Category: I P C

Rape and Murder – where capital punishment is not imposed or is not proposed, the Constitutional Courts can always exercise the power of imposing a modified or fixed­term sentence by directing that a life sentence, as contemplated by “secondly” in Section 53 of the IPC, shall be of a fixed period of more than fourteen years, for example, of twenty years, thirty years and so on

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHIVA KUMAR @ SHIVA @ SHIVAMURTHY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.…

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Section 10(a)(i) – Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 3(5) – Mere membership of a banned association is sufficient to constitute an offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 or Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ARUP BHUYAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, JJ. )…

(IPC) – Sections 364A, 302 and 201 – Kidnapping and murder of 7 years old child – Death sentence – Review of judgment – “rarest of rare” doctrine requires that the death sentence not be imposed only by taking into account the grave nature of crime but only if there is no possibility of reformation in a criminal

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SUNDAR @ SUNDARRAJAN — Appellant Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., Hima Kohli and…

(IPC) – Sections 300 Exception 4 – Culpable homicide is not murder – Four requirements must be satisfied to invoke this exception, viz. (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 or unusual manner – Appellant was entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to section 300, IPC.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PREMCHAND — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Penal Code, 1860 – S 302 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Murder of her five-year-old child – If the accused does not offer an explanation under Section 106 and there is corroborative evidence establishing a chain of circumstances leading to the conclusion of guilt, the accused could be convicted on that basis

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VAHITHA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Last seen theory – may be a weak kind of evidence by itself to base conviction – But if If the accused offers no explanation or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established and some other corroborative evidence in the form of recovery of weapon etc. forming a chain of circumstances is established, the conviction could be based on such evidence

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM GOPAL S/O MANSHARAM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. )…

You missed