1. Thirumali Kumar v. State represented by S.I of Police.
    • A magistrate can issue a warrant of arrest if he finds relevant information necessitating such a warrant. A police report is not a prerequisite for an arrest warrant to be issued by the court.
  2. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618
    • A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
  3. Motive | Intention | Knowledge
    • Motive is something which prompts a man to form an intention and knowledge is an awareness of the consequences of the act. In many cases, Knowledge and intention merge into each other and mean the same thing more or less and intention can be presumed from knowledge. [ Basdev v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 488 ]
  4. Singapagu Anjaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 9 SCC 79.
    • As nobody can enter into the mind of the accused, its intention has to be gathered from the weapon used, the part of body chosen for assault and the nature of injuries caused.
  5. Constitutional Validity of Sec 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
    • Section 497 of the IPC, 1860 is constitutionally valid on the ground that exemption for woman is protective discrimination safeguarded under Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India. [ Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay, 1954 AIR 321 ]
  6. Vicarious liability of members of unlawful assembly.
    • Mere membership of the unlawful assembly is sufficient and every member of the unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for the acts done by to others either in prosecution of common object or the members knew were likely to be committed. [ State of U.P. v. Krishanpal & Ors, (2008) 16 SCC 73 ]
  7. Common object of Unlawful Assembly.
    • The common object of the unlawful assembly in question depends firstly on whether such object can be classified as one of those described under Section 141 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
    • Secondly, such common object need not be the product of prior consent but, as per established law, may form on the spur on the moment.  [Bhanwar Singh v. State of M.P., (2008) 16 SCC 657]
  8. Whether members of an unlawful assembly liable for all the offence committed by other members?
    • Mere presence or association with other members alone does not per se be sufficient to hold every one of them criminally liable for the offences committed by the others unless there is a sufficient evidence on record to show that each intended to or knew the likelihood of commission of such an offending act. [ K.M. Ravi v. State of Karnataka, (2009) 16 SCC 337]
  9. Dying Declaration
    • A dying declaration is made by a person on the verge of his death has a special sanctity as at that solemn moment a person is most unlikely to make any untrue statement. [Narain Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 1616]

Disclaimer: Although we try to ensure that the information provided, whether in relation to the products, services, or offering or otherwise provided (hereinafter mentioned as “INFORMATION”) on the website is correct at the time of publishing, we or any third parties do not provide any warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy, timeliness, performance, completeness or suitability of the information and materials found or offered on this website for any particular purpose. It shall be your own responsibility to ensure that any products, services or information available through this website meet your specific requirements. Neither the website nor any person/organization acting on its behalf may accept any legal liability/responsibility.


Terms-and-conditions/ (Click Here)

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s