes place during the life time of the wife living and which marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such wife — The complaint can also be filed by the person with whom second marriage takes place which is void by reason of its taking place during the life of first wife.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 494 — Non-filing of the complaint under Section 494 IPC by first wife does not mean that the offence is wiped out and monogamy sought to be achieved by means of Section 494 IPC merely remains in statute book. 

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 494 — Held, section 494 is intended to achieve laudable object of monogamy — This object can be achieved only by expanding the meaning of the phrase “aggrieved person” — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 198(1)(c).

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 494 — Held, section 494 of the IPC introduces monogamy which is essentially voluntary union of life of one man with one woman to the exclusion of all others — It enacts that neither party must have a spouse living at the time of marriage.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 494 and 495 — The woman with whom second marriage is contracted by suppressing the fact of former marriage would be entitled to maintain complaint against her husband under Sections 494 and 495 IPC.

 
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376(2)(g) r/w Explanation 1 — Gang rape — Where a woman is raped by one or more of a group of persons acting in furtherance of their common intention, each of the persons shall be deemed to have committed gang rape within the meaning of Section 376 (2)(g) of the IPC — In other words, the act of gang rape has to be in furtherance of their common intention before the deeming fiction of law can be enforced against the accused.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376(2)(g) r/w Explanation 1 — Gang rape — The prosecution must adduce evidence to show that more than one accused has acted in concert and in such an event, if rape had been committed by even one of the accused all will be guilty irrespective of the fact that she has not been raped by all of them — Therefore, it may not be necessary for the prosecution to adduce evidence of a completed act of rape by each one of the accused — The provision embodies a principle of joint liability and the essence of that liability is existence of common intention — That common intention pre-supposes prior concert as there must be meeting of minds, which may be determined from the conduct of the offenders which is revealed during the course of action.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 368 — When the person in question has been kidnapped, the accused knew that the said person had been kidnapped and the accused having such knowledge, wrongfully conceals or confines the person concerned then the ingredients of Section 368 of the IPC are said to be satisfied.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376(2)(g) r/w Explanation 1 and Section 368 — Gang rape — In the present case, except providing a space and cot and helping the accused in wrongfully detaining the prosecutrix, no further act or common intention is attributable to the apellant — Held, the judgment of the trial court convicting the accused under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC is set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge — However, his conviction under Section 368 of the IPC and the sentence awarded by the High Court is maintained.

 
Friday, July 29, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Statement of prosecutrix — The Court, held, cannot ignore the fact that the prosecutrix cannot be expected to make a perfect statement after a lapse of time without even a normal variance.

 
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 84 — The burden of bringing his/her case under Section 84 of the IPC lies squarely upon the person claiming the benefit of that provision.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 84 — While determining whether the accused is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 I.P.C. the Court has to consider the circumstances that proceeded, attended or followed the crime but it is equally true that such circumstances must be established by credible evidence.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 84 — Insanity is a medical condition that cannot for long be concealed from friends and relatives of the person concerned — Non-production of anyone who noticed any irrational or eccentric behaviour on the part of the appellant in that view is noteworthy.  

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 84 — Mere fact that the appellant had assaulted his wife, mother and child was not ipso facto suggestive of his being an insane person.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 84 — Fact that the accused had not escaped from the place of occurrence was no reason by itself to declare him to be a person of unsound mind incapable of understanding the nature of the acts committed by him.

 
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120A — Criminal conspiracy — The essential ingredient of the offence of “criminal conspiracy”, defined in Section 120A IPC, is the agreement to commit an offence — In a case where the agreement is for accomplishment of an act which by itself constitutes an offence, then in that event, unless the Statute so requires, no overt act is necessary to be proved by the prosecution because in such a fact-situation criminal conspiracy is established by proving such an agreement.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B r/w proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 120A — Proof of any overt act by the accused or by any one of them — Whether necessary to bring about a conviction under Section 120B? — Where the conspiracy alleged is with regard to commission of a serious crime of the nature as contemplated in Section 120B read with the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 120A IPC, then in that event mere proof of an agreement between the accused for commission of such crime alone is enough to bring about a conviction under Section 120B and the proof of any overt act by the accused or by any one of them would not be necessary.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 463 — Forgery — The definition of “forgery” in Section 463 IPC is very wide. The basic elements of forgery are: (i) the making of a false document or part of it and (ii) such making should be with such intention as is specified in the Section viz. (a) to cause damage or injury to (i) the public, or (ii) any person; or (b) to support any claim or title; or (c) to cause any person to part with property; or (d) to cause any person to enter into an express or implied contract; or (e) to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 120B, 420, 409, 468 and 471 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 — Merely because the dues of the bank have been paid up, the appellant cannot be exonerated from the criminal liability — Therefore, the Chargesheet against him cannot be quashed.   

 
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304-B — Dowry death — Proximity test — There can be no quarrel with the proposition that the proximity test has to be applied keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304-B — Expression ‘soon before’ — Held, the expression, ‘soon before’ 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 the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304-B — Expression ‘soon before’ — Held, ‘soon before’ is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of ‘soon before the occurrence’ — It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 304-B and 498-A — Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 4 — Dowry death — Only the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased have been accused of the offences in question — Other family members have not been implicated — Held, the circumstance that only the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased have been made accused of the offence, sparing the other family members, is an indication that father of the deceased has not acted out of malice, anger or to wreak vengeance, as otherwise he would have implicated the entire family including the father-in-law of the deceased and two unmarried sisters of the husband of the deceased as is often done by the parental side of the bride in a dowry death case. 

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 304-B and 498-A — Expression “cruelty” — Cruelty or harassment may not only be physical but also mental.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304-B — In order to attract application of Section 304B IPC, the essential ingredients are as follows : 

 

 1. The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than in normal circumstances; 

 

 2. Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage; 

 

 3. She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; 

 

 4. Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry; 

 

 5. Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have meted out to the woman soon before her death.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Death sentence — Expression “rarest of rare” — Meaning of — Held, the expression “rarest of rare” as referred to in Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898 does not mean that the act is uncommon, it means that the act is brutal and barbaric.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Bride burning — Whether deserves death sentence? — Held, yes — Bride burning falls in the category of rarest of rare cases, and hence deserve death sentence. 

 
Friday, June 10, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 300, Exception (4) — In order to bring a case under exception (4) to section 300 IPC, the evidence must show that the accused acted without any premediation and in a heat of passion and without having taken undue advantage and he had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner — Every one of these circumstances is required to be proved to attract exception (4) to section 300 IPC and it is not sufficient to prove only some of them.

 
Monday, May 23, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Cause of death was opined by PW1 in his post mortem report as death “due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation by ligature.” — It is evident that this is a case of murder, and not suicide — The body was not found hanging but lying on the ground.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Honour killings, for whatever reason, come within the category of rarest of rare cases deserving death punishment.

 
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 149 — In order to bring home a charge under Section 149 it is not necessary that five or more persons must necessarily be brought before the court and convicted — Mohan Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 174 relied. 

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 149 — Acquittal of two members of unlawful assembly — Prosecution is well within its jurisdiction to establish the charge under Section 149 IPC even after the acquittal of two members of the unlawful assembly, however, in order to attract Section 149 IPC, it must be shown that the incriminating act was done to accomplish the common object of unlawful assembly and it must be within the knowledge of other members as one likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 149 — Before convicting accused with the aid of Section 149 IPC, the Court must give clear finding regarding nature of common object and that the object was unlawful — In the absence of such a finding as also any overt act on the part of the accused persons, mere fact that they were armed would not be sufficient to prove common object.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 read with Section 149 — Acquittal of two members of unlawful assembly — Whether conviction under Section 302 can be based with the aid of Section 149? — Held, yes — Even after acquittal of two accused from all the charges leveled against them, if there is any material that they were members of the unlawful assembly, the conviction under Section 302 can be based with the aid of Section 149 — Mohan Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 174 relied.

