This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.
Culpable Homicide—Accused gave blow with iron rod, in heat of passion to his mother-in-law—Conviction should be under Section 304 Part I instead of Section 302 IPC.
Bysclaw
Jul 9, 2017
By sclaw
Related Post
Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 45, 53 — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 2(17), 4 — “Life imprisonment” — Meaning — Life imprisonment under Section 53 read with Section 45 IPC (and correspondingly under the BNS) means imprisonment for the rest of the convict’s natural life, terminable only by commutation or remission by competent authority, and not a fixed term of 14 years.
Jul 30, 2026
sclaw
Multiple FIRs across States cannot be quashed or clubbed under Article 32 where they relate to distinct transactions, victims, and offences despite similar modus operandi. A. Cyber Fraud — Multiple FIRs across States — Clubbing declined — Clubbing/consolidation of FIRs registered in different States was declined where each FIR was lodged by a different complainant induced to part with money on separate occasions, with distinct victims, amounts and transactions, notwithstanding a common bank account and similar modus operandi; clubbing at a nascent investigation stage involving complex cyber-forensic tracing would impede fair investigation and cause hardship to complainants.
Jul 25, 2026
sclaw
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294(b) — Obscenity — Distinction between “obscene” and “abusive”/”vulgar” language — Test of — Held, to attract S. 294(b) IPC, prosecution must prove: (i) an obscene act done, or obscene word/song/ballad uttered, in or near a public place; and (ii) such act/utterance caused annoyance to others — Word “obscene” undefined under IPC but judicially construed, in the context of S. 292 IPC, to mean material which, taken as a whole, is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, and tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to be exposed to it — “Community standard test” (Aveek Sarkar) applicable, not the Hicklin test — Mere vulgarity, abuse or profanity, however distasteful, uncivil or shocking, does not ipso facto constitute obscenity — Vulgarity may evoke disgust or revulsion but lacks the depraving/corrupting tendency essential to obscenity — Appellant’s utterance of abusive and expletive-laden words against complainant during a quarrel, though coarse and offensive, held neither lascivious nor appealing to prurient interest nor shown to have caused annoyance to others in the public place — Conviction under S. 294(b) IPC set aside.
Jul 19, 2026
sclaw
