Ipc Case Summaries

IPC CASE SUMMARIES
State of Up vs. Chatur Singh (2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases 360
“The accused went to his brother's house carrying a sharp weapon called kulhari and killed his brother and sister-in-
law. He was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 and sentenced to life imprisonment. However, the high
court converted the conviction to Section 304 Pt. I for the first murder and Section 304 Pt. II for the second murder,
and sentenced him to 10 years and 7 years, respectively. The high court relied on an extrajudicial confession and the
seizure of a stick found near the dead body to conclude that the deceased must have attacked the accused with the
stick and the accused acted in self-defense by using the kulhari. But there was no evidence that the accused was
beaten by the stick or that he received any injuries. The high court's conclusion was far-fetched, and the nature of
the murders made it impossible to claim that it was an exercise of self-defense. The evidence clearly established the
accused's intention to murder the victims. Therefore, the high court erred in overturning the trial court's verdict. The
accused's conviction and sentence were restored by the supreme court. The law allows an armed person to defend
themselves against an attack, but in this case, the accused killed a woman who would not pose a threat to a well-
built man carrying a sharp weapon.”
No. of victim
Age
Age Distribution (Include only Relationship between
Case Name and Citation distribution of No. of offender Background of victim Background of offender Motive of crime
of offender people who victim and offender
victim
died)
STATE OF U.P. Versus CHATUR
SINGH (2005) 13 Supreme
unknown Unknown 2 1 family member no prior criminal history no prior criminal history unknown
Court Cases 360
Defence Outcome of
Other Types of Mitigating factor
No. of No of Defence pleaded accepted appeal in the
Involvement of weapon Source of weapon Nature of weapon used Nature of injury Cause of death relevant Constructive (Joint/ pleaded by the Sentence
injury blow by the accused by the Supreme
factors Vicarious) Liability accused
Court Court
Death caused imprisonment for

Sharp instrument such as Right of Private Acquittal to
presence of weapon Carried to the spot Stab Injury Unknown Unknown Other unknown while exercising certain number of
knife Defence Conviction
right of RPD years+ fine
ABANI K. DEBNATH AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF TRIPURA ((2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases 422)
“The case involved the conviction of a man (referred to as A-5) under sections 302/34 of the Penal Code for the
murder of a man named R. The conviction was affirmed by the High Court. The incident occurred on August 10,
1990, when A-5 beat PW1 with a bamboo stick during an argument over grazing cows. R intervened to save PW1,
and a physical fight ensued between the accused and the prosecution party. Both sides suffered injuries, and A-1
dealt a dao-blow on the deceased's occipital region. The deceased died from his injuries on August 15, 1990. The
appellant-accused did not dispute the incident or the fact of the death but only contended that there was no
meeting of minds between the father and the son. The court held that since the original quarrel was between A-5
and PW1, it was difficult to establish that there was any meeting of minds with regard to the murder of R. The court
also noted that the blow that caused the death was dealt by A-1 and not A-5, and therefore, A-5 could not be
convicted under section 302 with the aid of section 34. A-1's conviction under section 323 was maintained, but his
conviction under section 302 was altered to section 304 Pt. II, and he was sentenced to five years RI.”
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
ABANI K. DEBNATH AND
ANOTHER vs STATE OF
unknown Unknown 1 5 or more stranger no prior criminal history no prior criminal history sudden fight
TRIPURA((2005) 13 Supreme
Court Cases 422)
Defence Outcome of
Court Court
Blunt instrument such as

presence of weapon Carried to the spot Laceration 1 1 Injury on vital organ common intention Other Other unchanged other
stick or lathi
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS vs. DEVENDRA NATH RAI (2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases 243
“The army personnel accused of the incident that did not allow PWs 8, 9 and another person, who were not in
uniform and did not have their identity cards, to write the "lights out" reports. The accused instructed them to wait
for the arrival of CHM and when CHM arrived, he asked them to fill out the register. The accused was asked by CHM
if he had consumed alcohol, and he shot CHM when he said these words. CHM died, and PWs 8 and 9 were seriously
injured when the accused fired shots at them. The accused faced trial under the Army Act, and four charges were
made against him under Section 69. The Deputy Judge Advocate General held that the case was a rarest of rare cases
and deserved the death penalty. The Central Government confirmed this finding. However, the High Court, while
upholding the conviction, did not consider the case to be in the rarest of rare category and expected the authorities
to pass a new order regarding the sentence. The appeal was allowed in Supreme Court.”
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
vs. DEVENDRA NATH RAI
unknown Unknown 1 1 friend/ acquaintance no prior criminal history no prior criminal history sudden fight
(2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases
243
Defence Outcome of
Involvement of weapon Source of weapon Nature of weapon used Nature of injury Cause of death relevant Constructive (Joint/ pleaded by the
Court Court
Lack of mens rea Appeal was

