CASES Flashcards
(67 cards)
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
