Section 302 Of The Indian Penal Code - Judgment Search Results

Jaffar @ Raju Vs. State

Court: Delhi

evidence in that generic sense because of the provisions of Section 30, the fact remains that it is not evidence as to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 r/w Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and fine life for offence under Section 302 r/w Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and fine of Rs.3000/- in default of for offence under Section 302 r/w Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and fine of Rs.3000/- in default of payment offence under Section 302 r/w Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and fine of Rs.3000/- in default of payment of

Kalyan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1987(2)WLN89

such, the other accused-appellants cannot be convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 141 IPC. When the other accused-appellants cannot be convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 141 IPC. When accused under Section 302, IPC, and all other accused-appellants under 302/149, IPC and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and accused persons are also not found guilty under Section 302/149 IPC. Similarly, their conviction under Section 323 IPC is also not conviction Under Section 462/149 IPC, is against the principle of criminal jurisprudence. Apart from this, there was no unlawful assembly formed

Satyavir Singh Rathi Vs. State Thr. C.B.i.

Court: Supreme Court of India

a charge under Section 302/120B and an alternative charge under section 302/34 of the IPC had been framed, there was nothing the IPC could be recorded though a charge under Section 302 had been framed. In arriving at this conclusion, the Bench the benefit of Exception 3 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. This Exception pre-supposes that a public servant who the Sessions Judge under Ss.348 and 331 of the Indian Penal Code but in appeal the Andhra Pradesh High Court held the commission of an offence under Section 409, Indian Penal Code. To elaborate, it was substantially alleged that the appellants had

Coram:- Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Hemant Gupta vs. State of Haryana

Court: Punjab and Haryana

challan docket was supplied to the appellants as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.The case was committed to Sessions trial. The appellants Kuldeep in Crl.A.No.878-DB of 2006 Offence RI Fine Indefault imprisonment 302 IPC read with Life Rs 5000/- Three months Section 34 IPC read with Life Rs 5000/- Three months Section 120-B IPC Imprisonment Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Note.1: in Crl.A.No.922-DB of 2006 Offence RI Fine Indefault imprisonment 302 IPC read with Life Rs 5000/- Three months Section 120-B IPC 2006) was wife of the deceased Amar Singh. Accused-appellant/Hitesh (in Criminal Appeal No.880-DB of 2006) is the son of Kamla's sister

Rajaram and ors. Vs. State of M.P.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 1994Supp(2)SCC153

the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 555 of 1983 under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC and the sentence of who is also convicted by the High Court under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC is not before us. But were rightly convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.6. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, we set aside the accused are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and each of them is sentenced to life imprisonment and all the appellants and Munna are confirmed.7. In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 497 of 1982 and Criminal Appeal No. 468

Md. Ankoos and ors. Vs. the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2010SC566; 2009(57)BLJR2852; JT2009(14)SC6; 2010(I)OLR(SC)556; 2009(13)SCALE584; (2010)1SCC94; 2009(10)LC4781(SC)

members of unlawful assembly have also to be charged under Section 148 IPC for legally recording their conviction under Section 302 and that you thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 302 IPC and within the cognizance of this Court. CHARGE No. or Section 145, as the case may be, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) shall apply.24. A criminal Court about the acquittal of the appellants under Section 148 IPC but convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 302 by verifying their statements recorded under Section 161(3) of the Code from the case diary. It is here that the High

Rajan Rai Vs. State of Bihar

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2006SC433; 2005(3)BLJR2307; 2005CriLJ163; JT2005(9)SC518; RLW2006(2)SC1487; (2006)1SCC191; 2006(1)CriminalCourtCases192(S.C.); 2005CriLR(SCMAHGLC)SC945; 2005CriLR(SC&mp)SC945; 2005(32)OCR856; 2005(36)AllIndCas10; 2005(4)Crimes206; 2005(4)CurCriR278; 2005(4)EastCriC220; 2005(4)RCR885; 2005(7)Supreme459; 2005(8)SLT589; 2005(9)Scale260; 2006AIRSCW6089; 2006AllMr(Cri)314; 2006CalCriLR34; 2006madLJ(Cri)273; 2006SCC(Cri)209; 2006(1)AIRJharR428; 2006(1)AllCriLR304; 2006(1)AllCriR128; 2006(1)AndhLT(Cri)210SC; 2006(1)Apex

were acquitted, one person alone could not be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. In the said decision, three accused persons, but convicted the fourth accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. When the matter was brought to the provisions of Sections 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [in short `the Evidence Act'] which are under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [`IPC' for short] and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [`IPC' for short] and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

Chittarmal and Moti Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2003SC796; 2003(1)ALD(Cri)324; 2003CriLJ889; JT2003(1)SC91; 2003(1)SCALE55; (2003)2SCC266; [2003]1SCR49; 2003(1)LC289(SC)

accused guilty of the offences under Sections 302 read with Section 149 IPC and 307 read with Section 149 IPC. The 1993CriLJ1387 that a person charged of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC cannot be convicted of the in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC in the absence of any specific charge framed under that High Court. The conviction of the appellants under Section 148 IPC was, however, set aside.2. The case of the prosecution is absence of specific charge under one or other head of criminal liability by itself is not fatal and no conviction can

Lala Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: [2001(89)FLR1073]; 2002(5)WLC730; 2002(4)WLN281

@ Pappu : default to further suffer 6 months SI.Under Section 323/34 IPC 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 100/- the death of Angana Ram the case was converted underSection 302 IPC. Autopsy on the dead body of Angana Ram was for trial. Charges under Sections 302 IPC in the alternative302/34 IPC, 323 and in the alternative 323/34 IPC were framed. The for trial. Charges under Sections 302 IPC in the alternative302/34 IPC, 323 and in the alternative 323/34 IPC were framed. The maintaining the conviction of appellant Hukam Chand under Section 323 IPC we sentence him to the period already undergone by him.

Bala Seetharamaiah Vs. Perike S. Rao and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2004SC2172; 2004(1)ALD(Cri)711; 2004CriLJ2034; JT2004(4)SC549; 2004(3)SCALE571; (2004)4SCC557

specific charge was not framed against these accused persons under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, it is only liability and thus they committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. Of course the mere the accused persons should have been convicted under Section 302/149 IPC as the common object of the unlawful assembly was clearly against the accused persons for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. It is also important to the respondents.6. Learned senior counsel for the appellant appearing in Criminal Appeal No. 1107/1997 submitted that in the face of clear