 
Monday, April 04, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Murder by policemen in police custody is in the category of rarest of rare cases deserving death sentence.

 
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 and Section 376 — Murder after committing rape — Award of death sentence — Case based on circumstantial evidence — All the 13 circumstances stated in Para 7 of this judgment proved in favour of prosecution — Appellant-accused was a young man of 24 years at the time of the incident and after acquittal by trial court, he got married and was the father of a girl child — His father died a year after his conviction and awarding of death sentence by the High Court — Whether in these circumstances award of death sentence as awarded by the High Court maintainable? — Held, although there are extremely aggravating circumstances but there is nothing to suggest that the accused would not be capable of reform — Death sentence awarded by the High Court, therefore, commuted to life imprisonment.  

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Murder — Award of sentence — Option between death sentence and life sentence — Held, undoubtedly the sentencing part is a difficult one and often exercises the mind of the Court but where the option is between a life sentence and a death sentence, the options are indeed extremely limited and if the court itself feels some difficulty in awarding one or the other, it is only appropriate that the lesser sentence should be awarded — This is the underlying philosophy behind ‘the rarest of the rare’ principle — Furthermore, the mitigating circumstances need to be taken into account.

 
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 306 — Abetment of suicide — In order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence — It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.

 
Thursday, March 03, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Murder — Imposition of death sentence — In Suhil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand [AIR 2004 SC 394] the Supreme Court has given four circumstances which may be relevant in awarding the death sentence — They are as under:–

 

 “The following guidelines which emerge from Bachan Singh case (supra) will have to be applied to the facts of each individual case where the question of imposition of death sentence arises: - 

 

 (a) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability. 

 

 (b) Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the ‘offender’ also require to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the ‘crime’. 

 

 (c) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. Death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances. 

 

 (d) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised.”

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Murder — Case based on circumstantial evidence — Death sentence — Held, in a case where the reliance is on circumstantial evidence, that factor has to be taken into consideration while awarding the death sentence — However, this Court should not be understood to say that in all cases of circumstantial evidence, the death sentence cannot be given — All that this Court wants to say is that the case being dependent upon circumstantial evidence is one of the relevant considerations — This Court has only noted it as one of the circumstances in formulating the sentencing policy.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Murder — The Supreme Court in the case of Yeshwant & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra etc. etc. [1972 (3) SCC 639] has not held that in all the cases where the blood group is not fixed, the existence of blood on the wearing apparel becomes inconclusive.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Murder — Original intention was theft and on account of the deceased having been awakened, the accused persons took the extreme step of eliminating both the inmates of the house for the fear of being detected — Held, if the deceased Ramlal and his wife had not been awakened, the ghastly incident might not have occurred — This was undoubtedly a murder for gains — Award of death sentence awarded to the accused would not be justified — Sentence modified to life imprisonment.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Double Murder — Imposition of death sentence — Held, double murder by itself cannot be said to be a crime of enormous proportion so as to award death sentence.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Evidence of discovery and recovery — Merely because the recoveries were made from the same place which was already visited by the police, that would itself not dispel the evidence of discovery and recovery.

 
Monday, February 28, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376(2)(g) and Proviso to Section 376(2)(g) — Gang rape — Imposition of lesser sentence — Whether proviso to Section 376(2)(g) can be invoked on the ground that the incident is an old one and that the parties have themselves entered into a compromise? — Held, yes.

 
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 84 — Unsoundness of mind — It has to be borne in mind that to establish that acts done are not offence and come within general exception it is required to be proved that at the time of commission of the act, accused by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing that his acts were wrong or contrary to law.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 84 — Unsoundness of mind — Even if the accused establishes unsoundness of mind, Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code will not come to its rescue, in case it is found that the accused knew that what he was doing was wrong or that it was contrary to law — In order to ascertain that, it is imperative to take into consideration the circumstances and the behaviour preceding, attending and following the crime — Behaviour of an accused pertaining to a desire for concealment of the weapon of offence and conduct to avoid detection of crime go a long way to ascertain as to whether, he knew the consequences of the act done by him.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 84 — Every person who is suffering from mental disease is not ipso facto exempted from criminal liability — The mere fact that the accused is conceited, odd, irascible and his brain is not quite all right, or that the physical and mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and affected his emotions or indulges in certain unusual acts, or had fits of insanity at short intervals or that he was subject to epileptic fits and there was abnormal behaviour or the behaviour is queer are not sufficient to attract the application of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 84 — An accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an act under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity.

 
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304-B — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 2 — For the purposes of Section 304B IPC, ‘dowry’ has the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.  

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304-B — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 2 — If a demand for property or valuable security, directly or indirectly, has a nexus with marriage, such demand would constitute ‘demand for dowry’; the cause or reason for such demand being immaterial — Appasaheb & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 9 SCC 721 distinguished. 

 
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 420 — Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 300(1) — Appellant already convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Held, he could not be tried again or punished on the same facts under Section 420 or any other provision of IPC or any other statute — Prosecution under Section 420, IPC will be barred by Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. — Appeal allowed — Judgment of the High Court set aside. 

 
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 149 — Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 134 and 3 — Unlawful assembly with a very large number of persons — Whether testimony of a sole eye-witness is sufficient to convict the accused persons? — Held, yes — There is no rule of law that states that there cannot be any conviction on the testimony of a sole eye-witness, unless that the court is of the view that the testimony of such sole eye-witness is not reliable.