presence of weapon Carried to the spot Firearm Bullet injury 1 Injury on vital organ Sudden fight
of murder allowed
RADHA MOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF UP (2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases 450
“According to the case, the incident that led to the current issue occurred in Deeyar Nai Basti in the Ballia District on
March 14, 1979. Ganesh Singh, the first informant, lived in the village with his elder brother, Hira Singh (the
deceased), who was running a business in Jaitpur. Five days before the incident, on March 9, accused Radha Mohan
Singh (A-1), Kaushal Kishore Singh (A-5), and others had attacked Udai Narain. PW 1 Ganesh Singh was a witness to
the assault and was threatened by A-1 and A-5 along with the deceased to not testify against them in the criminal
case related to the assault. However, the deceased refused to stop his brother from testifying. The accused felt
angry and warned that they would teach him a lesson. On March 14, 1979, Ganesh Singh and Hira Singh went to
some houses in the village to "mobilize" as was customary. In the evening, when they were passing in front of Nand
Kishore's house, A-1, armed with a spear, Tej Bahadur Singh (A-2) and Kapil Dev Singh (A-3) armed with lathis,
Devender Singh @ Mutuk Singh (A-4) armed with a farsa, and Kaushal Kishore Singh (A-5) armed with a knife
suddenly appeared. A-1 assaulted Hira Singh with the spear and A-4 attacked him with a farsa, causing him to fall to
the ground. When Ganesh Singh tried to save him, A-2 and A-3 attacked him with lathis, and other people who were
present there, namely, PW 3 Mohan and PW 6 Ram Pyari, tried to intervene and save them but were also assaulted
by A-5 with a knife and A-3 with a lathi. The accused fled from the scene. Hira Singh was taken to the "bandh," which
was at the outskirts of the village and then to the local hospital in a tempo, where he was examined by medical staff
at 9:00 p.m. Ganesh Singh was examined at 9:50 p.m., and the injured PW 6 Ram Pyari and PW 3 Mohan were
examined at 10:30 a.m. the next day. Ganesh Singh lodged a written report of the incident at 10:30 p.m. on the same
night at the Kotwali Police Station, providing a complete account of the incident. After the investigation was
completed, charges were filed against all five accused, and the case was committed to the Court of Session. After
examining the evidence, the Sessions Judge found all the accused guilty of charges under Sections 147, 148, 323,
324, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, including life
imprisonment. The accused appealed the decision, and a Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble S.K. Agarwal and
Hon'ble K.K. Mishra, JJ heard the appeal. Hon'ble S.K. Agarwal, J. believed the appeal should be allowed and the
convictions and sentences should be set aside, while Hon'ble K.K. Mishra, J. thought the appeal should be dismissed
and the convictions and sentences should be upheld. Due to the difference of opinion, the appeal was heard by
Hon'ble S. Tripathi, J., who ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal and uphold the convictions and sentences
imposed by the Sessions Judge. Supreme Court altered the conviction from Section 302 with Section 149 to Section
302.”
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
RADHA MOHAN SINGH AND prior criminal history
unknown Unknown 2 5 or more stranger no prior criminal history other
OTHERS Vs STATE OF UP (undertrial)
Defence Outcome of
Court Court
Blunt instrument such as Lack of mens rea
presence of weapon Carried to the spot Laceration 1 1 Injury on vital organ common intention Sudden fight unchanged other
stick or lathi of murder
P. MANI Versus STATE OF T.N. ( (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases 161)
“The wife of the appellant had a grudge against him and believed that he was having an affair with another woman.
On a particular day, some children in the house reported that they had heard the deceased asking them to leave and
then saw smoke coming from her room. The appellant broke open the locked door and found the deceased in
flames. She was taken to the hospital where she later died, and the appellant was accused of her murder. The
defence argued that the deceased had committed suicide due to mental illness, but the trial court convicted the
appellant based on the dying declaration made by the deceased. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding the
dying declaration to be reliable.
The Supreme Court held that:
1. The burden of proof cannot be placed on the appellant under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, as there is no
evidence to suggest their involvement in the case.
2. The fact that the appellant did not suffer any burns cannot be used as evidence against them, as it is possible
that they were not present when the fire broke out.
3. There is no evidence to suggest that the appellant was evading arrest or absconding, and the investigating
officer failed to explain why they were not arrested.
4. The deceased had a history of depression and had attempted suicide before the incident. It is possible that
her statement before the Magistrate was influenced by her mental state.
5. The evidence supports the defense's case that the appellant did not have an affair with another woman and
remained with the witnesses after the incident.”
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
P. MANI Versus STATE OF T.N.
( (2006) 3 Supreme Court unknown Unknown 1 1 family member no prior criminal history no prior criminal history other
Cases 161)
Defence Outcome of
Court Court
Conviction to
absence of weapon Unknown Unknown Burn Unknown Unknown Other Other
Acquittal
MUNNA CHANDA Versus STATE OF ASSAM ((2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases 752)
“T.J. and his accomplice were charged with intentionally causing death by grievous bodily harm under Section 3(j) of
the Indian Penal Code. The incident occurred during the "Durg-a Puja" festival, where the deceased, Moti
Suklabaidya, was present with some companions. Tapan Chanda informed them that Tunu Chanda and Montu
Chanda had assaulted him and damaged a glass pane of a jewelry shop belonging to Makhan Lal Chanda, PW 2.
When Makhan Lal Chanda arrived, he was informed that the dispute had been settled by Ambika Prasad Sahu, PW 6.
The deceased, Makhan Lal Chanda, and his companions went to a tea stall to have tea, where they had an
altercation with Bhuttu and some others over seating arrangements. The matter subsided after the intervention of
the owner of the tea stall and Nirmal Chanda, PW 4. However, Bhuttu and Ratan Das later came with others and
assaulted the deceased and Tapan Chanda. The deceased was chased and beaten by the appellants and their
accomplices. He managed to escape but was found dead later.
The judge who presided over the trial and recorded the verdict of guilty relied on the testimonies of two prosecution
witnesses, PW2 and PW3. There was no direct evidence to prove the involvement of the accused in the death of
Moti, the deceased. The guilt of the appellants was established based on circumstantial evidence, which included the
fact that they had chased the deceased and had forced the prosecution witnesses to sign a document stating that
they would not file any complaints against the accused. It is undisputed that Moti was killed, but it is unclear who
actually caused his death or what role the accused played in it. While an offense was committed, it is not known who
committed it. Whether the accused can be convicted under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is a matter of
debate.”
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
MUNNA CHANDA Versus
STATE OF ASSAM ((2006) 3 unknown Unknown 1 5 or more friend/ acquaintance no prior criminal history no prior criminal history sudden fight
Supreme Court Cases 752)
Defence Outcome of
Court Court
Blunt instrument such as Lack of Actus Conviction to

absence of weapon Unknown Laceration 4 Injury on vital organ common intention other
stick or lathi Reus Acquittal
SANDHYA JADHAV (SMT) vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 653
“The appellant and co-accused lived as tenants in Govindrao Ghoradkar's house. On 6 June 2019, Ghoradkar went to
the accused persons to demand rent, and in collusion with each other, they assaulted him. When the deceased
intervened, the appellant and his accomplice attacked and killed him with a knife. The police registered two separate
reports, and the accused were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. During the trial, the accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed that Ghoradkar and his associates had attacked them. The trial court convicted and
sentenced them, and they appealed to the High Court. The defense argued that the incident was not covered under
Section 302 of the IPC and that the right to self-defense was available. They also claimed that there was no intention
to kill, as only one blow was given. However, the High Court rejected these arguments and upheld the conviction.
The Sc held that to apply Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, it must be established that the act was not committed with
premeditation, but in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, without the offender having taken
undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Exception 4 deals with cases in which, notwithstanding that
a blow may have been struck or some provocation given in the origin of the dispute, the subsequent conduct of both
parties puts them on equal footing in terms of guilt. A "sudden fight" implies that both parties exchanged blows or
provocation. The homicide committed is not attributable to unilateral provocation, nor in such cases could the blame
be placed solely on one side. If all the ingredients mentioned in Exception 4 are present, it can be invoked. It should
be noted that the "fight" occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the IPC, but it is a combat
between two people, with or without weapons.”
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
SANDHYA JADHAV (SMT) vs
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
unknown Unknown 1 3 other no prior criminal history no prior criminal history sudden fight
(2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases
653
Defence Outcome of
Court Court
General imprisonment for

