I P C Archives - Page 63 of 65 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

November 9, 2026 6:27 am

Misappropriation of Amount–Entrustment not involved–Primarily civil dispute is made out.

Apr 8, 2017 sclaw

2007(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1077 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir Civil Appeal No. 3030 of…

I P C

Unlawful Assembly–Common Object–Expression “Knew”– Even if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object of the assembly, it may yet fall under Section 141 IPC, if it can be held that the offence was such as the members knew was likely to be committed.

Apr 8, 2017 sclaw

2007(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1071 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta Criminal Appeal No. 359 of…

I P C

Private defence—Right of—Where accused party was the aggressor it could not claim right of self defence and such right does not include a right to launch an offensive or aggression.

Apr 8, 2017 sclaw

2007(2) Law Herald (SC) 1028 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain Criminal Appeal No. 143 of…

Cr P C I P C

Rape–Accuseds were sexually obsessed youngsters–Death penalty awarded. Murder–Circumstantial Evidence–Onus is on the prosecution to prove that chain is complete–Circumstances to be proved; enumerated Death Penalty–Rarest of rare cases–Test to determine.

Apr 8, 2017 sclaw

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 900 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arjit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta Criminal Appeal No. 202…

I P C

Murder—Common Intention—Petitioner was carrying lathi and no injury was caused with lathi—However, he was accompanying accused who were carrying fire arms—Petitioner liable to be convicted u/s 302 r/w 34.

Apr 8, 2017 sclaw

2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 65 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 505 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman Criminal…

I P C

Murder—Essential ingredients to bring a case under Section 300″thirdly” IPC; enumerated.Even if the intention of accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and did not extend to the intention of causing death, the offence would be murder.

Apr 8, 2017 sclaw

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 853 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia Criminal Appeal No. 214…

I P C

Murder—Bodily Injury—Even if the intention of the accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and did not extend to the intention of causing death, the offence would be murder.

Apr 8, 2017 sclaw

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 844 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia Criminal Appeal No.222 of…

I P C

Death Sentence—In rarest of rare case when collective conscience of the community is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power center to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise retaining death penalty.

Apr 7, 2017 sclaw

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 771 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.P. Naolekar Criminal Appeal No. 895 of 2005…

I P C

Common Intention—It may develop on the spot among a number of persons and hence pre-concert in the sense of distinct previous plan is not necessary to attract Section 34 IPC.

Apr 7, 2017 sclaw

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 705 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2007…

I P C

Murder– Appreciation of evidence–Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way–There is not set rule of natural reaction–Evidence of witness not be discarded on that ground. Murder—Evidence—Adverse inference should not be drawn against prosecution for non examination of the informant and other material witness.

Apr 7, 2017 sclaw

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 664 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta Criminal Appeal No. 744 of…

You missed

Constitution

Misappropriation of Amount–Entrustment not involved–Primarily civil dispute is made out.

Unlawful Assembly–Common Object–Expression “Knew”– Even if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object of the assembly, it may yet fall under Section 141 IPC, if it can be held that the offence was such as the members knew was likely to be committed.

Private defence—Right of—Where accused party was the aggressor it could not claim right of self defence and such right does not include a right to launch an offensive or aggression.

Rape–Accuseds were sexually obsessed youngsters–Death penalty awarded. Murder–Circumstantial Evidence–Onus is on the prosecution to prove that chain is complete–Circumstances to be proved; enumerated Death Penalty–Rarest of rare cases–Test to determine.

Murder—Common Intention—Petitioner was carrying lathi and no injury was caused with lathi—However, he was accompanying accused who were carrying fire arms—Petitioner liable to be convicted u/s 302 r/w 34.

Murder—Bodily Injury—Even if the intention of the accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and did not extend to the intention of causing death, the offence would be murder.

Death Sentence—In rarest of rare case when collective conscience of the community is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power center to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise retaining death penalty.

Common Intention—It may develop on the spot among a number of persons and hence pre-concert in the sense of distinct previous plan is not necessary to attract Section 34 IPC.

You missed

Can’t Penalise Flat Buyers Who Relied On Official Documents : Supreme Court Directs Alternative Site Before Demolition

Mere Suit Seeking Recovery Of Possession Not Sufficient When Plaintiff’s Title Is Disputed

Supreme Court Quashes Blacklisting Of Drug Supplier Over Quality Failure As Retesting Opportunity Denied

Motor Accident Claims | Victim Requiring Lifelong Attendant Can Be Considered 100% Functionally Disabled

Supreme Court of India Judgements

Category: I P C

You missed