CASES Flashcards
Iridium v motorola
corporate criminal liability sec 11
Om Prakash vs Punjab
Defendant does not give the food to his wife for several weeks and he is now liable for murder because Act must be done with intent or knowledge of the scarcity of food.
Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry
petitioner refused to deposed to the beginning of the inquiry as she believed that she could depose only at the end of the inquiry
sec 79 - justified, by law excusable
King Emperor v. Timmappa
borrowed an unliscensed gun for few minutes to kill as he thought a wild animal might attack him and his partners. The application was dismissed regarding enhancement of sentence since accident
section 80 accident - excusable
Krishna Bhagwan v. State of Bihar
if a child who is accused of an offence during the trial, has attained the age of seven years or at the time of decision the child has attained the age of seven years can be convicted if he has the understanding an knowledge of the offence committed by him.
section 83
Ashiruddin Ahmed vs. State
Ashiruddin was commanded by someone in paradise to sacrifice his own son, aged 4 years. Next morning he took his son to a Mosque and killed him and then went straight to us uncle, but finding a chowkidar, took the uncle nearby a tank and told him the story.
The Supreme Court opined that the accused can claim the defence as even though he knew the nature of the act, he did not know what was wrong.
section 84
similarly R v McNaughten- who had a disease and during a manic episode shot and killed someone- both found ng
Basudev v State of Pepsu
The appellant had attended a wedding there he consumed an excessive amount of alcohol. In the state of intoxication he went and ask one boy to get up from the chair so that he could sit on it. Listening to him, the boy refused to do so. On such refusal The appeal and pulled a gun from his pocket and shot the boy’s abdomen.
Because of which the boy died on the spot.
section 86- did not apply so he was found guilty of sec 302
excusabel
Poonai Fattemah v. Emp
the accused who professed to be a snake charmer, induced the deceased to believe him that he the power to protect him from any harm caused by the snake bite. The deceased believed him and got bitten by the snake and died. The defence of consent was rejected.
not justifiable under 87
R.P Dhanda V. Bhurelal
doc did cataract surgery on someone but persn lost eyesight - doc not liable since act done with consent and GOOD FAITH
section 88
justifiable
Jakir Ali v. State of Assam
it was proved beyond doubt that the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim on a false promise of marriage. The Gauhati High Court held that submission of the body by a woman under fear or misconception of fact cannot be construed as consent and so conviction of the accused under sections 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code was proper.
reg v rose
right to pd under sec 97- son21, shot and killed abusive father who was “going to stab mother” with a knife during a quarrel- granted pd
reg v rose
right to pd under sec 97- son21, shot and killed abusive father who was “going to stab mother” with a knife during a quarrel- granted pd
Amjad Khan v State
under sec 102 and 105,106- right to PD commenses as soon as reasonable apprehension of danger to body or property of oneself or others arises from an attempt/threat of attempt even if the offence has not been committed yet.
- mob communal fight- approached accusers shop and his brothers shop and looted his bros, then beat the shop wiht lathis, so b4 mob could break into his store too, accused shot 2 shots and one killed a person in the mob. PD granted
Kishan v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh
dude and his friends(unarmed) went and beat up “B” in attempt to escape B found a weapon and beat one guy with it who passed out, the other dudes beat B up in the head and then B also died. Initially were granted PD since they had no intention to kill and were unarmed but then autopsy revealed that B wouldve died of his injuries from the simple beating anyway. COnvicted of murder under sec300,302
Kesho ram v delhi administration
dude assaulted a police officer who went to seize his cow- th epolice officer was mistaken but had good faith and according to sec 99 ipc, there was protection to public servants, and so PD did not apply.
**MILK TAX CASE **
Paramsukh case
police officer came to seize land and started beating mans wife- man beat up officer AND pd WAS GRANTED
SEC99.
Emperor vs Mammun:
man saw someoen hacking his crops in night and got 5 dudes and killed the guy on his land. The accused charged with murder** pleaded right of private defence of their property.** Held under Section 99 there is no right of private defence in cases where there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities.