Sharp instrument such as Right of Private
presence of weapon Unknown Stab Injury 1 1 Injury on vital organ common intention Sudden fight Exceptio murder to CH certain number of
knife Defence
n years
Rajinder vs State of Haryana (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 425
“In a village with an agricultural background, P was a landowner and S was his son. S was suspected by R of giving
secret information about poppy husk to the police which led to its recovery. Later, P leased land from R's brother,
and while they were on their way to their fields, R met them and declared that S would have to pay the price for the
two matters. Later, while V and S were passing through their land, R shone a flashlight on them and demanded that
they disclose their identity. When they did, S threatened to teach R a lesson for the two matters, and R fired a shot
at him, hitting him on the right thigh. S succumbed to his injury and V filed a case against R. R was found guilty by the
trial court and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10,000 under Section 302 IPC and one-year
imprisonment and a fine of Rs 500 under Section 27 of the Arms Act. R appealed to the High Court, which upheld the
conviction. R then filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the case did not fall under Section 302 IPC and
that he had already served more than 6 years and 8 months in custody. Supreme Court changed the offence of
murder to the offense of Culpable Homicide.”
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
Rajinder vs State of Haryana
prior criminal history
(2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases unknown Unknown 1 1 friend/ acquaintance no prior criminal history sudden fight
(undertrial)
425
Defence Outcome of
Court Court
imprisonment for
Lack of mens rea
presence of weapon Carried to the spot Firearm Bullet injury 1 1 Excessive loss of blood other murder to CH certain number of
of murder
years
KALU RAM AND Another Versus STATE OF DELHI (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 674
Case refered to High Court for Consideration
PAPPU Versus STATE OF M.P. (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases 391
“On May 26, 2004, in Village Teki, a wedding was taking place for the daughter of Rama. Madhu Singh (PW 2) and his
parents were invited to the wedding. In the afternoon, Madhu was eating with Rama while Madhu's father was
eating in another room. At that time, the accused, Pappu (the present appellant) and Munna, came and asked why
Mal Singh was invited. There was an exchange of words and suddenly Pappu hit Mal Singh with a stick on the left
side of his head, causing him to fall to the ground. Munna also caused injuries to Mal Singh's left shoulder and hand.
Madhu and Sajjan Bai rushed to save Mal Singh, who fell unconscious due to the injuries. The accused threatened
the witnesses and fled from the scene. The incident was reported to the police and a case was registered. Mal Singh
was taken to a primary health center where he was attended by Dr. H.S. Muvel (PW 6). Dr. Muvel found three
external bruises on Mal Singh's body. Mal Singh was immediately referred to the District Hospital for further
treatment. He died the next day, and the police filed a charge sheet against the accused under Sections 302, 294/34,
and 506(2)/34 JPC. The accused denied the charges.”
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
PAPPU Versus STATE OF M.P.
(2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases unknown Unknown 1 2 friend/ acquaintance no prior criminal history no prior criminal history sudden fight
391
Defence Outcome of
Court Court
General imprisonment for
Blunt instrument such as Lack of mens rea Grave and sudden
presence of weapon Taken from the spot Laceration 2 2 Injury on vital organ Exceptio murder to CH certain number of
stick or lathi of murder provocation
n years
OTTUPARA MUHAMMED ALIAS NANIYAPPA vs. STATE OF KERALA (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 209
ORDER: The person appealing, in this case, was tried in the Sessions Court and was found guilty along with two
others under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The first accused was also convicted under
Section 302, while the High Court acquitted the second accused but upheld the conviction and sentence of the
appellant under Section 302. There were property disputes between the two groups, and on the day of the incident,
the deceased and his children went to the property, which was objected to by the appellant and his sons. There was
a quarrel between the two groups and the children of the deceased sustained injuries. In the impugned judgment, it
was concluded that accused 2 and 3 acted in private defense, while the deceased, who was an old lady, intervened in
the quarrel and sustained fatal injuries caused by the appellant. The prosecution evidence shows that the appellant
caused the injury resulting in the death of the deceased. Therefore, the offense falls under Section 304 Part I of the
Penal Code. The appellant is sentenced to seven years of imprisonment.
RAVIKUMAR ALIAS KUTTI RAVI VS STATE OF T.N. (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 240
“The deceased, Pushpa, was living with her brother Selvaraj (PW 3) and his wife (PW 2) in a rented house in Bagalur.
At around 8 p.m., PW 2 heard a commotion and cries coming from their house while returning from the market. She
rushed towards the house and saw the accused, Ravikumar alias Kutti Ravi, running away from the scene. The
deceased came out of the house with her clothes on fire, and several neighbors came to her aid and put out the fire
with a blanket. The deceased told PW 2 that the accused, along with his girlfriend Mala, had broken into their house
with the intention of sexually assaulting her, and when she resisted, they poured kerosene on her and set her on fire.
The deceased was taken to the hospital, where she gave a statement to the doctor, who translated it from Telugu to
Tamil. The statement was recorded at the police station, and a case was registered under Sections 376 and 307 of
the IPC. The doctor informed the Judicial Magistrate of the incident, who came to the hospital and recorded the
dying declaration of the deceased. Later, Pushpa succumbed to her injuries and died in the government hospital on
21-1-1998 at 4:30 p.m.
The SC held that The court must ensure that the statement of the deceased was not the result of prompting or a
product of imagination. Once the court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, it can base its
conviction on the dying declaration without any further corroboration. However, the rule requiring corroboration is
merely a rule of prudence and not an absolute rule of law.
In the case discussed, the Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased confirmed that he had
ensured that the deceased was in a fit state to give the statement before recording it. The statement was accurately
recorded, and there was no evidence to suggest that it was a product of imagination, prompting, or deception. The
dying declaration was trustworthy and credible, and the court could base its conviction on it without requiring
further corroboration. The defence did not cross-examine the witnesses or challenge the translation of the
statement, so there was no doubt that the dying declaration was correctly recorded. The Supreme Court upheld the
SC order.”
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
RAVIKUMAR ALIAS KUTTI RAVI
unknown Unknown 1 2 friend/ acquaintance no prior criminal history unknown sexual gratification
VS STATE OF T.N.
Defence Outcome of
Court Court
absence of weapon Other Burn Other Other unchanged
State of Up vs Desh raj((2006) 9 Supreme court cases 278)
“A minor girl, aged 10, was raped and murdered, and circumstantial evidence pointed to the accused as the
perpetrator. The victim was last seen with the accused on the day she disappeared, and witnesses testified to seeing
them together. Scratch marks were found on the accused's face when he was questioned by the victim's father, but
he could not explain them. A medical examination revealed that the victim was raped and strangled to death. The
testimony of witnesses was found to be reliable, and there was no evidence to contradict it. The prosecution
consistently established the guilt of the accused, and the inconsistency with his innocence led to his conviction. The
conviction was upheld on appeal.”
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
State of Up vs Desh raj((2006)
under 18 Unknown 1 1 stranger no prior criminal history no prior criminal history sexual gratification
9 Supreme court cases 278)
Defence Outcome of
Court Court
absence of weapon Other Other Strangled Other unchanged
Dhaneshwar Mahakud and other vs State of Orissa ((2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 307)
“According to the prosecution, six people armed with axes and crowbars went to a disputed land to put up poles for
a shop house. When the uncle of one of the accused and another person arrived and objected to the act, they
suggested getting the land verified by an Amin. The accused persons then assaulted the victims with axes and
crowbars, causing injuries and death. The accused claimed that they were attacked and acted in self-defense. Six
accused were tried and convicted for offenses punishable under Sections 148, 302, 323, and 149 IPC. The trial court
did not accept their plea of self-defense and alibi. The high court acquitted two accused and convicted four accused
based on evidence presented by the prosecution. The Supreme Court was asked whether the accused-appellants
could be convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC when they were only charged with an offense under Section 302
read with Section 149 IPC.
To determine whether the right of private defense is available, relevant factors such as the injuries received by the
accused, the imminence of the threat to their safety, the injuries caused by the accused, and whether the accused
had time to seek help from public authorities must be considered. In this case, the evidence showed that there was
no imminent danger to the property or person of the accused, and they had no reason to attack the complainant
party with weapons like axes and crowbars and cause injuries to vital body parts.
The SC held that In this case, the testimony of eyewitnesses, supported by medical evidence from doctors who
performed autopsies on the deceased, showed that the injuries sustained were homicidal in nature and were
sufficient to cause death. The evidence also showed a common intention among the accused to do away with the
deceased, and the accused would not be prejudiced by a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 instead
of Section 302 read with Section 34.”
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
Dhaneshwar Mahakud and

other vs State of Orissa ((2006) Multiple Multiple 1 5 or more other no prior criminal history no prior criminal history sudden fight
9 Supreme Court Cases 307)
Defence Outcome of
Court Court
Death caused
Blunt instrument such as Right of Private
presence of weapon Carried to the spot Laceration 1 1 Injury on vital organ common intention while exercising Unchanged
stick or lathi Defence
right of RPD
MUNIVEL vs STATE OF T.N. (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 254
While PWs 1 and 2 were returning to their homes at around 12:15 in the midnight, the accused persons (A-1 to A-5)
attacked them with deadly weapons. A-1 had a grudge against the deceased and shouted at PW 2, saying that his
entire family should die. A-2 then stabbed PW 2 in his abdomen, causing him to bleed. PW 1 ran to his house and
informed his parents about the occurrence. Upon hearing the cries, PW 10 and her husband came out of their house,
and A-5 cut the ring fingers of both her left and right hands. After the incident, the accused persons fled the scene,
and the deceased and the injured persons were taken to the hospital where the deceased died. The trial court
convicted the accused persons under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life
imprisonment. The High Court modified the conviction of A-2 but confirmed the judgment of the trial court in
respect of other offenses on A-3, A-4, and A-5. A-4 and A-5 appealed their conviction, claiming they did not
participate in the assault on the deceased or his family members and were not related to Accused 1 and 2, with
whom the deceased and his family members were on hostile terms.
Section 149 of the Penal Code addresses vicarious liability. If a member of an unlawful assembly commits an offense
in pursuit of a common object known to the assembly, any person who participated in the offense will be guilty. The
common object could be the commission of one offense, while there may be a likelihood of another offense that the
members of the assembly knew about. Whether a member of an unlawful assembly is aware of the likelihood of the
commission of another offense or not depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Relevant factors include
the motive, the nature of the assembly, the behavior of its members before, during, and after the commission of the
crime. If a death occurs in the course of pursuing the common object of an unlawful assembly, it is not necessary to
identify the person who inflicted the fatal injury. This principle was established in State of Rajasthan v. Naki 2003 SCC
(Cri) 1156.
In determining whether to invoke Section 149 of the Penal Code, the entire incident leading up to the offense must
be taken into account. The incident that resulted in the death of one person and the serious injury of several others
was part of the same event in this case. The accused persons arrived at the scene armed with deadly weapons at
midnight, and their active roles were proven by the testimony of prosecution witnesses. Not only did they attack PW
1 and other witnesses, but they also prevented the deceased from escaping and harmed anyone who tried to
intervene. While it is true that PW 3 and PW 10 were related to the deceased, they were also related to Accused 1
and 2. There is no evidence to suggest that PW 3 and PW 10 had any grudges against the accused persons.
Therefore, the actions of the appellants must be considered in light of these facts. They made no attempt to stop
Accused 1 and 2 from continuing their assault on the members of PW 2.
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
MUNIVEL vs STATE OF T.N. unknown Multiple 1 5 or more other no prior criminal history no prior criminal history revenge
Defence Outcome of
Court Court
Sharp instrument such as