 
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 375, Clause First and Clause Secondly — Expressions ‘against her will and ‘without her consent’ — Held, the expressions ‘against her will’ and ‘without her consent’ may overlap sometimes but surely the two expressions in clause First and clause Secondly have different connotation and dimension — The expression ‘against her will’ would ordinarily mean that the intercourse was done by a man with a woman despite her resistance and opposition — On the other hand, the expression ‘without her consent’ would comprehend an act of reason accompanied by deliberation.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Punishment for rape — Evidence of the prosecutrix is similar to the evidence of an injured complainant or witness — The testimony of prosecutrix, if found to be reliable, by itself, may be sufficient to convict the culprit and no corroboration of her evidence is necessary.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — In prosecutions of rape, the law does not require corroboration — The evidence of the prosecutrix may sustain a conviction — It is only by way of abundant caution that court may look for some corroboration so as to satisfy its conscience and rule out any false accusations.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Evidence of the prosecutrix — Held, in examining the evidence of the prosecutrix the courts must be alive to the conditions prevalent in the Indian society and must not be swayed by beliefs in other countries — The courts must be sensitive and responsive to the plight of the female victim of sexual assault — Society’s belief and value systems need to be kept uppermost in mind as rape is the worst form of woman’s oppression.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Leveling of false accusations — A forcible sexual assault brings in humiliation, feeling of disgust, tremendous embarrassment, sense of shame, trauma and lifelong emotional scar to a victim and it is, therefore, most unlikely of a woman, and more so by a young woman, roping in somebody falsely in the crime of rape — The stigma that attaches to the victim of rape in Indian society ordinarily rules out the leveling of false accusations — An Indian woman traditionally will not concoct an untruthful story and bring charges of rape for the purpose of blackmail, hatred, spite or revenge.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Contradictions and omissions in the testimony of the prosecutrix — Held, the prosecutrix being illiterate and rustic young woman, some contradictions and omissions are natural as her recollection, observance, memory and narration of chain of events may not be precise.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no alarm was raised by the prosecutrix at the bus stand or the other places where she was taken and that creates serious doubt about truthfulness of her evidence — This argument of the learned counsel overlooks the situation in which the prosecutrix was placed — She had been kidnapped by two adult males, one of them – A-1 – wielded firearm and threatened her and she was taken away from her village — In the circumstances, it made sensible decision not to raise alarm — Any alarm at unknown place might have endangered her life — The absence of alarm by her at the public place cannot lead to an inference that she had willingly accompanied A-1 and A-2 — The circumstances made her submissive victim and that does not mean that she was inclined and willing to intercourse with A-1 — She had no free act of the mind during her stay with A-1 as she was under constant fear.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Lady doctor did not find any injury on the external or internal part of body of the prosecutrix and opined that the prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse — Held, that does not make the testimony of the prosecutrix unreliable.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Absence of injury on the external or internal part of the victim — Prosecutrix was recovered almost after three weeks — Obviously the sign of forcible intercourse would not persist for that long period.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — It is wrong to assume that in all cases of intercourse with the women against will or without consent, there would be some injury on the external or internal part of the victim.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Held, rape is a heinous crime and once it is established against a person charged of the offence, justice must be done to the victim of crime by awarding suitable punishment to the crime doer.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Punishment for rape — Fact that the incident is old, the prosecutrix has married after the incident and accused has a family of his own and sending the accused to jail now may disturb his family life, held, cannot be taken into consideration while awarding punishment — None of these factors individually or collectively will persuade the court to go for a “soft option”.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 375, Clause sixthly — Rape — Age of prosecutrix — There is no rule much less an absolute one that two years have to be added to the age determined by a doctor — State of Karnataka v. Bantara Sudhakara @ Sudha & Anr. (2008) 11 SCC 38 relied.

 
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 and Section 304 Part II — Prior to the incident which led to the death of the deceased, there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased, at the house of the accused — The deceased was under the influence of liquor and he was adamant and refused to leave the house of the accused — Due to this adamant behaviour of the deceased, the accused dragged him out of his house and inflicted blow on the head with the spade — Held, it is true that blow given by the accused on the deceased was at the vital part because of which he was unconscious for seven days and ultimately succumbed to his injuries — However, appellant-accused, had no pre-plan or intention to kill the deceased — Commission of offence attributed to the appellant-accused would come under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 of the IPC — Appeal partly allowed. 

 
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Conviction in a rape case, held, can  be recorded on the sole, uncorroborated testimony of a victim provided it does not suffer from any basic infirmities or improbabilities which render it unworthy of credence.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 366 and 376 r/w Section 109 — Victim had many opportunities to complain or to run away, but she made no such effort — She did not raise any protest at any stage — Held, such  behaviour on the part of victim is not natural — The appellants are clearly entitled to the benefit of doubt — Appeal allowed — All the appellants are acquitted.

 
Monday, January 10, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 r/w Section 120-B and Section 304 Part II r/w Section 34 — Respondents (Accused) after causing injuries to the deceased, called a doctor from the nearby hospital and on his advice, shifted the deceased to the hospital — The respondents gave their own blood to the deceased to save his life — Held, these mitigating circumstances are in the favour of the respondents to show that in inspite of the fact that they had committed the offence they did not intend to kill the deceased — Appeal allowed — Judgment of the High Court set aside and order of the trial court is modified to the extent that respondents are held guilty for the offence punishable under S. 304 Part II r/w S.34 IPC and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment each.

 
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 306, 498-A and 107 — Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113-A — Women comitted suicide in the 4th year of her marriage when she was six month’s pregnant — Evidence of Pws clearly establishes that the victim was subjected to cruelty — Held, ordinarily, a woman in an advanced stage of pregnancy would not commit suicide even when treated with cruelty — It is only in extreme circumstances that a woman may decide to take her life and that of her unborn child when she reaches a point of no return and is in a mental state to take her own life — The element of instigation as understood within the meaning of Section 107 IPC is duly satisfied in this case in view of the provisions of Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Petition dismissed — Judgment and order of the trial court and the High Court convicting the petitioner under Sections 306 and 498-A does not require any interference.

 
Thursday, December 02, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 306 and 498-A — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 154 and 161 — Allegations by the family members of the deceased that the deceased committed suicide due to demand of dowry and ill treatment — Not made either while lodging the FIR or while recording the statement under S. 161 of the Cr.P.C. — Such allegations had been made for the first time while making statements before the court during trial — Held, there were material contradictions and improvements, which were not mere elaborations of their statements already made — Thus, their statements in regard to those allegations were liable to be discarded — It is not safe to hold the appellants guilty of the offences alleged against them on such an improved version — Appeal allowed — Judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is hereby restored.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 306 and 498-A — Allegations of demand of dowry and ill treatment made after the expiry of a long period of about 61/2 years, from the date of marriage — Whether natural? — Held, no — It is unnatural that after expiry of such a long period, the appellants suddenly became greedy and started demanding ornaments and for not meeting their demand, started ill treating the deceased to the extent that she had to commit suicide.

 
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 34 and 149 — Distinction between section 34 and section 149 — Held:–

 

 (i) Section 34 does not by itself create any specific offence, whereas section 149 does so;

 

 (ii) Some active participation, especially in crime involving physical violence, is necessary under section 34, but section 149 does not require it and the liability arises by reason of mere membership of the unlawful assembly with a common object and there may be no active participation at all in preparation and commission of the crime; 

 

 (iii) Section 34 speaks of common intention, but section 149 contemplates common object which is undoubtedly wider in its scope and amplitude than intention; and

 

 (iv) Section 34 does not fix a minimum number of persons who must share the common intention, whereas section 149 requires that there must be at least five persons who must have the same common object.  

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 149 and 34 — Held, Section 149 IPC is of wider scope than section 34 IPC and in a case where section 149 applies, a constructive liability arises in respect of those persons who do not actually commit the offence.    