Ajodha prasad vs state of U.P- legal recourse must take into accout:
antecedent knowledge of attack, if info is reliable, distance of police and OPPORTUNITY to give police information
Emperor vs Mammun:
man saw someoen hacking his crops in night and got 5 dudes and killed the guy on his land. The accused charged with murder** pleaded right of private defence of their property.** Held under Section 99 there is no right of private defence in cases where there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities.
Ajodha prasad vs state of U.P- legal recourse must take into accout:
antecedent knowledge of attack, if info is reliable, distance of police and OPPORTUNITY to give police information
yeshwant rao v madhya pradesh
right to pd extends to rape = dad saw man havin s3x w daughter who was under age 15 and beat him and man died so it didnt matter if the act was consent/nc bec daughter under 15= rape
Ram Narain v State of Uttar Pradesh
fight over cutting mango tree ensued , many ppl got injured one person got killed - held that self defence not applicable bec it went beyond the proportionality of the injuries the accused had sustained and had continued to assualt for more time than necessary
sec102
abetment cases
sec108
maharshtra v pandurang - abetment still an offence if the “act” suggested not commited by 3rd person- sec 111
Priya patel v State of MP - accused saw her husband raping another woman and slapped the woman + walked away and did not help her- held not liable as there was no prior meeting of minds to commit + woman cannot be held liable for rape apparently sec115
Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor - 3 ppl went to rob a postoffice one man outside armed and guarding - eventually three inside caused murder and man outside also held equally liable of murder bec he was guarding sec34
Criminal conspi
sec120 ab
Kehar Singh and others v. State (Delhi Administration)
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this case, has held that the most important ingredient of the offence of conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. Such an illegal act may or may not be done in pursuance of the agreement, but the very agreement is an offence and is punishable.
common intention
state of UP v Sahrunissa = mere presence @ site of crime not equal to common intention
Sec 34, 35
Dr. Suresh Gupta v. State of NCT
the bonafide medical practitioners should not be put through unnecessary harassment. The court observed that Doctors would not be able to save lives if they were to tremble with the fear of facing criminal prosecution.
sec300/299
R. v. Ahluwalia
lady was abused by husband for many years one night decided to take petrol douse him and light him on fire though she failed the R v Duffy test where loss of control needity be sudden, she eventually got manslaughter insed of murder
Laughanbai Devjibhai Vasava v. The State of Gujarat
dude beats wife but not fatally and doesnt take her to hospital homegirl dies due to injuries or smthn idk man so his 302 punishment of murder gets converted to death by negligence in 304
Laughanbai Devjibhai Vasava v. The State of Gujarat
dude beats wife but not fatally and doesnt take her to hospital homegirl dies due to injuries or smthn idk man so his 302 punishment of murder gets converted to death by negligence in 304
similarly **State of MP v. Abdul Lateef **
where if the murder occurs w/o premiditation usually 304
exceptions to 300?
nanavati case
In Dakhi Singh v. State (1955), a suspected thief was apprehended by a police officer and was being transported to a railway station. The robber was able to flee the speeding train. He was chased by the constable. He fired at him because he was unable to arrest him. However, he hit the fireman and killed him in the process. The case was found to be covered by this exception.
In Manke Ram v. State of Haryana -dudes drinking, sudden quarrel lead to brawl lead to death - not muder bec no unfair advantage etc
State of A.P. v. R. Punnayya
Section 299 IPC Section 300 IPC
A person commits culpable homicide if the act by which the death is caused is done –
Intention
With the intent to cause death; or with the intention to cause physical damage that is likely to result in death; or Knowledge Knowing that the conduct is likely to result in death.
sec300 Subject to certain exceptions culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done –Intention
With the intention of causing death; or with the intention of inflicting physical injury that the offender knows will result in the death of the person to whom the harm is inflicted; or with the intention to inflict bodily damage on any person and the physical injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of natureKnowledge
With the knowledge that the conduct is so immediately harmful that it must almost certainly result in death or bodily injury that is likely to result in death and without any justification or risk of causing death or injury as described above.
differences between culpi homi and murder
State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh
In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh (2003), the Supreme Court found the accused guilty of murder for inflicting an incised cut with a sword on the deceased’s neck, resulting in excessive bleeding and organ failure, on the grounds that he knew the bodily injury he caused would likely result in death.
Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala
Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala[5], the court held that Section 304A IPC applies in case of rash and negligent acts and does not apply to cases where death has been voluntarily caused. Section 304A IPC applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause death.
Ramesh Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat
Ramesh Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2022), the Gujarat High Court held that words spoken in anger, not with the intention of instigation, cannot be constituted as abetment of suicide.
similarly sridevi v ap - mere workplace pressure or harrasment not equal to abetment
Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh
he Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that the burden of proof of abetment of suicide lies on the prosecution. Therefore, it’s important to gather convincing proof, such as indirect or circumstantial evidence.
acc to harbhajan sandhu case 2022 - just bec name is in suicide not not equal to abetment
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India and Ors
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that physician assisted suicide constitutes a crime under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, the Court permitted passive euthanasia in extraordinary and extremely uncommon instances with the consent of the patient’s family members and doctors.
Jashnmal Jhamatmal v Brahmanand
lady got nervous shock after man scared her with gun and essentials of hurt were fullfilled since knowledge was there, bodily pain and infirmity occured as a consequence even if he didnt touch her
hurt section 323, 324
jameel hasan v state
even teeth can be considered dangerous weapon if managed to disfigure face (dude bit a guys noseoff)
324 grevious hurt with weapon
DK BASU v west bengal
police brutality hurt/gh to extort confession or restoration of property not allowed section 330,331
stephen v meyers
dude held a guys hand and said imma throw u rn = 351 assault
stephen v meyers
dude held a guys hand and said imma throw u rn = 351 assault bec there was reasonable apprehension
Varadrajan v state of madras
- if minor f not enticed and leaves on her own - not kidnapping sec361
GudarDusadh v. State of Bihar
even if the accused only gave one blow to the head if that blow is fatal - it is murder. there was full intention behind that blow.
`sec300
Emperor v. Mt. Dhirajia
lady was running from husband with a child and “jumped into well” child died lady injured. Is she held for attempt to suicide? no bec it wss in a moment of panic. she ws held guilty for childs death under sec 304 - negligent death but not held liable under 309
Ajmal v Kerela
things imp =
1. nature of weapon
2. blow to vital part
3. amt of force used
4. number of blows
sec300
virsa singh v punjab
if an injury is to a vital part of the body and the accused had the intention to make that blow with the knife or sharp object then sec300
Mathura Bai rape case
custodial rape case broguht Criminal law amendent act 1983
which shifted the burden of proof to the accused, introduced custodial rape section 376A and D added
and made disclosing the victims identity punishable under 228A IPC
Nirbhaya case 2012
Justice verma committee
- increased punishment for rape - not death penalty thi
- increased punishments for other sexual offences like vouyerism and acid attacks
- stricter provisions to allow FIR registrations
Kathua rape case
minors rape
criminal law (amendment) ordinance, 2018
main objective to give harsher punishments to perpetrators of rape of minors- below 16, and 12
-minimum punishment for rape increased from 7–> 10 yrs
rape of younger than 16= life imprison
rape below 12= minimum 20 yrs up to death
- created provision for speedy investigation in crpc- investigation (2mo), trial (2mo) and disposal of appeal (6mo)
- no anticipatory bail for rapist of minor
Sakshi v UOI
stated that only peepe vag pforce penetratiosn shouldnt be rape, any forced penetration should be considered rape
sec375
mehmood faruqui v state
it would be really difficult to decipher whether little or no resistance and a feeble ‘no’, was actually a denial of consent
Major Singh v punjab
dude went and fingered a 7.5 month BABY
- arguemnt= a baby doesnt have modesty ka concept so how can her modesty be outraged?
- judgement= modesty exists from birth and if a baby cant react against it doesnt mean the baby consents, in the same way if sleeping woman who might be unaware of her modesty being outraged - she is still a victim to it
sec354- outraging modesty
vishakha v rajasthan 1997
sexual harrasment in workplace guidelines which lead to sexual harrasment of woman at workplace (prevention and redressal) act, 2013
Joseph shine v uoi
decriminalised sec 497 - adultry
Ram Chandra Bhagat v. the State of Jharkhand
This Section protects the right of such a woman who is kept as a concubine by a man while she is in a belief to be a lawful wife of that person.