presence of weapon Carried to the spot Stab injury 1 Injury on vital organ Common intention unchanged
knife
ANIL KUMAR TULSIYANI Versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER ((2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 425)
Bail bond and sureties were cancelled
SURENDRA SINGH ALIAS BITTU vs STATE OF UTTARANCHAL ((2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 531)
“The parties involved in this case are from the 9th block of the Jungle of PS Bazpur in the Udham Singh Nagar district
of Nainital, Uttaranchal. They own agricultural lands in this village. The appellant in this case owns cattle which used
to enter the agricultural lands of the deceased, Ram Singh, which were adjacent to the appellant's land but were
separate. Ram Singh made several complaints about this to the appellant. On June 14, 2001, the cattle allegedly
damaged the crops grown in the deceased's plot, and he protested against it. This led to a scuffle, during which the
appellant allegedly fired his gun and hit Ram Singh on the left flank of his abdomen. The father of the deceased and
two co-villagers witnessed the incident, but the gun was not recovered, and another eyewitness was not examined
by the prosecution. The trial judge acquitted one of the accused, Trilok Singh, of all charges, but the appellant and
Rajendra Singh were convicted under Sections 302/34, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). On appeal,
the High Court acquitted Rajendra Singh of all charges but upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section
302/34, 323, 504, and 506 IPC. The appellant has appealed this decision. The issue in this appeal is whether the
appellant caused the death of Ram Singh and whether it was a homicidal death.”
The Supreme Court found the appellant guilty under 304 Part II IPC.
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
SURENDRA SINGH ALIAS
BITTU vs STATE OF
unknown Unknown 1 3 other no prior criminal history no prior criminal history property dispute
UTTARANCHAL ((2006) 9
Defence Outcome of
Court Court
General
Lack of mens rea Grave and sudden
presence of weapon Carried to the spot Firearm Bullet injury 1 Injury on vital organ Exceptio murder to CH
of murder provocation
n
GONCHI RAJASHEKHAR REDDY AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF A.P. AND OTHERS( (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases
535)
“There were two political factions in the village of Bappena in Sankota. One was led by Orla Jatasimha Reddy, who
had previously been the Village Administrative Officer. The other was led by Narasimha Reddy. On December 10,
1997, at around 2:30 a.m., the followers of Appaiah, who was part of Narasimha Reddy's group, allegedly trespassed
into the house of Sanjeeva Reddy, a member of Jatasimha Reddy's group, and caused harm to him. They also
allegedly attacked Narasimha Reddy and killed him in his bedroom. Following this, there were further incidents of
violence against members of Jatasimha Reddy's group. There had been previous criminal assaults between the two
groups, and legal proceedings were pending before the First-Class Judicial Magistrate and Sub-Judicial Magistrate.
The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 403 of 2004 argued that A-12 was acquitted by the Sessions Court because only
PW 4 gave evidence against him, and there was no corroborative evidence to support the presence of PW 5. The
same reasoning would apply to A-7. However, this argument is not valid because PW 3 and PW 7 have spoken about
the presence of A-7 with multiple corroboration. Therefore, A-7 is not entitled to acquittal.
In these appeals, there is no reason to disagree with the decisions made by the lower courts, and the conviction and
sentence of all appellants are confirmed. The appeals have no merit and are dismissed.”
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
GONCHI RAJASHEKHAR REDDY

AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF
Multiple Multiple 2 5 or more other unknown unknown revenge
A.P. AND OTHERS( (2006) 9
Defence Outcome of
Court Court
presence of weapon Unknown Unknown Burn Other common intention Other unchanged
PANAKANTI SAMPATH RAO Versus STATE OF A. P. ((2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 658)
The appellant got married to Panakanthi-Kavitha, and they lived together in a rented house for three months. The
accused claimed that he had to leave for Hyderabad on 6-8-2000 for official reasons as he was a medical
representative. The next day, PW 8 found Panakanti Kavitha dead with injuries on her body, lying by the side of the
cot on the ground when he pushed the door-wing of the house of Accused 1. On the same day, PW1, the father of
the deceased, filed a complaint at Karimnagar Police Station, and it was registered as a case in Cr. No. 15 of 2000 for
offences under Sections 498-A, 302 and 304-B IPC. The police recorded statements of several witnesses, and a
charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and his mother and father as Accused 2 and 3 for the offences under
Sections 498-A, 302, 304-B IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case was transferred to the
Sessions Court, Karimnagar, and the appellant and his co-accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC, where
they denied their involvement in the alleged offences. The Sessions Court examined 20 witnesses, including the
appellant.
After considering the evidence presented, the trial court found the appellant guilty along with Accused 2 and 3 for
offenses under Sections 498-A, 301-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court sentenced them as
follows: A-2 and A-3 were given rigorous imprisonment for a certain period and a fine of Rs 500 each, while in
default of payment, they would have to undergo simple imprisonment. A-2 was also given life imprisonment for the
offense under Section 304-B IPC. A-1 was given two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10,000, and in
default of payment, he would have to undergo simple imprisonment. The court ordered that all the sentences would
run concurrently, and the unmarked property would be destroyed. The appellant, along with Accused 2 and 3, filed
Criminal Appeals before the High Court, but the Division Bench allowed the appeal for A-2 and A-3 and dismissed the
appeal for the appellant. The Division Bench also allowed the appeal filed by the State. The appellant has now filed
the present appeal.
The conviction was unchanged

