IPC Landmark Cases -

#MensReus
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