HARPREET KAUR V STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (1992) [Definition of crime]

- HELD: Crime is a revolt against the whole society, and an attack on civilization of the
day.
T.K. GOPAL V STATE OF KARNATAKA (2000) [Definition of crime]
- HELD: Crime can be defined as an act that subjects the doer to legal punishment.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN V SUKHPAL SINGH (1984) [Definition of crime]
- HELD: Different crimes have different patterns, and offences improve their strategies
according to the exigencies of the occasion.
HARI MOHAN MANDAL V STATE OF JHARKHAND (2004) [Intention]
- ISSUE: Whether there was an intention to kill?
- HELD: Determination of intent and/or knowledge depends on the facts of a given case.
FOWLER V PADGET [Actus reus & Mens rea]
- ISSUE: Bankruptcy-related case
- HELD:
 Actus reus and mens rea are both required for the commission of a crime.
 Lord Kenyon stated, “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea is a tenet of natural justice
and our law.” To be a crime, both the intent and the act must be present.
SWEET V PARSLEY (1970) [Mens rea]
- ISSUE: Whether S.5(b) of Dangerous Drugs Act, 1956 was an absolute offence – if not,
what was the requisite mens rea for the offence?
- HELD:
 S.5(b) of Dangerous Drugs Act, 1956 did not create an absolute offence.
 The presumption of mens rea prevails for ‘true’ crime offences, which this was not.
R V PRINCE (1886) [Mens rea]
- ISSUE: Whether the court is required to read a mens rea requirement into a statute which
is silent as to the mens rea for an offence?
- HELD: Where a statute is silent as to the mens rea for an offence, the court is not bound
to read a mens rea requirement into the statute. 
ABHAYANAND MISHRA V STATE OF BIHAR (1961) [Attempt]
- ISSUE: What is the difference between the stages of attempt and preparation?
- HELD:
 Attempt to commit an offence is achieved when a person intends to commit it, has made
preparations with intention to commit it, and does an act towards its commission.
 Such an act may not be the ultimate act towards commission of the offence, but an act
during the course of the commission of such offence.
R V SMITH (1959) [Injury – S.44 & Murder – S.300]
- ISSUES: Whether the negligence by the doctors broke the chain of causation between the
defendant’s action in stabbing the victim, and his ultimate death?
- HELD: In order to break the chain of causation, an event must be “…unwarrantable, a
new cause which disturbs the sequence of events”. The chain of causation was not broken
on the facts of this case, and therefore, conviction was upheld.
BN SRIKANTIAH & ORS. V STATE OF MYSORE (1958) [Vicarious liability]
- Accused (6 persons) formed an unlawful assembly to murder Anna Gowda.
- ISSUES: Whether all of the accused could be convicted under S.302, since Prosecution
had not established which of the appellants had given the fatal blow?
- HELD: The appellants had notice that they were being tried as “sharer-in the offence”,
and that their liability was collective and vicarious, and not individual.
MAHBUB SHAH V EMPEROR (1945) [S.34 – common intention]
- ISSUES: Whether the appellant has been rightly convicted of murder upon the true
construction of S.34?
- HELD:
 The Lordships advised His Majesty that the appellant having succeeded in his appeal, his
appeal should be allowed and his conviction for murder and the sentence of death be set
aside.
 Led to amendment of S.34: added “in furtherance of the common intention of all” to
imply the Doctrine of Joint Liability.
BARENDRA KUMAR GHOSH V EMPEROR (1925) [Murder – Common Intention]
- Barendra Kumar was caught with pistol in his hand out of several persons responsible
for the murder.
- ISSUES: Was Barendra Kumar guilty of murder even if he hadn’t fired the fatal shot?
- HELD: It was held that the victim had been killed in furtherance of the common
intention of all under S.34, IPC.
AMAR SINGH V STATE OF HARYANA (1973) [Difference b/w S.34 & S.149]
- ISSUES: Whether common intention to murder was present in commission of the crime?
- HELD: Given the current case, there would have been no differences in the charges
against the accused as per S.302 read with S.149, or S.302 read with S.34.
SUBED ALI & ORS. V STATE OF ASSAM (2020) [Mens rea in common intention]
- HELD: For conviction under S.34, it is not essential to show the physical activity of
assault. The existence of mens rea in furtherance of a common intention is sufficient.
STATE OF AP V R. PUNAYYA (1976) [Culpable homicide vs murder]
- ISSUES: Whether the accused is to be held guilty under culpable homicide or murder?
- HELD: No intention of the accused to cause death under S.299(a) or S.300.
 The Trial Judge convicted the accused under S.302 read with S.34, and sentenced each of
them to imprisonment for life.
RAMESH V STATE
- HELD: As the accused gave repeated knife blows to the victim resulting in her death, the
intention was to kill.
VIRSA SINGH V STATE OF PUNJAB (1958) [S.300 (3)]
- ISSUES: Whether the act committed could be charged under S.302, or S.300 (culpable
homicide amounting to murder?
- HELD: Quoted S.300 of IPC (thirdly) and insisted the requirements under the section
for a person to be charged and penalized for culpable homicide amounting to murder.
 The court laid down essentials to be proved to effectuate S.300(3).
1. There must be bodily injury inflicted by the act of the accused.
2. The accused had an intention to cause the death of the victim.
3. Such bodily injury inflicted should cause the death of the victim, in the ordinary
course of nature.
K.M. NANAVATI V STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (1962) [S.300 exception 1]
- ISSUE: Whether the act done by Nanavati came under S.300 exception 1?
- HELD:
 S.300 exception 1 was not applicable as he had enough time to regain self-control.
 The accused was convicted for murder.
MOHINDER PAL JOLLY V STATE OF PUNJAB (1979) [S.300 exception 2]
- ISSUES: Whether the act of the accused came under private defence or not?
- HELD: The SC held that the accused had a right to private defence, but the
circumstances of the case were not such that would create apprehension in his mind that
death or grievous hurt could be caused without private defence.
 It was held that the accused had exceeded his right of private defence.
 S.300 exception 2 was not applicable.
KESAR SINGH V STATE OF HARYANA (2008) [S.300 exception 4]
- ISSUES: Whether the accused had an intention to cause death, under S.302?
- HELD:
 There was a sudden fight and heat of passion.
 It was a single blow and that too from the blunt side of the Kassi.
 It cannot be stated that he had an intention to cause death, as required to make out an
offence under Section 300 of the IPC.
 The crime committed by the accused is culpable homicide not amounting to murder as
envisaged by S.300 (Exception 4), punishable under S.304(1).
DASRATH PASWAN V STATE OF BIHAR (1957) [S.300 exception 5]
- The accused, after failing his std. X exams thrice, decided to put an end to his life and
informed his wife.
- The wife thereupon requested him to kill her first and then kill himself.
- In pursuance of the pact, he killed his wife, but was arrested before he could end his life.
- ISSUES: Whether S.300 exception 5 – death by consent would be applicable or not?
- HELD:
 It is undisputed that the deceased was above the age of 18 years and that she had suffered
death with her own consent.
 The learned Additional Standing Counsel, however, contended that the consent in the
present case was obtained by putting pressure upon her. 
MOTI SINGH V STATE OF UP (1964) [Punishment for murder – S.302 read with
S.149]
- ISSUES: Since G’s body was cremated before conduction of post-mortem report, thus no
cause of death could be ascertained, whether the dying declaration could be held
admissible or not?
- HELD: Dying declaration without post-mortem report and proven cause of death could
not be held admissible in court, and therefore, the accused were convicted.