No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
PANAKANTI SAMPATH RAO
Versus STATE OF A. P. ((2006) unknown Multiple 1 2 family member no prior criminal history no prior criminal history other
Defence Outcome of
Court Court
absence of weapon Other Burn Other Other Other unchanged
STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, T.N Versus ESLIAN ALIAS JOTHI BASU (2006) 9 Supreme Court
Cases 785)
Order the bail the to be cancelled
UMRAO Versus STATE OF HARYANA and Others ( (2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 136)
Umrao reported that he went to his brother's tube well with his son Rajinder and brother at 6/6:30 a.m. and found
the accused removing the electric motor. When they asked them to stop, Yad Ram hit Rajinder on the head with a
"kassi" which he was holding, causing him to fall down. Respondents 2 and 3 also hit Rajinder with "jaily" and "lathi"
on his waist and shoulders respectively, while Respondent 5 caused an injury to his head and Respondent 6 caused
injuries to his elbow and left rib. Yad Ram also hit Rewti with the reverse side of the "kassi" on his right rib. Ram
Dayal caused injuries to Rewti's waist and both hands. Rajinder was admitted to the hospital on 17-9-1992 and
discharged on 25-9-1992 at about 8 a.m. but was readmitted to the hospital on the same day at about 9:25 p.m. He
was operated on 28-9-1992 and passed away on 30-9-1992. Umrao reported the incident to the police and the FIR
was lodged on the same day based on his statement. The accused's defence was that Rajinder fell down from the
staircase on 25-9-1992, causing his injuries, which led to his death. The accused were charged with several offences
under IPC, and the Additional Sessions Judge convicted them of some offences and acquitted them of others. High
Court recorded that the respondents could not be held liable for the crime and the supreme court concurred and
dismissed the appeal.
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
UMRAO Versus STATE OF
HARYANA and Others ( (2006) unknown Multiple 1 5 or more stranger no prior criminal history unknown sudden fight
Defence
No. of No of Defence pleaded accepted
injury blow by the accused by the
Court
Blunt instrument such as Unchang

presence of weapon Carried to the spot Laceration 10+ Unknown Excessive loss of blood common intention
stick or lathi ed
DEEPAK CHANDRAKANT PATIL Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 151
On December 28th, 1998, A-1 went to Parbhani Railway Station to see off his daughter, who was going on a school
trip. A-2, the appellant, was also present there, along with the son of the deceased, who was accompanying the
students. A-2 insisted that the school trip should be canceled as no teacher was accompanying the students, and the
deceased took exception to this. A-1 threatened the deceased with serious consequences. Nothing else happened on
that day. On December 29th, 1998, A-2 made a call to the deceased's wife and went to the school to find out the
whereabouts of the deceased. He then went to the deceased's house at 10 pm and asked him to accompany him
since A-1 wanted to talk to him. The deceased was persuaded to accompany A-2 to the house of A-1, and they both
left for the house on the motorcycle of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that an autorickshaw with three
persons sitting in it followed them, and the occupants of the autorickshaw were later identified as A-3 to A-5. When
the deceased did not return till 11 pm, his wife and others went to the house of A-1 to inquire about him. A-1 gave a
vague reply about the whereabouts of the deceased, and when pressed, he threatened the wife with the
consequences of asking too many questions. When the deceased did not return till midnight, they went to the police
station and reported him missing.
The trial court acquitted A-1 because there was no evidence to prove their involvement. Regarding A-5, the trial
court did not rely on the identification parade held after a long delay. The bloodstained clothes found had stains of
human blood of the same group as the deceased, but the trial court did not accept this as evidence because there
was no evidence of the accused's blood group. The recoveries made at the accused's instance were also not believed
as the witness was not independent. The trial court suspected the prosecution of tampering with the panchnamas.
Since the eyewitnesses turned hostile, the trial court considered the incriminating circumstances on record involving
the appellant in the commission of the offense in the absence of direct evidence.
The State filed an appeal against the acquittal of the accused, and the accused also appealed against his conviction
and sentence. The High Court upheld the acquittal of the remaining accused, stating that the trial court's decision
was reasonable and did not require interference. As for the appellant, his conviction was upheld by the High Court.
Supreme Court also upheld the judgment
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
DEEPAK CHANDRAKANT PATIL
Versus STATE OF
unknown Multiple 1 3 stranger no prior criminal history no prior criminal history unknown
MAHARASHTRA (2006) 10
Supreme Court Cases 151
Defence Outcome of
Court Court
unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Other unchanged
ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF T.N. (2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 157
The accused and the deceased Kumararaja both lived in Anmerri village, Taluk Gingee, and had agricultural land
there. The accused claimed a share of the land belonging to Kumararaja and were causing disturbances, resulting in
some criminal cases pending against them. A-5 and A-6 left the village early on 29-10-1993, allegedly instructing the
appellants to kill Kumararaja if he plowed the disputed land. Kumararaja started plowing the land later that morning
and the appellants objected. He sought the help of PW1 and PW2 to resolve the issue, but they were unsuccessful.
A-7 allegedly brought knives and handed them to the appellants, who then attacked Kumararaja, killing him. PW1
and PW2 witnessed the incident and were also threatened before the appellants fled with the weapons.
During the trial in front of the Sessions Judge, the defense argued that another first information report had been
filed and recorded in the general diary, but it was not produced as evidence. Despite this, the Sessions Judge
considered the evidence presented by witnesses, including PW1 and PW2, and found the prosecution's case to be
proven beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in a conviction for all accused persons.
However, on appeal to the High Court, the court did not believe that A-6, who had left the village at 6:00 a.m. on the
day of the incident, or A-7, who had allegedly distributed weapons to the appellants, was involved in the crime. As a
result, they were acquitted, but the appeal was held to have abated due to the death of one of the appellants while
the appeal was pending. The remaining appeal was dismissed.
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS
prior criminal history
vs. STATE OF T.N. (2006) 10 unknown Multiple 1 5 or more other unknown property dispute
(undertrial)
Defence Outcome of
Court Court

presence of weapon Carried to the spot Stab Injury 9 Unknown Injury on vital organ Other unchanged
knife
SUDERSHAN REDDY vs. STATE OF A.P. (2006) Supreme Court Cases 163
On April 27, 1999, Khaja Saheb, S. Srinivasa Rao, Thirumalesh Gowd, and T. Sreenivaslu were at Ramesh Hotel near
Silver Jubilee College in Kurnool town. They left on two motorcycles, with the deceased driving the first one and
Srinivasa Rao as the passenger. When they reached a railway gate, an autorickshaw overtook them, causing the
deceased to lose control and crash. Later that night, Srinivasa Rao lodged a complaint alleging that all four accused
got out of the autorickshaw and attacked the deceased, who died at the scene from multiple injuries. The police
registered a case and secured the presence of witnesses, seized the deceased's clothing, and arrested the accused.
During the investigation, the accused made a confession, which was included in the charge sheet filed by the
investigating officer. The trial court and the high court convicted the accused. Supreme court upheld the high court
order.
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
SUDERSHAN REDDY vs. STATE
OF A.P. (2006) Supreme Court unknown Multiple 1 4 stranger no prior criminal history no prior criminal history sudden fight
Cases 163
Defence Outcome of
Court Court

presence of weapon Unknown Stab Injury 10 Other unchanged
knife
OMANAKUTTAN v. STATE OF KERALA((2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 197)
Order was given to reduce the fin of 50000 to 1000 and three months of imprisonment
BABASAHEB MURLIDHAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 309
Order: SC, after examining the evidence and post-mortem report, said that it was apparent that the deceased
suffered numerous injuries, including a fatal head injury inflicted by accused Murlidhar Narke. This injury alone was
enough to cause death in the ordinary course of events. Therefore, SC believes that the High Court was justified in
changing the appellant's conviction from Section 304 Part II IPC to Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
MOHINDER SINGH v. STATE
OF PUNJAB (2006) 10 Supreme unknown Multiple 1 5 or more friend/ acquaintance no prior criminal history unknown property dispute
Court Cases 418
Defence Outcome of
Court Court

