#IPC most important cases for #PT as well as #Mains,

#MensRea

1) Sherras v. De Rutzen

1.1 hobbs v/s winchester

2) Rex v. Jacobs

3) R. v. Tolson

4) R v prince

5) Brend v. Wood - unless the statute, either clearly or by necessary implication, rules out mens rea,
as a constituent part of a crime, a defendant should not be found guilty of an offence against the
criminal law unless he has got a guilty mind.’

6) State v. Sheo Prasad

7) State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George

#General Defences

8 State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa- S 76/79

9) State of Orissa v. Bhagaban Barik-- S 76/79

10) Tunda v. Rex (wrestling match) s 80

11) R v. Dudley and Stephens- Necessity S. 81

#S-84 Insanity

12) R v Daniel Mcnaughten

13) Queen-Empress v. Kader Nasyer Shah

14) Lakshmi v. State

15) Ashiruddin Ahmad v. The King

#S-86 ( Drunkness)

16) Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra

17) Basdev v. State of PEPSU

18) Rex v. Meakin

19) Rex v. Meade

20) Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard

#96-106

21) State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup - There is no private defence against private defence.

22) Wassan Singh v. State of Punjab

23) Butta Singh v. The State of Punjab

24) Deo Narain v. State of U.P

25) James Martin v. State of Kerala

#JointLiability (34/149)

26) R v cruise- section 34 is based upon facts and decision of case.

27) Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King-Emperor (shankaritola case)

28) King v. PIummer

29) Queen v. Sabid Ali – prosecution of common object clarified

30) Mahbub Shah v. Emperor (Indus Valley Case)- similar intention v common int.

31) Mizaji v. State of U.P- act connected with c.o

32) Rishideo V state of UP- common intention may develop on the spot

33) JM Desai v State- presence isn’t always required for CI

#Abatement-

34) Queen V Mohit pandey: abatement by conspiracy to commit suicide

##Conspiracy- s 120 A

35) Mulcahy V R

36) State v. Nalini & Ors. – Chain conspiracy

#Sedition- S 124 IPC

37) Queen v Jogender Chandra Bose

38) Queen V Balgangadhar Tilak

39) Kedar Nath V state of Bihar : Constitutional Validity

40) Tara Singh v state of Punjab- Constitutional Validity

#S302/304

41) R V govinda: difference b/w 299 &300

42) Queen Empress v. Khandu:

43) Baker v. Snell:

44) The Queen v. Latimer:

45) Anda v. State :

46) Palani Goundan v. Emperor- s 299/300

47) Emperor v. Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy : 301, transfer of malice

48) Rawalpenta Venkalu v. State of Hyderabad : 300 (1)

49) . Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab-300 (3)

50) State of Andhra Pradesh v. R. Punnayya- S. 299(b)/S.300(3)

51) Dhupa Chamar v. State of Bihar

52) Supadi Lukada v. Emperor- S 300 (4)

53) Emperor v. Mt. Dhirajia - S 300 (4)

54) Gyarsibai v. The State - - S 300 (4)

55) K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra – S 300 exception 1

56) R. v.Duffy– S 300 exception 1

57) Ghapoo Yadav v. State of M.P- Exception IV to section 300

58) Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar : 304 A

59) Shanti(Smt.) v. State of Haryana – S 304 B

#Kidnapping

60) S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras: Kidnapping

61) Thakorlal D. Vadgama v. State of Gujarat: Kidnapping

62) Sakshi v. Union of India : S 376

63) Priya Patel v. State of Madhya Pradesh : S 376

#theft

64) Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan- S 379

65) KN Mehra V state of Raj- S 379

66) R v Thomson – S 379

#Attempt

67) Empress v. Riasat Ali

68) Rex v. White

69) R. v. McPherson

70) R. v. Brown

71) Asgarali Pradhania v. Emperor

72) Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar

73) State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub

74) P. Rathinam v. Union of India- Attempt to suicide(309)

75) Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra- Attempt to suicide (309)

76) Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab- Attempt to suicide (309)

#Defamation

77) Defamation : Subramaniam Swamy v UOI