However, we clarify that de hors to those comments, observations and explanations emanating from the judgment of the learned single Judge, which we referred in para 26, the trial Judge is free to analyse, appreciate, 37 evaluate and arrive at a proper conclusion based on the materials being placed by prosecution as well as the defence. Exception: — The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section. The photograph was neither shown to the complainant nor published. Barq news vijay kumar arrested under section 427 and 153 a ipc double jeopardy protection comparative overview google books resultstate of gujarat. Wearing garb or carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intent Whoever, not belonging to a certain class of public servants, wear any garb or carries any token resembling any garb or token used by that class of public servants, with the intention that it may be believed, or with the knowledge that it is likely to be believed, that he belongs to that class of public servants, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both. Kidnapping or abducting in order to subject person to grievous hurt, slavery, etc.
This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Nature of offence: The offence under this Section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with permission of the Court before which any prosecution of such offence is pending, and triable by any Magistrate. When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence. State Amendments Andhra Pradesh For section 354, the following section shall be substituted, namely— 354. Scope and applicability i The question of intention to kill or the knowledge of death in terms of section 307, is a question of fact and not one of law. Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind, etc.
Here A intentionally uses force to her, and if he does so without her consent intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy her, he has used criminal force to her. A is guilty of abetting that offence, and is liable to the same punishment as B. A, in the exercise, to the best of his judgment exerted in good faith, of the power which the law gives to all person of apprehending murderers in the fact, seizes Z, in order to bring Z before the proper authorities. Illustrations a A voluntarily burns a valuable security belonging to Z intending to cause wrongful loss to Z. The requirements of the section are not satisfied by the act of homicide being one of extreme recklessness. Illustrations a A shoots Z with the intention of killing him.
Status Report by Delhi Police 20 Mr. The burden of establishing the plea of self-defence is on the accused and the burden stands discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis of the material on record; Rizan v. In case the husband is found to have harassed his wife to such an extent as to drive her to commit suicide, sentence of five years would be proper sentence for the crime with the amount of fine of Rs. A has committed mischief f A causes a ship to be cast away, intending thereby to cause damage to Z who has lent money on bottomry on the ship. The sentence of imprisonment or fine is not compulsory but discretionary; Gian Kaur v.
They were tried before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No. A has given in false evidence. In exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial see 14. B, having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill him, and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z. If fifty rupees of the fine be paid or levied before the expiration of two months of the imprisonment, A will be discharged as soon as the two months are completed. Buying minor for purposes of prostitution, etc.
Now the next question is whether a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant. When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:— First. Explanation A dishonest concealment of facts is deception within the meaning of this section. Here, as A does not take dishonestly, he does not commit theft. Assisting in concealment of stolen property Whoever voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Mischief by injury to public road, bridge, river or channel.
Such a case will be a case of sudden fight and conflict and has to be dealt with under Exception 4 to section 300 of the Code; Januram v. Where the house of the complainant had encroached into the land of the accused, and the accused demolished the encroached portion and took away the materials under the bona fide belief that the encroached portion belonged to them, it could not be held to be theft because of the absence of dishonest intention and it could not be mischief either in the absence of the requisite intention or knowledge. Vinayak Tukaram Utekar, 1997 2 Crimes 615 Bom. Hence referred to larger Bench; Ram Sunder Yadav v. Explanation A person employed temporarily or on a particular occasion in the capacity of a clerk or servant, is a clerk or servant within the meaning of this section.
Scope i Before an accused is held guilty and punished under first part or second part of section 304 a death must have been caused by the assailant under any of the circumstances mentioned in the five exceptions to section 300; Harendra Nath Mandal v. According to him, to arrive such conclusion the prosecution has not placed relevant material. Private defence: object i In judging whether accused has exceeded his right to private defence or not the court has to take into account the weapons used; Madan Mohan Pandey v. Explanation The punishment in this section is in addition to the punishment for which the person to be apprehended or detained in custody was liable for the offence with which he was charged, or of which he was convicted. Liability of abettor for an effect caused by the act abetted different from that intended by the abettor When an act is abetted with the intention on the part of the abettor of causing a particular effect, and an act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment, cause a different effect from that intended by the abettor, the abettor is liable for the effect caused, in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had abetted the act with the intention of causing that effect, provided he knew that the act abetted was likely to cause that effect. To this, there is a vehement reply from Mr Parasaran and we think he is right.
Explanation 1 A statement is within the meaning of this section, whether it is made verbally or otherwise. Film of the camera when developed led to unfolding of the dastardly act committed by the accused and others. In Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari and others v. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. If seventy-five rupees be paid or levied at the time of the expiration of the first month, or at any later time while A continues in imprisonment. Here A has not committed murder, but merely culpable homicide. .