presence of weapon Carried to the spot Bullet injury 3 Shock common intention unchanged
stick or lathi
USMAN ALI Versus JAGRAM AND OTHERS (2009) 17 Supreme Court Cases 406
The trial court convicted the respondents under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to
imprisonment, but the High Court overturned the verdict and acquitted them of all charges. The allegations were
that the accused went to Liyakat Ali's house and assaulted him, as well as other occupants who came to his aid,
before fleeing the scene. The police were notified and a case was registered against all four respondents. Three
eyewitnesses testified during the trial, and they were also named in the first information report.
The testimony of the three eyewitnesses was supported by medical evidence, which contradicts the High Court's
claim that their injuries were inconsistent with the prosecution's case. The fact that the witnesses were family
members did not make them less credible, and their testimony was essential because the incident took place in their
home in the middle of the night. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt their testimony, and the trial court's decision
to rely on it was reasonable. The High Court made a mistake in acquitting the defendants based on the absence of
their names in the inquest report. This is not a valid reason for acquittal. Therefore, the trial court's decision to
convict the defendants was valid, and the High Court's decision to acquit them was erroneous. As a result, the appeal
is granted, and the High Court's acquittal is overturned, and the defendants are convicted as originally determined
by the trial court. The defendants may have to post bail again.
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
USMAN ALI Versus JAGRAM
AND OTHERS (2009) 17 unknown Multiple 1 5 or more other unknown unknown unknown
Defence Outcome of
Court Court
Appeal was
unknown Unknown Unknown Other 7 Unknown Unknown common intention Other
allowed
STATE OF KARNATAKA Versus T.B. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY (2007) 14 Supreme Court Cases 791
Order: The appellant's lawyer argues that the court's directive was unnecessary, and that there is no evidence
against the appellant even with the police's additional report. The appellant was also not given a chance to dispute
the possibility of the Sessions Court framing charges against him in the impugned order. However, it is clarified that
the appellant is allowed to challenge the framing of charges before the Sessions Court and present all of his
arguments at that time.
JALARAM Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases 347
This appeal challenges the Rajasthan High Court's decision dated March 19, 2004, in which the appellant's appeal
against his conviction and sentence under Sections 147, 302 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code was converted to
a conviction under Section 302 IPC alone. According to the prosecution's case, the appellant and several others
assaulted Pratapa (PW 5), Hanja (PW 1), Vasna (the deceased), and Raimal (PW 4) with lathis while they were passing
through the field of accused Sonaram. The appellant was accused of giving a lathi-blow on the head of the deceased.
Although the appellant was named in the first information report, no charge sheet was submitted against him or
three other accused. A charge sheet was submitted against Kisana Ram, Naringa, Sonaram, Ghamanda, and Deva
Ram for commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, and 323 read with Section 149 IPC.
After the prosecution examined 11 witnesses in support of its case, the learned trial court acquitted Sonaram,
Ghamanda, and Deva Ram, but found the appellant guilty of commission of offences punishable under Sections 147,
302, and 323/149 IPC, and the other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 302/149, and 325/149
IPC. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court heard two appeals against the trial court's decision and held the
appellant alone guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, while acquitting the other accused
persons. Kisana Ram and Naringa were held guilty of commission of an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC for
causing hurt to Pratapa (PW 5) and Hanja (PW 1) and were sentenced to the period already undergone.
The Supreme Court changed the offence from section 302 to section 304
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
JALARAM Versus STATE OF
RAJASTHAN (2005) 13 unknown Multiple 1 3 other no prior criminal history no prior criminal history revenge
Defence Outcome of
Court Court
imprisonment for
presence of weapon Carried to the spot Laceration 7 Unknown Injury on vital organ common intention Other murder to CH certain number of
stick or lathi
years+ fine
MOHINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB (2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 418
Harbans Singh, who lived near the appellants, was killed due to a dispute over the demarcation of the shamlat land.
The accused-appellants claimed a portion of the land and Harbans Singh, the deceased, claimed another portion. The
shamlat land was not divided, and neither party had exclusive possession of any particular portion of the land. On
February 23, 1996, at approximately 5:30 p.m., the complainant, Harvinder Kaur (PW 1), and Jasvinder Kaur (PW 2)
were making cow-dung cakes in the shamlat land, while Harbans Singh was talking to Jaspal Singh. Then, Mohinder
Singh (A-1) and Nasib Singh (A-3), along with three other accused, arrived with weapons and accused the
complainant party of trying to take their land. Mohinder Singh hit Harbans Singh with a lalkara, and Jaspal Singh was
shot in the ankle. Harbans Singh was shot in the right thigh, and other members of the complainant party were also
injured. The accused then fled the scene. Gurit Singh took the injured to the Civil Hospital.
The trial and high court convicted the accused under 302 with 149 and other to sentences which were to run
concurrently. The supreme court also upheld the judgement.
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
MOHINDER SINGH v. STATE
OF PUNJAB (2006) 10 Supreme unknown Multiple 1 5 or more friend/ acquaintance no prior criminal history unknown property dispute
Court Cases 418
Defence Outcome of
Court Court
presence of weapon Carried to the spot Bullet injury 3 Shock common intention unchanged
stick or lathi
Arioka Thomas vs. State of Tamil Nadu ( (2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 542 )
ORDER: In this case, the appellant and accused Dhanasekaran were both tried together. Dhanasekaran was found
guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine. The appellant
was found guilty of Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to seven years of imprisonment and a fine. The appellant
appealed their conviction, along with the accused and the state. The appeals of the accused were dismissed, while
the appellant's appeal was allowed and their sentence was reduced to Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC,
resulting in a reduced sentence. The main issue in the case was whether the witnesses, PW 1 and PW 13, who
claimed to have seen the accused commit the crime, could have identified them in the absence of light. In the
absence of strong evidence, the court decided that the prosecution had failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond
reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant.
SABBI MALLESU v. STATE OF A.P. ((2006) 10 Supreme Court cases 543)
The case involves a dispute related to a building that led to the death of two individuals. The trial included 39
accused individuals charged with various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 147, 148, 302, 324,
323, 341, 120-B, and 506. All individuals were acquitted of the charges related to Section 147 of the Indian Penal
Code. The judgment in question is related to the charges under Section 302 against all accused individuals. The
judgment finds that the accused individuals formed an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons with the intention to
kill Gade Seeratpulu and Karanam Chandraiah.
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
SABBI MALLESU v. STATE OF
A.P. ((2006) 10 Supreme Court unknown Multiple 1 4 friend/ acquaintance no prior criminal history no prior criminal history property dispute
cases 543)
Defence Outcome of
Court Court
presence of weapon Carried to the spot Laceration 1 Injury on vital organ unchanged
stick or lathi
V.N. RATHEESH V. STATE OF KERALA (2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 617
On December 23, 1994, at 11:15 a.m., the defendant killed the deceased at the private bus stand in Kanhangad.
Based on the complaint of R. Ashokan (PW 1) and V.K. Raghavan (PW 9), Inspector of Police, Kanhangad Police
Station registered the case as Crime No. 648 of 1994 under Ext. P-1. The defendant was apprehended and taken to
the police station where they seized MO 1 dagger and MO 2 slfa from him and recorded the details in Ext. P-2, which
was witnessed by K. Ibraham (PW 2). Habib Rahman (PW 4), Circle Inspector of Police, took over the investigation at
about 2:45 p.m. on the same day. Dr. C.V. Jayaraj (PW 8), Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital, Jifa11, Kanhangad,