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 34 and 149 — Applicability of — Held, when several persons, numbering five or more, do an act or intend to do it, both sections 34 and 149 IPC may apply.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 34 and 149 — Vicarious  liability — Both sections 34 and 149 IPC deal with combinations of persons who become punishable as sharers in an offence — In both these sections, the persons are vicariously responsible for the acts of others — Simultaneously, there is a basic resemblance in both these sections and to some extent they also overlap.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34 — Held, Section 34 IPC does not create any distinct offence, but it lays down the principle of constructive liability — Section 34 IPC stipulates that the act must have been done in furtherance of the common intention — In order to incur joint liability for an offence there must be a pre-arranged and premeditated concert between the accused persons for doing the act actually done, though there might not be long interval between the act and the pre-meditation and though the plan may be formed suddenly — In order that section 34 IPC may apply, it is not necessary that the prosecution must prove that the act was done by a particular or a specified person — In fact, the section is intended to cover a case where a number of persons act together and on the facts of the case it is not possible for the prosecution to prove as to which of the persons who acted together actually committed the crime — Little or no distinction exists between a charge for an offence under a particular section and a charge under that section read with section 34.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34 — The essence of section 34 IPC is a simultaneous consensus of the minds of the persons participating in criminal action to bring about a particular result.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34 — The dominant feature of section 34 is the element of intention and participation in action — This participation need not in all cases be by physical presence — Common intention implies acting in concert.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34 — The common intention postulates the existence of a pre-arranged plan implying a prior meeting of the minds — It is the intention to commit the crime and the accused can be convicted only if such an intention has been shared by all the accused — Such a common intention should be anterior in point of time to the commission of the crime, but may also develop on the spot when such a crime is committed — In most of the cases it is difficult to procure direct evidence of such intention — In most of the cases, it can be inferred from the acts or conduct of the accused and other relevant circumstances — Therefore, in inferring the common intention under section 34 IPC, the evidence and documents on record acquire a great significance and they have to be very carefully scrutinized by the court — This is particularly important in cases where evidence regarding development of the common intention to commit the offence graver, then, the one originally designed, during execution of the original plan, should be clear and cogent.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34 — Vicarious or constructive liability — Held, the vicarious or constructive liability under section 34 IPC can arise only when two conditions stand fulfilled, i.e., the mental element or the intention to commit the criminal act conjointly with another or others; and the other is the actual participation in one form or the other in the commission of the crime.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 34 and 149 — Vicarious  liability — Under the Indian Penal Code, two sections, namely, sections 34 and 149, deal with the circumstances when a person is vicariously responsible for the acts of others.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34 — Unless common intention and participation are both present, this section cannot apply.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34 — In order to find whether a person is guilty of common intention, it is absolutely necessary to carefully and critically examine the entire evidence on record — The common intention can be spelt out only from the evidence on record.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34 — The common intention may develop in course of the fight but there must be clear and unimpeachable evidence to justify that inference.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34 — Though common intention may develop on the spot, it must, however, be anterior in point of time to the commission of the crime showing a pre-arranged plan and prior concert.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34 — Under this section a pre-concert in the sense of a distinct previous plan is not necessary to be proved.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34 — Words “common intention” — The words “common intention” implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the plan — It must be proved that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan — Common intention comes into force prior to the commission of the act in point of time, which need not be a long gap.

 
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 304-B and 302 — Direction to the trial Courts in cases relating to dowry deaths — Held, all trial Courts in India should ordinarily add Section 302 to the charge of section 304B, so that death sentences can be imposed in such heinous and barbaric crimes against women.

 
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Murder by double barelled gun — Single shot fired — Whether multiple injuries possible? — Held, yes — Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (19th Ed. Pg. 221).

 
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34 — In order to attract Section 34 of the IPC, the complaint must, prima facie, reflect a common prior concert or planning amongst all the accused. 

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 192 — It is plain that for constituting an offence under Section 192 IPC, the following ingredients must be satisfied: 

 

(i) Causing any circumstance to exist, or making any false entry in any book or record or making any document containing a false statement. 

 

(ii) Doing one of the above acts with the intention that it may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant or an arbitrator. 

 

(iii) Doing such act with the intention that it may cause any person, who in such proceeding, is to form an opinion upon the evidence to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding. (See: Babulal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.22.)

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 199 — Held, Section 199 IPC requires the following ingredients to be established: 

 

“(i) Making of a declaration which a Court or a public servant is bound or authorised by law to receive in evidence. 

 

(ii) Making of a false statement in such declaration knowing or believing it to be false. 

 

(iii) Such false statement must be touching any point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used.”

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 192 and 199 — Fabricated document tendered in evidence before the Arbitral Tribunal — Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant No.1 that the arbitral award on the basis whereof the said complaint has been filed has been set aside and therefore, the complaint is liable to be quashed on this ground — Held, the submission is untenable as the offences under Sections 192 and 199 IPC, if made out, exist independent of the final arbitral award.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 192 and 199 — Principle of vicarious liability — Neither Section 192 IPC nor Section 199 IPC, incorporate the principle of vicarious liability — It is incumbent on the complainant to specifically aver the role of each of the accused in the complaint.

 
Friday, October 08, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 34 and 149 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 215, 216, 218, 221 and 464 — Effect of failure to frame proper charges — In the present case, it has been canvassed on behalf of the appellants that there was no charge framed under Section 34 IPC by the trial Court and appellants and other co-accused have been charged under Section 147/148 IPC — All of them have been acquitted for the said charges — Thus, it was not permissible for the High Court to convict the appellants with the aid of Section 34 IPC — Non-framing of charge is fatal to the prosecution — Thus, the appellants are entitled for acquittal on this ground alone — Held, there is no bar in law on conviction of the accused with the aid of Section 34 IPC in place of Section 149 IPC if there is evidence on record to show that such accused shared a common intention to commit the crime and no apparent injustice or prejudice is shown to have been caused by application of Section 34 IPC in place of Section 149 IPC — The absence of a charge under one or the other or the various heads of criminal liability for the offence cannot be said to be by itself prejudicial to the accused, and before a conviction for the substantive offence without a charge can be set aside, prejudice will have to be made out — Such a legal position is bound to be held good in view of the provisions of Sections 215, 216, 218, 221 and 464 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34 — Held, Section 34 IPC carves out an exception from general law that a person is responsible for his own act, as it provides that a person can also be held vicariously responsible for the act of others if he has the “common intention” to commit the offence — The phrase “common intention” implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the plan — Thus, the common intention must be there prior to the commission of the offence in point of time — The common intention to bring about a particular result may also well develop on the spot as between a number of persons, with reference to the facts of the case and circumstances existing thereto — The common intention under Section 34 IPC is to be understood in a different sense from the “same intention” or “similar intention” or “common object” — The persons having similar intention which is not the result of the prearranged plan cannot be held guilty of the criminal act with the aid of Section 34 IPC — Mohan Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 174 relied.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34 — The establishment of an overt act is not a requirement of law to allow Section 34 to operate inasmuch this Section gets attracted when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all — What has, therefore, to be established by the prosecution is that all the concerned persons had shared a common intention — Krishnan & Anr. v. State of Kerala, (1996) 10 SCC 508; and Harbans Kaur & Anr. v. State of Haryana, (2005) 9 SCC 195) relied.  

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34 — Undoubtedly, the ingredients of Section 34, i.e., that the accused had acted in furtherance of their common intention is required to be proved specifically or by inference, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34 — Section 34 can be invoked even in those cases where some of the coaccused may be acquitted provided, it can be proved either by direct evidence or inference that the accused and the others have committed an offence in pursuance of the common intention of the group — Prabhu Babaji v. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 51 relied.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34 — Held, Section 34 intends to meet a case in which it is not possible to distinguish between the criminal acts of the individual members of a party, who act in furtherance of the common intention of all the members of the party or it is not possible to prove exactly what part was played by each of them — In the absence of common intention, the criminal liability of a member of the group might differ according to the mode of the individual’s participation in the act — Common intention means that each member of the group is aware of the act to be committed.