Deceit was defined- 493
vithal v maharashtra
dude went to police station to register fir all police sleeping so he took handcuffs to go show superintendent that look i could steal these bec all ur officers are sleeping- held that there was no wrongful gain so not theft
Pyare Lal Bhargava vs State of Rajasthan
dude was police officer stole case file to deliver to friend who was the accused- and then later returned it. theft under IPC, there can be permanent or temporary unlawful possession of the movable property and that causes any wrongful loss either material or immaterial but should cause unlawful loss of property
K.N. Mehra v. State
= cadets take plane and fly to pakistan= theft
sec378
State of Gujarat vs. Jaswantlal Nathalal
In State of Gujarat vs. Jaswantlal Nathalal, it was contended before the Court that the government sold cement to the accused on the condition that the cement will be used for construction work. However, a certain amount of the cement was diverted to a godown. Therefore, the accused was prosecuted under the offence of criminal breach of trust. The Supreme Court held, that the term ‘entrustment’ carries with it the implication that the person handing over any property or on whose behalf that property is handed over to another, continues to be its owner.
criminla breach of trust sec405-409
State of Gujarat vs. Jaswantlal Nathalal
In State of Gujarat vs. Jaswantlal Nathalal, it was contended before the Court that the government sold cement to the accused on the condition that the cement will be used for construction work. However, a certain amount of the cement was diverted to a godown. Therefore, the accused was prosecuted under the offence of criminal breach of trust. The Supreme Court held, that the term ‘entrustment’ carries with it the implication that the person handing over any property or on whose behalf that property is handed over to another, continues to be its owner.
criminla breach of trust sec405-409
Kumari Chandra v State
homegirl pushed random kids into a well and they died but she got away w it because she wss “insane” since she was suffering PMS
Sushil Kumar Datta vs State,
Abhayanand Mishra vs The State Of Bihar
dude pretended to be SC to get quota but was not SC
Abhayanand Mishra vs The State Of Bihar
dude forged university certificates acquitted for forgery, jail for cheating
CHEATING 415-416
Ajmal Kasab v State
dude was part of the 26/11 attacks - got death penalty
sec121
Sedition
Balwant singh v state, one person raising slogans against state casually few times not seditious
Kedarnath Singh v State- speech made by person must insight violence or public disorder to be considered seditious and 124A is constitutionally valid
SEC124 A
Unlawful assembly
Moti Das v. State of Bihar- ‘an assembly, which was lawful to start with, became unlawful the moment one of the members called on the others to assault the victim and his associates, and in response to his invitation all the members of the assembly started to chase the victim while he was running.
the supreme court expressed that mere presence in an assembly does not make a person, who is present, a member of an unlawful assembly. If it is shown that he had done something or omitted to do something which would make him a member of an unlawful assembly, or unless the case falls under Section 142 IPC.
141-149
Nanak Chandra v State
Differentiates between sec34 and sec 149
sec34- common intention , rule of evidnce not an offence as such, requires prior meeting of minds
149- common object, 5+ ppl. less premeditation - related to public tranquility
Promoting enemity between grps
Lallai singh v state- court held it is ok to criticise parts of religion such as sati or untouchablity in hinduism and it is not promoting enemity
Babu Rao patel v State- dude posted opinion in local newspaper against muslims, charged.
153A
electoral crimes
Raj Raj deb v ganghadar - dude said he was reincarnation of lord vishnu and anyone who didnt vote would be sinner - deemed propganda and punishment similarly = Ram Dial v. Sant Lal same case but Sikh version
sec171B, C
defamation
1.** southindian lrailway v ramakrishnan**- i suspect u dnt have ticket not equal to defamation
2. Narottamdas v. Maganabhai- class defemation can only occur when there is a specific group of identifiable persons
3. . Chamanlal v. State of Punjab dude was president of municpal committe and many ppl told him that a lady has relations with a criminal so transfer her somewhere else, he sends letter to superior stating the same but since he dint verfy or inquire abt the truth of the facts thne he is still liable for defamation and not acting in good faith bec he shouldve taken caution then
4. Mcquire v mornign news co. news published an opinion criticising the music by mcquire and NOT GUILTY bec opinoon
5. Mukund chitnis vs Madhuri chitnis - dude called his wife theif- sued and held for defamation
sec499, 500