conducted the post-mortem and set out his findings in Ext. P-10. The accused was charged with the offense, pleaded
not guilty, and examined ten witnesses. He denied the incident as alleged and stated that the deceased and others
trespassed into his house and assaulted him and his family, resulting in injuries for which he was hospitalized. On the
day of the incident, he had come to Kanhangad to purchase some items for his pilgrimage to Sabarimala and
medicines for his child. While at the bus stand, the accused and seven other individuals, against whom he had filed a
complaint, along with Ara, surrounded and attacked him. The deceased held him, and he was assaulted by one Kutty.
He denied inflicting injuries on the deceased and maintained his innocence.
The trial court considered the evidence brought before it and determined that the eyewitnesses PWs 2 and 3 were
unreliable as their accounts of the incident were inconsistent, and the testimony of PW 4 did not support the
prosecution's case. Even if the discrepant part of PW 4's evidence were to be ignored, his evidence was not credible
and did not inspire confidence. The trial court observed that the evidence of PWs 1, 2, and 3, when to read together,
made the prosecution's scenario unlikely. The trial court also noted that the conduct of PW 3 and his friend, who left
the deceased after he had received knife wounds, was suspicious. The trial court pointed to various other
circumstances that ruled out the presence of PWs 2 and 3 and exposed deficiencies in the prosecution's evidence.
The trial court, therefore, acquitted the accused. However, the High Court, in its appeal, held that the discrepancies
pointed out by the trial court were trivial and immaterial and did not justify acquittal. The learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the High Court's approach was flawed as minor discrepancies in evidence should not be
used to discard the prosecution's version. The appellate court cannot interfere with an order of acquittal unless
there is a manifest error or the order is perverse. The presumption of innocence is further strengthened by acquittal,
and the court should adopt the view that is most favorable to the accused if two views are possible based on the
evidence presented.
The appeal was allowed because the high court shouldn’t have set aside the conviction in the manner it was done.
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
V.N. RATHEESH V. STATE OF
KERALA (2006) 10 Supreme Unknown 1 1 stranger no prior criminal history no prior criminal history sudden fight
Court Cases 617
Defence Outcome of
Court Court
Sharp instrument such as Right of Private Appeal was
presence of weapon Carried to the spot Stab Injury 1 Injury on vital organ
knife Defence allowed
BUNNILAL CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF BIHAR (2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 639
Yogendra Raut went to the police station in Sidhwalia and reported that his relative from Paithauli had purchased a
she-buffalo from Sattan Chaudhary for Rs. 6800. His relative paid a partial amount and promised to pay the rest
later. However, on the day of the incident, Maniraj Chaudhary, Sattan's son, pointed a gun at him and demanded the
remaining Rs. 300. Yogendra shouted for help, and his family members came to his rescue. Later on, when Yogendra
and his family members were on their way to take a bath, they were surrounded by 10 people, including Bunnilal
Chaudhary, Birendra Chaudhary, Maniraj Chaudhary, Dashrath Chaudhary, Magister Chaudhary, Bali Chaudhary,
Indradeo Chaudhary, Amarjit Chaudhary, Naresh Chaudhary, and Rajdhari Chaudhary. The accused had weapons in
their hands and attacked Yogendra's younger brother, Shambhu Raut. Shambhu was seriously injured and later died
at the hospital. The police recorded Yogendra's statement (Ext. P-5) based on these facts.
After considering the testimony of three eyewitnesses, PW 5, PW 9, and PW 10, the Sessions Judge found the
accused guilty of murdering Shambhu in pursuit of their common objective under Sections 302/149 IPC. A-3, A-4, A-
6, A-7, A-8, and A-10 were also found guilty under Section 117 IPC, while A-1, A-2, A-5, and A-9 were convicted under
Section 148 IPC. All the accused were sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 302/149 IPC, with A-1, A-2, A-5,
and A-9 additionally sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 148 IPC. A-3, A-4, A-6, A-7,
and A-8 were sentenced to two years of imprisonment under Section 147 IPC. The sentences were to be served
concurrently. The High Court judge, on appeal, reviewed the evidence and probabilities and changed A-1's conviction
to Section 302 IPC and acquitted A-6 and A-7. The convictions and sentences of the remaining accused under
Sections 302/149 IPC were upheld.
Regarding the conviction of Bunnilal Chaudhary, SC decided to change it from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II and
instead of the previous sentence of imprisonment for life, we now sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for five
years and a fine of Rs 1000, with a default stipulation of six months' simple imprisonment. As for Criminal Appeal No.
605 of 2005 preferred by Bunnilal Chaudhary, it is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
Magister Chaudhary, Birendra Chaudhary, Maniraj Chaudhary, Dashrath Chaudhary, Amarjit Chaudhary, Naresh
Chaudhary, and Rajdhari Chaudhary have been acquitted of the offense under Section 149 IPC. They were out on
bail, and their bonds have been discharged.
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
BUNNILAL CHAUDHARY v.
STATE OF BIHAR (2006) 10 unknown Multiple 1 5 or more stranger no prior criminal history no prior criminal history property dispute
Defence Outcome of
Court Court
imprisonment for
Blunt instrument such as Lack of mens rea
presence of weapon Carried to the spot Laceration 1 1 Injury on vital organ murder to CH certain number of
stick or lathi of murder
years
GOLUSULA ELLAIAH v. STATE OF A.P. (2006) 11 Supreme Court cases 175
On June 25th, 1996, around 10:30 pm, the accused filed a complaint with the Shamshabad Police Station. In the
complaint, he stated that he and his wife were returning from Chalivendragudpi village, where his wife's parents
lived, and stopped at a hospital in Shamshabad for her medical check-up. As they were walking towards their village,
four people attacked them near the HUDA colony. The accused was beaten, while the other two took his wife
towards the bushes. He managed to escape and ran to his village to inform his elder brother and other villagers.
When they returned to the spot, they found his wife in an unconscious state with her ornaments missing. The
complaint was registered as Crime No. 130 of 1996 under Sections 302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, and an
investigation was initiated. On June 30th, 1996, the deceased's parents expressed suspicion about the accused to the
investigating officer. The accused had fled but was later apprehended in his village. It was discovered that he had
pledged the deceased's silver anklets on June 15th, 1996, the gold ear studs on June 18th, 1996, and a gundlu (a
string of 39 gold beads) on June 25th, 1996, to a moneylender named Sampathraj. As a result of this information, the
IO seized the pledged items and pawn receipt books from PW 4. The accused also produced the pledge receipts and
took the IO and the panch witnesses to his house. Receipt No. 8864 dated June 15th, 1996, and Receipt No. 8882
dated June 18th, 1996, were related to the silver anklets and gold ear studs.
Based on the available evidence, the trial court issued a verdict on July 30, 1999, finding the accused guilty of
violating sections 392, 201, and 3 of the IPC. The accused filed an appeal which was rejected by the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, stating that both courts agreed that although there
were no eyewitnesses to the incident, the prosecution had provided sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove the
accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Supreme Court upheld the high court judgment.
No. of victim
Age
victim
died)
GOLUSULA ELLAIAH v. STATE
OF A.P. (2006) 11 Supreme unknown Unknown 1 1 family member no prior criminal history no prior criminal history other
Court cases 175
Defence Outcome of
Court Court
unknown Unknown Other Other Unknown Unknown Other Other unchanged
Graphs
25
20
Axis Title
15
Multiple
10 under 18
unknown
0
Total
Age Distribution of victim
14.2
14
13.8
13.6
13.4
Axis Title
13.2 Multiple
Unknown
13
12.8
12.6
12.4
Total
Age distribution of the Offender
30
25
20
Axis Title
15
1
2
10
0
Total
Number of the Victims
12
10
1
Axis Title
6
2
3
4 4
5 or more
0
Total
Number of Offenders
5
Axis Title
family member
4 friend/ acquaintance
other
3 stranger
0
Total
Relationship Between the victim and the offender
30
25
20
Axis Title
15
no prior criminal history
unknown
10
0
Total
Background of victim
20
18
16
14
12
Axis Title
10
no prior criminal history
8 prior criminal history (undertrial)
unknown
6
0
Total
Background of Offender
12
10
other
Axis Title
6 property dispute
revenge
sexual gratification
4 sudden fight
unknown
0
Total
Motive of Crime
20
18
16
14
12
Axis Title
10
absence of weapon
8 presence of weapon
unknown
6
0
Total
Involvement of Weapon
16
14
12
10
Axis Title
8 Carried to the spot