 
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A — Cruelty — If a husband was living with another woman besides his wife, whether the same would amount to “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 498A? — Held, if such other woman was not connected to the husband by blood or marriage, the same would not attract the provisions of Section 498A I.P.C., although it could be an act of cruelty for the purpose of judicial separation or dissolution of marriage under the marriage laws, but could not be stretched to amount to “cruelty” under Section 498A IPC.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A — Held, Section 498A being a penal provision deserved strict construction and by no stretch of imagination would a girlfriend or even a concubine be a “relative”, which status could be conferred either by blood connection or marriage or adoption — If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A — Doctrine of acknowledgement — Appellant, in the present case, filed an application for discharge, contending that she could not be made an accused under Section 498A IPC since she was not a relative of Mukund Chandra Pandit and that the allegations made against her did not make out a case of cruelty under the aforesaid Section — The learned Magistrate, however, rejected the Appellant’s application for discharge on the ground that there was prima facie evidence for framing of charge against the accused, including the Appellant, under Section 498A IPC — Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant moved the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi by way of Criminal Revision No.410 of 2007 — Said revision application was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that since the Appellant was living with the accused husband of the complainant, she must be deemed to have become a family member of Mukund Chandra Pandit for the purpose of Section 498A IPC — Held, the High Court committed an error in bestowing upon the Appellant the status of wife and, therefore, a member of Mukund Chandra Pandit’s family — The doctrine of acknowledgement would not be available in the facts of this case — Appeal allowed — Judgment of the High Court set aside.

 
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 354 and 452 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 211, 212, 215 and 464 — One of the contentions urged by the accused before the appellate court and High Court, in the present case, was that the charge against him was that he attempted to outrage the modesty of Prakashi Devi (PW-1) whereas the evidence was to show that he attempted to outrage the modesty of her daughter-in-law Sheela Devi — He contended that as the charge levelled against him was not proved, and as he was not required to defend himself against a charge that he assaulted and outraged the modesty of Sheela Devi, he ought to have been acquitted — This was negatived by the appellate court and High Court holding that an accused cannot take advantage of a technical defect in framing the charge — It was held that mentioning the name of Prakashi Devi instead of the name of Sheela Devi in the charge was an error that did not prejudice the accused — Held,  if Sheela Devi alone had been present at the house at the time of the incident and the accused had assaulted and outraged the modesty of the said Sheela Devi, but in the charge the name of the victim had been erroneously mentioned, say as Sushila Devi or Prakashi Devi (though there was no person by such name), and the inquiry exclusively referred to the assault and outraging the modesty of Sheela Devi, the court could infer that the accused was not misled and the error in the charge was immaterial — On the other hand, if two persons were present in the house at the time of the incident namely Prakashi Devi and Sheela Devi and the accused is charged with trespassing into the house of Prakashi Devi, and assaulting and outraging the modesty of the said Prakashi Devi, and the witnesses refer only to the assault and outraging the modesty of Sheela Devi, the court will have to infer that the accused was prejudiced, if the accused had solely concentrated and focused his defence and entire cross-examination to show that he did not commit the offences against Prakashi Devi — Appeal allowed — Conviction of the accused set aside — Matter  remitted  to the trial court with a direction for a new trial after framing a charge by substituting the words “her daughter-in-law Sheela Devi” for the words “abovenamed Prakashi Devi”, in the second part of the charge. 

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 354 and 452 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 211, 212, 215 and 464 — When the charge is that the accused assaulted ‘X’ and outraged her modesty, but the evidence is that he assaulted ‘Y’ to outrage her modesty, can the accused be punished, for having assaulting and outraging the modesty of ‘Y’, even though he was not charged with any offence with reference to ‘Y’, on the ground that the error or omission in the charge did not prejudice the accused or result in failure of justice — Held, no — An accused cannot be punished for committing an offence against ‘Y’ when he is charged with having committed the offence against ‘X’ and the entire defence of the accused was with reference to charge of having committed offence against ‘X’. 

 
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 366A, 372 and 373 — All the three sections make it clear that if the victim is under the age of 18 years and whoever uses, procures, employs, buys or hires such person for prostitution or for illicit intercourse with any person or for any immoral purpose are liable to be punished — The maximum sentence prescribed is 10 years and also liable to fine.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 366A, 372, 373 read with Section 34 — Minor girl sold for illegal and immoral purposes — Held, it is just and proper that a deterrent sentence is to be imposed on the accused — Sentence of 7 years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the High Court is quite reasonable and acceptable — There is no valid ground for interference in the quantum of sentence — Both the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.

 
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Absence of motive — Whether accused can be given benefit of reasonable doubt? — Held, the argument that in absence of motive on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased benefit of reasonable doubt should be given, cannot be accepted — First of all every suspicion is not a doubt — Only reasonable doubt gives benefit to the accused and not the doubt of a vacillating judge — Very often a motive is alleged to indicate the high degree of probability that the offence was committed by the person who was prompted by the motive — In a case when the motive alleged against accused is fully established, it provides foundational material to connect the chain of circumstances — It afforts a key on a pointer to scan the evidence in the case in that perspective and as a satisfactory circumstance of corroboration — However, in a case based on circumstantial evidence where proved circumstances complete the chain of evidence, it cannot be said that in absence of motive, the other proved circumstances are of no consequence — The absence of motive, however, puts the court on its guard to scrutinize the circumstances more carefully to ensure that suspicion and conjecture do not take place of legal proof — There is no absolute legal proposition of law that in the absence of any motive an accused cannot be convicted under Section 302 IPC — Effect of absence of motive would depend on the facts of each case.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Murder — Motive — Evidence produced by the procecution, in the present case, indicate that the appellant accused had dislike for his deceased wife as he was suspecting that he had not fathered the child and he was contemplating to marry another girl — Evidence produced by the prosecution also indicates that appellant was definitely causing mental cruelty to the deceased — Held, this constitutes sufficient motive on the part of the appellant to kill his wife and child.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — If all the circumstances mentioned, in the present case, are taken together coupled with the absence of any material to indicate that Chethana had committed suicide with the child, they lead to only one inference that in all human probability the murders of the deceased were committed by the appellant alone and none else.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Murder — Case against the appellant rests on circumstantial evidence — Offering of false explanation by the appellant regarding death of his wife and child will have to be regarded as an additional circumstance against him strengthening the chain of circumstances already firmly found.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Murder — Case based on circumstantial evidence — Absence of motive — Effect thereof — Held, in a case based on circumstantial evidence where proved circumstances complete the chain of evidence, it cannot be said that in absence of motive, the other proved circumstances are of no consequence — Further held,  where various links in chain are in themselves complete, then the false plea or false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court.

 
Friday, August 27, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498-A — It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations — There are large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498-A — Social responsibility and obligation of Bar — The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished — They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints — Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence — The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem — They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact — The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.  

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498-A — Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498-A — Complaint — To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints — The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon — At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth — The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498-A — Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498-A — It is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints — The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases — Therefore, serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498-A — Allegations of harassment against husband’s close relations — Held, the allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion — The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498-A — It is a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether — The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.

 
Friday, August 13, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 306 and 309 — While suicide in itself is not an offence, considering that the successful offender is beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under Section 309 IPC.   

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 306 — Suicide — In order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence — It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

 
Friday, August 06, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Evidence Act, 1872, Extra Judicial Confession, Section 27 — In the present case, there is no eye-witness of the crime and in order to bring home the charge the prosecution has relied on the extrajudicial confession said to have been made by the appellant in the Panchayat in the presence of PWs.1 to 4 and further recovery of weapon by the Investigating Officer at his instance — PW.1 Madvi Rama, PW.2 Mangdu, PW.3 Aaita and PW.4 Lekhan in their evidence had stated that the meeting was called in the village after the death of the deceased, but PW.2 Mangdu and PW.4 Lekhan have nowhere stated that extrajudicial confession was made by the appellant admitting that he had killed the deceased — PW.1, Madvi Rama and PW.3, Aaita too have not stated anything about extrajudicial confession in their examination in chief but after being declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution they disclosed that the appellant had confessed that he killed the deceased with the burnt stick as she told him that he was wandering after consuming liquor — However, when crossexamined by the defence, again they admitted that no such confession was made by the appellant — Held, the evidence of both the prosecution witnesses are slippery and from their evidence, it is difficult to hold with certainty that any extra judicial confession in fact was made by the appellant — This state of evidence leaves us in doubt and we are of the opinion that the witnesses of the extrajudicial confession do not inspire confidence and merely on the ground of recovery of weapon of crime at the instance of the appellant, it shall be unsafe to sustain the conviction of the appellant — Accordingly, we grant appellant the benefit of doubt — Appeal allowed — Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant set aside. 

