Enticeable - Judgment Search Results
Bhola Nath Mitter Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal488
498 of the Penal Code. It is found that he enticed or took away one Sikhar Basini Dasi alias Sushila Bala
Raju Vs. State of Haryana
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: May-02-2001
Reported in: AIR2001SC2043; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)854; 2001ALLMR(Cri)1238(SC); 2001(2)ALT(Cri)50; 2001CriLJ2580; 2001(2)Crimes267(SC); JT2001(5)SC213; 2001(3)SCALE651; (2001)9SCC50; [2001]3SCR
Kewal and PW2 Makhan Lal which clearly establishes that accused enticed deceased Rinku young girl aged about 11 years to accompany
Moniram Hazarika Vs. State of Assam
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Apr-13-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2553; JT2004(Suppl1)SC44; 2004(4)SCALE539; (2004)5SCC120
even though she is a minor, since there was no enticement or taking away as contemplated under Section 361 of the
Turn these results into brief-ready notes
Moijullah @ Puttan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD(Cri)434; JT2003(10)SC325; 2003(10)SCALE86; (2004)2SCC90; 2004(2)LC888(SC)
vivid account of the manner in which they were first enticed and then exploited.8. Two of the accused namely Mahesh Ludhani
Kanhai Mishra @ Kanhaiya Misar Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Feb-27-2001
Reported in: AIR2001SC1113; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)500; 2001(1)ALT(Cri)352; 2001(49)BLJR1372; 2001CriLJ1259; JT2001(3)SC191; RLW2001(2)SC321; 2001(2)SCALE338; (2001)3SCC451; [2001]2SCR160
also help her in plucking flowers and in this way enticed Rita Kumari for going to the said orchard. Thereafter, Rita
State of Karnataka Vs. Sureshbabu Puk Raj Porral
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Oct-08-1993
Reported in: AIR1994SC966; 1994CriLJ1216; 1993(3)Crimes600(SC); JT1993(6)SC48; 1993(4)SCALE27; (1994)1SCC468
was below 16 years of age and therefore taking or enticing her away attracted the provisions of Section 366 I.P.C. and
Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Haryana
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Sep-13-1972
Reported in: AIR1972SC2661; 1973CriLJ179; (1972)2SCC749; [1973]2SCR197
361, IPC and according to that definition undoubtedly taking or enticing any minor out of the keeping of the lawful guardian
Ram Das Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Sep-17-1970
Reported in: (1970)3SCC211
not been established that there was any taking away or enticement within the meaning of Section 363 of the IPC and
State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Vishwa Bandhu Alias Billa and anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Jul-27-1978
Reported in: (1978)4SCC420
not been established that there was any taking away or enticement within the meaning of Section 363 of the IPC and
Ram Murti Vs. State of Haryana
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Apr-14-1970
Reported in: AIR1970SC1029; 1970CriLJ991; (1970)72PLR1000; (1970)3SCC21
that it was not Ram Moorti who actuary took or enticed her away but it was Satnam Kaur herself who went
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »
Try AI Brief & Semantic Search — 7 days free