Taken from the spot
6 Unknown
(blank)
4
0
Total
Source of Weapon
12
10
8
Blunt instrument such as stick or
lathi
Axis Title
6 Firearm
Other
Sharp instrument such as knife
4
Unknown
(blank)
2
0
Total
Nature of Weapon
10
6
Bullet injury
Axis Title
5 Burn
Laceration
4 Other
Stab Injury
3
Unknown
2
0
Total
Nature of Injury
12
10
8 1
2
3
Axis Title
6 4
7
9
4 10
10+
Unknown
2 (blank)
0
Total
Number of Injuries
5
Axis Title
1
4 2
Unknown
3 (blank)
0
Total
Number of Blows
16
14
12
10
Excessive loss of blood

Axis Title
8
Injury on vital organ
Other
6 Shock
Unknown
4
0
Total
Cause of Death
12
10
8
Axis Title
6
common intention
unknown
4 (blank)
0
Total
Types of Constructive Liability
12
10
Lack of Actus Reus

Axis Title
6
Lack of mens rea of murder
Other
4 Right of Private Defence
(blank)
0
Total
Defence pleaded by the accused
3.5
2.5
Axis Title
2 Death caused while exercising right

of RPD
1.5 Grave and sudden provocation
Other
Sudden fight
1 (blank)
0.5
0
Total
Mitigating factor pleaded by accused
3.5
2.5
2
Axis Title
General Exception
1.5 other
Unchanged
(blank)
1
0.5
0
Total
Defense accepted by the Court
16
14
12
10
Acquittal to Conviction
Axis Title
8 Appeal was allowed

Conviction to Acquittal
6 murder to CH
unchanged
4 (blank)
0
Total
Outcome of appeal in the Supreme Court
4.5
3.5
2.5 imprisonment for certain number of

Axis Title
years
2 imprisonment for certain number of
years+ fine
1.5 other
(blank)
1
0.5
0
Total
Sentence
Critical Analysis
Introduction
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) distinguishes between two types of unlawful killings: murder and culpable homicide.
While both offenses have similarities, there are significant differences between them. This paper critically
analyzes the differences between murder and culpable homicide in India, with a focus on the legal definitions,
intent requirements, and punishment. This topic was done because the courts also face difficulty in the difference
between culpable homicide and murder and because of that 6 cases in the 35 cases were cases where the
offense of murder was turned to the offense of culpable homicide.
Legal Definitions
Murder is defined under Section 300 of the IPC as an act done with the intention of causing death or with the
knowledge that it is likely to cause death. This definition of murder requires a specific intent to cause death,
which means that the offender must have intended to cause the victim's death. The offender can also be charged
with murder if they had knowledge that their actions were likely to cause death.
Culpable homicide, on the other hand, is defined under Section 299 of the IPC as an act that causes death but
does not fall under the definition of murder. Culpable homicide can be of two types: (1) culpable homicide not
amounting to murder and (2) culpable homicide amounting to murder. 1
Intent Requirements
Murder: For murder, the intent to cause death can be express or implied. In addition to this, there are certain
circumstances in which the act of causing death is deemed to be murder, such as when the act is committed with
the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, or when the act is done in furtherance of an intention to cause
bodily injury that is likely to cause death.
Culpable Homicide: Section 299 of the IPC defines culpable homicide as the act of causing the death of another
person with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause death, but
without the intention of causing death. This means that the offender must have had knowledge that their actions
were likely to cause death, but did not necessarily have the specific intent to cause death. In addition to this,
there are certain circumstances in which the act of causing death is deemed to be a culpable homicide, such as
when the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause
death, or when the act is done in furtherance of an intention to cause bodily injury that is likely to cause death
but falls short of the intent to cause death.
For example, if a person intentionally pushes another person off a roof, causing their death, it would be
considered murder because the offender had the specific intent to cause death. However, if a person is driving a
car recklessly and causes an accident that leads to the death of another person, it would be considered culpable
homicide because the offender did not have the intent to cause death but was aware that their actions could
result in death.
In the Indian Penal Code (IPC), culpable homicide is a general term, and murder is a specific type of culpable
homicide. All murder falls under the category of culpable homicide, but not all culpable homicide is murder.
Generally, culpable homicide without the special characteristics of murder is known as culpable homicide not
amounting to murder. The IPC recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide for the purpose of punishment,
proportionate to the gravity of the offense. The first is called "culpable homicide of the first degree," which is the
most serious form of culpable homicide and is defined in Section 300 as murder. The second is "culpable
homicide of the second degree," which is punishable under the first part of Section 304. The third is "culpable
homicide of the third degree," which is the least serious form of culpable homicide and is punishable under the
second part of Section 304.
The courts have always made a distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
However, confusion arises when courts lose sight of the true meaning of the terms used by the legislature in
these sections and get caught up in minutiae. The safest way to approach the interpretation and application of
1
THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 Section 299,300
these provisions is to focus on the language used in the various clauses of Sections 299 and 300. A comparative
table of these two sections will help to appreciate the differences between the two offenses.
The term "likely" in clause (b) of Section 299 denotes probability rather than mere possibility. The phrase "bodily
injury ... sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" implies that, based on the ordinary course of
nature, death is the most probable outcome of the injury. For cases to fall within clause (3), it is not necessary for
the offender to have intended to cause death, as long as death is a result of intentional bodily injury or injuries
that are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In the case of Kalarimadathil Unni v. State of
Kerala, this point is illustrated. In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, Judge Vivian Bose explained the meaning and
scope of clause (3), stating that the prosecution must objectively establish the presence and nature of bodily
injury, the intention to inflict that particular injury and that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature. These are purely objective investigations. The inquiry then proceeds further to ascertain
whether the injury, made up of the three elements, was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
This aspect of the inquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the offender's intention.
Punishment
Another significant difference between the two offenses is the punishment. Murder is a more serious offense and
is punishable by life imprisonment or even the death penalty in certain cases. On the other hand, culpable
homicide is punishable by imprisonment for a term that may extend to life.
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder is punishable by imprisonment for a term that may extend to life,
but it is not as severe as the punishment for murder. Culpable homicide amounting to murder is also punishable
by life imprisonment, but it is not considered as severe as murder.
Conclusion
In conclusion, murder and culpable homicide are two distinct offenses in India, with different legal definitions,
intent requirements, and punishment. The key factor that differentiates the two is the intention behind the act.
While murder is a more serious offense, culpable homicide is also a grave crime and can result in life
imprisonment. It is essential to understand these differences to ensure that appropriate charges are brought
against offenders and that justice is served.

Ipc Case Summaries

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ipc Case Summaries

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IPC CASE SUMMARIES

State of Up vs. Chatur Singh (2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases 360

Death caused imprisonment for

Blunt instrument such as

Lack of mens rea Appeal was

P. MANI Versus STATE OF T.N. ( (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases 161)

The Supreme Court held that:

Blunt instrument such as Lack of Actus Conviction to

General imprisonment for

Rajinder vs State of Haryana (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 425

Case refered to High Court for Consideration

PAPPU Versus STATE OF M.P. (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases 391

absence of weapon Other Burn Other Other unchanged

State of Up vs Desh raj((2006) 9 Supreme court cases 278)

absence of weapon Other Other Strangled Other unchanged

Dhaneshwar Mahakud and

Sharp instrument such as

Bail bond and sureties were cancelled

GONCHI RAJASHEKHAR REDDY

The conviction was unchanged

absence of weapon Other Burn Other Other Other unchanged

Order the bail the to be cancelled

Blunt instrument such as Unchang

unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Other unchanged

Sharp instrument such as

Sharp instrument such as

OMANAKUTTAN v. STATE OF KERALA((2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 197)

BABASAHEB MURLIDHAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 309

Blunt instrument such as

JALARAM Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases 347

MOHINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB (2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 418

SABBI MALLESU v. STATE OF A.P. ((2006) 10 Supreme Court cases 543)

V.N. RATHEESH V. STATE OF KERALA (2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 617

BUNNILAL CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF BIHAR (2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 639

GOLUSULA ELLAIAH v. STATE OF A.P. (2006) 11 Supreme Court cases 175

unknown Unknown Other Other Unknown Unknown Other Other unchanged

8 Carried to the spot

Excessive loss of blood

Lack of Actus Reus

2 Death caused while exercising right

8 Appeal was allowed

2.5 imprisonment for certain number of

You might also like