 
Monday, August 02, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Intention of the accused — As nobody can enter into the mind of the accused, its intention has to be gathered from the weapon used, the part of the body chosen for the assault and the nature of the injuries caused.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — The appellant, in the present case, had chosen a crow bar as the weapon of offence — He has further chosen a vital part of the body i.e. head for causing the injury which had caused multiple fractures of skull — This clearly shows the force with which the appellant had used the weapon — The cumulative effect of all these factors irresistibly lead to one and the only conclusion that the appellant intended to cause death of the deceased — Appeal dismissed.

 
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498-A — Held, Section 498A, IPC being a penal provision would deserve strict construction.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498-A — Word ‘relative’ — Held, the word ‘relative’ would not include a paramour or concubine or so — U. Suvetha v. State By Inspector of Police & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 757] relied.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498-A — Word ‘relative’ — In order to be covered under Section 498A, IPC one has to be a ‘relative’ of the husband by blood, marriage or adoption — U. Suvetha v. State By Inspector of Police & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 757] relied.

 
Friday, July 16, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304-A — Expression “rash or negligent” — Held, three-Judge bench in the case of Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and another – (2005) 6 SCC 1, has held that the expression “rash or negligent act” as occurring in Section 304-A IPC has to be read as qualified by the word “grossly”.

 
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34 — Common intention — Existence — Proof thereof — Since intention is a state of mind, it is therefore very difficult, if not impossible, to get or procure direct proof of common intention — Therefore, courts, in most cases, have to infer the intention from the act(s) or conduct of the accused or other relevant circumstances of the case — An inference as to the common intention shall not be readily drawn — Such inference can be drawn with a certain degree of assurance — Girija Shankar v. State of U.P. (2004) 3 SCC 793 and Vaijayanti v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 13 SCC 134 referred.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34 — Precise nature, purpose and scope — Discussed in view of law laid down in Girija Shankar v. State of U.P. (2004) 3 SCC 793 and Vaijayanti v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 13 SCC 134 referred.  

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34 — Common intention — Inference thereof — Held — The existence of common intention is a question of fact — Since intention is a state of mind, it is therefore very difficult, if not impossible, to get or procure direct proof of common intention. Therefore, courts, in most cases, have to infer the intention from the act(s) or conduct of the accused or other relevant circumstances of the case — However, an inference as to the common intention shall not be readily drawn; the criminal liability can arise only when such inference can be drawn with a certain degree of assurance — Girija Shankar v. State of U.P. (2004) 3 SCC 793 and Vaijayanti v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 13 SCC 134 referred.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 read with section 34 — In the present case, as per the evidence of prosecution witnesses the acid was thrown over the deceased — Which caused blisters and rashes on her body and later led to her death — This fact finds corroboration in the dying declaration given by the deceased — Wherein the deceased has categorically stated that accused no.1 and the appellant had entered into her house and accused no.1 poured a watery substance over her from the pot which the accused no.1 was carrying in his hand — Deceased, in her dying declaration, while accusing  both the accused no.1 and the appellant of demanding illicit body relations with her as also entering into her house, had attributed the acts of carrying the vessel containing the acid and throwing the contents thereof on her only to accused no.1 — Question arose — Whether the appellant shared an intention common with the accused no.1 so that he may be convicted under Section 302 IPC by invoking the aid of Section 34 IPC ? — Held — In absence of any active role played by the appellant or overt act being done by the appellant, it cannot be said with certainty that the appellant had accompanied the accused no.1 to the house of the deceased with a common intention to murder the deceased. In view thereof, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained — However, the appellant is held liable to be punished under Section 326 IPC and under Section 304 part II.

 
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Absence of injuries — Effect thereof — Held, the victim is a married grown up lady and blessed with two children and in such circumstances the absence of injuries on her private parts is not of much significance — The mere fact that no injuries were found on private parts of her body cannot be the ground to hold that she was not subjected to any sexual assault — The entire prosecution story cannot be disbelieved based on that singular assertion of the learned counsel for the accused.

 
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304-B — Appellant convicted under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life — Held,  sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the courts below appears to be excessive — The appellant is a young man and has already undergone 6 years of imprisonment after being convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court — Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice — Accordingly while confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B IPC, the sentence of imprisonment for life is reduced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304-B — Cruelty — The circumstances surrounding the present case, where there was pressure on the deceased to arrange a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- and the consequent misdemeanor on the part of the appellant, held, no doubt puts serious apprehension on the mind of the deceased, that, if she continues to stay with the appellant, she might be assaulted physically and mentally — The threats by the husband of the deceased over the course of two days, when the deceased was  in her matrimonial home might have been enough for the deceased who was in a fragile state of mind to reach breaking point and end her life.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304-B — Unnatural death — The post mortem report, in the present case, suggests that the body of the deceased was bearing the mark of hanging and there is the indication of an injury mark 8 inches long around the neck — The cause of death was shock and asphyxia as a result of hanging — There are also unexplained traces of scratches around the neck region — This raises serious doubts about the possibility of strangulation of the deceased, as opined by Dr. T. Parashuramappa PW-24 — Therefore, it is beyond doubt that the death was an unnatural death.

 
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Blood stained clothes not sent for chemical examination — Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-accused that the blood stained clothes which were said to have been handed over to the Officer-in-Charge at the Police Station by the husband of the victim were not sent for chemical examination and, therefore, the corroboration with which such evidence could offer was absent — Held, the failure of the investigating agency cannot be a ground to discredit the testimony of the victim — The victim had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence, if any, of the investigating officer could not affect the credibility of the statement of PW-1 – the victim.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Absence of defence injuries — Held, much importance cannot be given to the absence of defence injuries, because it is not inevitable rule that in the absence of defence injuries the prosecution must necessarily fail to establish its case. 

 
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Seizure of blood stained underwear put on by the accused after four days of commision of offence of rape — Effect thereof — Held, the fact that the blood stained underwear put on by the appellant was seized after four days, held, does not make any dent in the prosecution case on the ground that a person would not move with such blood stained underwear for 3–4 days — If blood stains are found on the shirt or pant of a person then normally such person would not move in the village with those clothes on, because stains of blood would be visible and noticed by anyone — However, it is almost difficult for anyone to notice stains of blood on underwear worn by a person — Further, the sense of cleanliness of a rustic villager cannot be ignored by the Court.

 
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 306 — In order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence — It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 306 — According to the case of the prosecution, in the present case, the appellant, who is an agriculturist had harassed his agriculture labour (servant) deceased Ramulu by levelling the allegation that he had committed theft of some gold ornaments two days prior to his death — The prosecution further alleged that the deceased Ramulu could not bear the harassment meted out to him and he committed suicide by consuming pesticides — Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 306 of the Code and his conviction on appeal was confirmed by the High Court — Appeal against — Held, the deceased was undoubtedly hyper sensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life — The conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained — In order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide — Appeal allowed — Order convicting the appellant under Section 306 of IPC set aside.

 
Friday, January 08, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Age of prosecutrix — Failure of getting the prosecutrix examined from the Dental Surgeon or the Radiologist despite the fact that she was referred to them by the doctor who examined her, held, is a serious flaw in the prosecution version — It is, however, to be noted that it is not a rule that all these tests must be performed in all cases, but in the instant case, in absence of primary evidence, reports of the Dental Surgeon and the Radiologist would have helped in arriving at the conclusion regarding the age of the prosecutrix.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Age of prosecutrix — Father of the prosecutrix has also not been able to give correct date of birth of the prosecutrix — In his statement he clearly stated that he is giving an approximate date without any basis or record — Held, in a criminal case, the conviction of the appellant cannot be based on an approximate date which is not supported by any record — It would be quite unsafe to base conviction on an approximate date.

 
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Doctor who had initially conducted the medical examination of the prosecutrix, has not appeared on behalf of the prosecution to depose — Held, that alone is not sufficient to discard the prosecution story — Corroboration is not the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — Rape — Even a slightest penetration is sufficient to make out an offence of rape and depth of penetration is immaterial — Therefore, contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, in the present case, that since hymen of the prosecutrix was found to be in tact, therefore, it cannot be said that an offence of rape was committed on her by the appellant, held, not tenable.

 
Friday, December 18, 2009
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 readwith Section 149 and Section 148 — Where an accused is charged under Section 148 IPC and acquitted, conviction of such accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC could not be legally recorded.

 
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indan Penal Code, 1860 — Section 306 — In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide — Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. 
 

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indan Penal Code, 1860 — Section 306 — Held, before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life — It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide — Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indan Penal Code, 1860 — Section 306 readwith Section 107 — Deceased committed suicide when his husband (appellant) brought another lady named Anita to stay with him at his house — Whether such act of appellant can be taken to have instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide? — Held, appellant had brought Anita to stay with him at his house three months prior to the date of the death of the deceased — If the deceased had been so perturbed by the act of the appellant in marrying the said Anita and in bringing her to his house that she felt impelled to commit suicide then she could have done so on the very day when Anita had come to stay with the appellant in his house as naturally at that point of time her annoyance or dismay with life would have been at its pinnacle — From the period of three months which elapsed in between the incidents of the appellant bringing Anita to his house and the deceased committing suicide, it can be clearly inferred that it was not the act of the appellant which instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide.  

 
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 464, Second Clause — To attract the second clause of Section 464 there has to be alteration of document dishonestly and fraudulently — So in order to attract the clause “secondly” if the document is to be altered it has to be for some gain or with such objective on the part of the accused — Merely changing a document does not make it a false document. 

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 471 — This Section applies only in case of the use of a forged document as a genuine document.  

 
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304-B and Section 498-A — Suicide — Demand of dowry — Marriage, in the present case, took place in the year 1983 and the deceased committed suicide in the year 1989 i.e. after more than six years of the marriage — There are two small children out of the wedlock — Held, it is quite improbable that ordinarily there would be consistent demands of dowry after six years — The fact of consistent demands is not established from clear evidence of the prosecution.  

 
Friday, August 14, 2009
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304 — Held, there is no universal rule that whenever a single blow is inflicted resulting into death of the victim, the case would fall either under Part I or Part II of Section 304 IPC — Each case of single blow has to be decided on the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 299 and 300 — Held, whenever a Court is confronted with the question whether the offence is murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder on the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages — The question to be considered at the first stage would be whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another — Proof of such causal connection between the act of the accused and the death leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to culpable homicide as defined in Section 299 — If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300 IPC is reached — This is the stage at which the court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of the definition of murder contained in Section 300 IPC — If the answer to this question is in the negative, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Part I or Part II of Section 304 IPC, depending, respectively, on whether second or third clause of Section 299 IPC is applicable — If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300 IPC, the offence would still be culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under the First Part Section 304 IPC — The above are only broad guidelines and not cast-iron imperatives.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302, ‘Exception 1’ of Section 300 and Section 304 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 — Appellant, in the present case, convicted under Section 302 for killing his wife — Contention of the learned consel for the appellant that the appellant was deprived of the power of self control by grave and sudden provocation offered by the deceased when the deceased refused to withdraw the maintenance proceedings and had inflicted only one blow which ultimately resulted into her death and as the appellant had not taken undue advantage of the situation by inflicting another blow, the offence committed by the appellant would fall within ‘Exception 1’ of Section 300 IPC and, therefore, the appellant at the best would be liable to be convicted for commission of offence punishable either under Part I or Part II of Section 304 IPC — Held, not tenable — When a lady, entitled to initiate maintenance proceedings against her husband, refuses to accede to unreasonable demand made by her husband to withdraw the maintenance proceedings, it can hardly be said that her denial to accede to such unreasonable demand would amount to grave and sudden provocation within the meaning of ‘Exception 1’ of Section 300 IPC — In any view of the matter the facts of the case clearly indicate that the so called provocation was sought by the appellant himself as an excuse for killing his wife and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of ‘Exception 1’ to Section 300 IPC — Further held, there is no universal rule that whenever a single blow is inflicted resulting into death of the victim, the case would fall either under Part I or Part II of Section 304 IPC — Each case of single blow has to be decided on the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case.

 
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Panel Code, 1860 — Section 304 Part II — Held, Section 304 Part II comes into play when the death is caused by doing an act with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but there is no intention on the part of the accused either to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.   

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Panel Code, 1860 — Section 299 and Section 300 — Difference between — Explained. 

 
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A — Evidence Act, 1872, S. 32 (1) and S.6 — In a case where accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 306 IPC, and the death of wife is neither homicidal nor suicidal but accidental, whether the oral evidence of witnesses about what the deceased had told them against the accused about the treatment meted out to her is admissible under Section 32 (1) of the Evidence Act to sustain conviction under Section 498A, IPC? — Held, no — Appeal allowed — Conviction and sentence passed on the appellant under Section 498A, IPC is set aside.

 
Monday, July 13, 2009
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 279 and 304-A — The foundation in accusations under Section 279 IPC is not negligence — Similarly in Section 304 A the stress is on causing death by negligence or rashness — Therefore, for bringing in application of either Section 279 or 304 A it must be established that there was an element of rashness or negligence.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498-A — Cruelty — Held, “Cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498-A I.P.C. is to be established in the context of S. 498-A IPC as it may be a different from other statutory provisions — It is to be determined/infered by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide etc — It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint — Petty quarrels cannot be termed as ‘cruelty’ to attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC — Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty.  

 
Monday, April 13, 2009
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498-A — Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113-B — Held, Section 498-A IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act include in their amplitude past events of cruelty.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 304-B and 498-A — Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC cannot be held to be mutually inclusive — These provisions deal with two distinct offences — It is true that cruelty is a common essential to both the sections and that has to be proved — The Explanation to Section 498-A gives the meaning of “cruelty” — In Section 304-B there is no such explanation about the meaning of “cruelty” — But having regard to common background to these offences it has to be taken that the meaning of “cruelty” or “harassment” is the same as prescribed in the Explanation to Section 498-A under which “cruelty” by itself amounts to an offence.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498-A — Consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman, held, are required to be established in order to bring home the application of Section 498-A IPC.  

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 306 and 498-A — Difference between — Held, the basic difference between the two sections i.e. Section 306 and Section 498-A is that of intention — Under the latter, cruelty committed by the husband or his relations drag the woman concerned to commit suicide, while under the former provision suicide is abetted and intended.

 
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 306 — Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113-A — Abetment of suicide by a married woman — Although presumption against an accused has to be raised under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, the onus, held, is not as heavy as in the case of a dowry death.

 
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498-A — Consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman are required to be established in order to bring home the application of Section 498A IPC.  

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 304B and 498-A — Held, Sections 304B and 498A, IPC cannot be held to be mutually inclusive — These provisions deal with two distinct offences — It is true that cruelty is a common essential to both the Sections and that has to be proved — The Explanation to Section 498A gives the meaning of ‘cruelty’ — In Section 304B there is no such explanation about the meaning of ‘cruelty’ — But having regard to common background to these offences it has to be taken that the meaning of ‘cruelty’ or ‘harassment’ is the same as prescribed in the Explanation to Section 498A under which ‘cruelty’ by itself amounts to an offence.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 304B and 498-A — A person charged and acquitted under Section 304B can be convicted under Section 498A without that charge being there, if such a case is made out — If the case is established, there can be a conviction under both the sections.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498-A — Held, Section 498A IPC has two limbs — The first limb of Section 498A provides that whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished. ‘Cruelty’ has been defined in clause (a) of the Explanation to the said Section as any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive to a woman to commit suicide — When there is demand of dowry, the case comes under clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 498A.

 
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 376 and 511 — Rape — In the instant case though the rape does not appear to have been committed but the attempt to commit the rape is clearly established — That being so the conviction for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC is not made out but the offence punishable under Section 511 IPC is clearly made out.  

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 109 — Scope of — Explained.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 120-A, 120-B and 109 — Criminal conspiracy — An offence of criminal conspiracy, held, is an independent offence — It is made punishable under Section 120B for which a charge under Section 109 is unnecessary and inappropriate.  

 

 
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 307 — Attempt to murder — To justify a conviction under this Section, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted — Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds — The Section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any — Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this Section — It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted — What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section — An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act — It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 307 — Attempt to murder — The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 IPC — The determinative question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not nature of the injury.  

 
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 306 — Abetment of suicide — Held, in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide — The mere fact that the husband treated the deceased-wife with cruelty is not enough.     

 

 
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376(2)(g) — Appellant-accused, in the present case, was not apprehended at the spot unlike some other accused persons — The prosecutrix did not know him and had clearly accepted this fact — Only evidence pressed into service by the prosecution so far as the appellant is concerned, was that his name was similar to one of the names which the accused persons were addressing each other, as stated by the prosecutrix — Held, that cannot be by any stretch of imagination an incriminating material — No evidence was led to show the presence of the appellant at the spot of occurrence or to have participated in the crime — That being so, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the accusations so far as the appellant is concerned — He is acquitted of the charges — Appeal allowed.  

 
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 — Held, offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 etc. can by no stretch of imagination by their very nature be regarded as having been committed by a public servant while ‘acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty’ — Prakash Singh Badal vs. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1 relied.

 
Monday, May 12, 2008
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376(2)(g) — Gang rape — Prosecutrix had not named accused Nos.5 and 6 either in the FIR or in her deposition — They had been arrested on the basis of the statements made by their co-accused — They had not been put to Test Identification Parade — Held, in absence of any Test Identification Parade having been held or they having been identified in court, the accused Nos.4 to 6 cannot be held guilty of commission of the said offence — They have wrongly been convicted.  

 
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304-B — Cousin of the deceased married appellant-accused — Whether a ground to reject the prosecution story? — Held, no — Only because such a marriage has allegedly taken place, the same by itself cannot be said to be a ground for rejecting the prosecution story — These contentions can also not lead to the acceptance of application for condoning the offence as offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable.

 
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 375 read with Section 90 — Rape — Consent — Mis-conception of fact — Representation deliberately made by the accused with a view to elicit the assent of the victim without having the intention or inclination to marry her, held, will vitiate the consent.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 90 — Consent — Court has to see whether the person giving the consent has given it under fear or misconception of fact and the court should also be satisfied that the person doing the act i.e. the alleged offender is conscious of the fact or should have reason to think that but for the fear or misconception, the consent would not have been given — This is the scheme of Section 90 which is couched in negative terminology.

 
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 405 and 415 — Non-payment or under-payment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 201 — Applicability — Section 201, held, would have application even if the main offence is not established — V.L. Tresa vs. State of Kerala 2001 (3) SCC 549, relied.

 
Monday, August 13, 2007
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 294 and 323 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 468 — Complaint, in the present case, was filed within 3 days of the incident i.e. the incident took place on February 2, 1996 and the complaint was filed on February 5, 1996 — Cognizance was admittedly taken on August 8, 1997, i.e. after more than one year of the commission of offences — Contention of the accused that no cognizance could have been taken by the Court after the period of one year of limitation prescribed for the offences under Sections 294 and 323, IPC and the complaint was barred by limitation — Held, not tenable — Relevant date for deciding whether the complaint is barred by limitation is the date of the filing of complaint and not issuance of process or taking of cognizance by Court — Appeal allowed.

 
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498-A — Dowry demand — Section 498-A does not specifically speak of a dowry demand — It speaks of unlawful demand for property and valuable articles.

 
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498-A — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Sections 3, 4 and 6 — Demand of dowry — To substantiate the plea of demand of dowry, three letters were exhibited, which are Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4 — Ex.P4 only speaks of a apprehension of a second marriage — Contention of the counsel for the respondent-State that the demand of dowry is in the background and has to be inferred — Held, not tenable.

 

 
Friday, June 15, 2007
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 325 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 360 — Appellant convicted for an offence punishable under Section 325 IPC — The counsel for the appellant referred to a decision of this Court in Om Prakash & Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2001) 10 SCC 477 and submitted that all the orders deserve to be quashed and set aside by granting benefit of probation to the appellant who, though more than 21 years of age, the offence in question was his first offence — Held, submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the case is covered by Om Prakash is not well founded — In Om Prakash, one of the important element of a crime ‘mens rea’ was absent — In the case on hand, the appellant-accused caused grievous injury to the complainant intentionally and hence Om Prakash has no application — Appeal is partly allowed by holding that the sentence already undergone by the appellant is held sufficient and adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case.

 
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498-A and 406 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 4 — Appellant-wife filed the criminal case under Section 498A etc. not only against her husband but also against her husband’s father, mother, brother, sister, etc. — She has also filed a maintenance petition against her husband — Held, appellant will not get any benefit by sending her husband or his family members to jail — She is pursuing her maintenance case, and if she is so advised she can also file a suit for damages, which if filed will be decided on its own merits — High Court has rightly quashed the criminal case filed by the appellant — Appeal dismissed.

 
Monday, October 16, 2006
Indian Penal Code, 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376(2)(g), Expl.I — Gang rape — Can a lady be prosecuted for gang rape ? — Held, no — View of the High Court that though a woman cannot commit rape, but if a woman facilitates the act of rape, Explanation-I to Section 376(2) comes into operation and she can be prosecuted for “gang rape” — Held, is not correct — Appeal allowed.

 
Act Topic
Rule Citation
Keyword
 
Free Text Search
 
Follow us on :
(Best view with 1024x768 Resolution)
© All rights including Copyrights and rights of translations etc, reserved and vested exclusively with Deepak Publications. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronics, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrival system of any nature without the written permission of the copyright owner.

By using this site, you (and any entity on whose behalf your are acting) are consenting to be bound by Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy & Disclaimer Clause.