Anda di halaman 1dari 13

Case list

1. Dnyaneshwar v. State
During the course of a sudden quarrel the accused hit his friend on his head with a stick
weighing only 210 grams which resulted in the death of the victim. It was held that no
knowledge of death could be ascribed to him. He was therefore charged under section 323.
2. In re Marana Goundan AIR 1941 Mad 560
The accused kicked a man twice on the abdomen as a result of which the man collapsed and
died soon after, and it was held on the ground that there was no mark of external or internal
injury that the accused could not be said to have intended or known that he was likely to
endanger life, and therefore he was convicted only under Section 323, I.P.C.
3. Emperor v. Anis Beg
A boy of about 16 years of age was in love with a girl three or four years younger than him.
He mixed some kind of love potion into some sweets and induced another boy younger
than him to give them to the girl. The girl and his family members ate the sweets and all of
them suffered from dhatura poisoning but none of them died. The boy was held guilty of
causing hurt.
4. R v Clarence 1888(22) QBD 23
The husband was convicted by the lower court for communicating a disease to his wife,
contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861 and with an assault
causing her actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 of the Act. His wife was unaware of
his condition and would not have consented to intercourse had she known of it.
5. Raka v. Emperor
STD transferred by a prostitute. The court held that since the Mens rea to cause hurt cannot
be established, she cannot be held liable under section 319 or 320.
6. Bysagoo Noshyo
The wife died from a chance kick in the spleen (which was not known to be diseased)
inflicted by the husband on provocation and without any intention or knowledge that the act
was likely to cause hurt endangering human life. He was held guilty of causing hurt only.
7. Jashanma, Jhamatmal Brahmanand. S- Air 1944 Sind 19
The Accused, a landlord on a night at around 10.30 pm, in order to frighten the complainants
wife uttered a piercing sound like Haoo and extending his arms towards the lady pointed a
pistol at her, with a view to cause the couple to vacate the premises. Due to shock, the
complaints wife collapsed and became seriously ill for some considerable time.
Held act was sufficient to cause a state of temporary mental impairment resulting in
infirmity of the mind of the complainants wife to attract s. 319.
8. BENNET Case
An accused who had venereal disease induced a girl of 13 years of age, who was ignorant of
his condition, to have sexual intercourse with him and infected her with the disease.
Held guilty
9. RE SUBBIA GOUNDAN - AIR 1936 Mad 788
A husband caused hurt by giving a blow to his wife with a stick. Held as hurt
10. Marcelino Fernandes v. State
Accused along with 4 other associates with a view to teach a lesson to Ventakesh for selling a
fake ring, beat him on the back of the neck with a broken tile and kicked him. The victim fell
to the ground due to injuries, began to vomit blood and ultimately died.
Held- In the absence of proof of intention to kill, or cause bodily injuries which were
sufficient to cause death, merely because it is established that the appellant injured the
deceased and due to the injuries received by the deceased at the scene of the offence he died
three hours later, it cannot be said that the appellant committed the offence punishable under
sec. 304 IPC
- There was no previous enmity between the deceased and the appellant.
- The accused were accordingly convicted for causing voluntarily hurt under sec.
11. Hori Lal Case
The accused had assaulted the victim. All the injuries disclosed that particular bones on
which the injuries were inflicted were cut. There were however no fractures. Hence, it was
contended that the injuries did not constitute grievous hurt. The Supreme Court rejected the
contention. It observed that the word fracture has not been defined in the Penal Code.
If there is a break by cutting or splintering of the bone or there is a rapture or fissure in it, it
would amount to a fracture within the meaning of clause 7 under section 320. (Fracture,
dislocation bone, tooth). According to Naggy, It is not necessary that bone should break in
two pieces to hold someone liable for grievous hurt under fracture category.
12. Gangaram v. State of Rajasthan
The accused went with a razor to the house of a dancing girl and cut the bridge of her nose
with it, which according to the doctor permanently disfigured her face. The accused was held
guilty under clause sixthly of section 320.
13. Mohammad Rafi v. State
Accused, a cobbler aged about 20 yrs., inflicted an injury an injury on the neck of the
deceased with a penknife from behind. The tragedy took place of a quarrel between the 2
boys over a loan of a petty sum of 15 paisa. The deceased was taken to the hospital and died
after 15 days later as a result of septic poisoning from the wound.
Sessions Court convicted him u/ s. 304 II for CH.
Appeal to Lahore HC held accused liable u /s 322 IPC for causing death by GH as
against CH as the circumstances did not justify a finding that the appellant knew that he was
likely to cause death, but at the same time a wound on the neck is dangerous to life within the
meaning of section 320 of IPC.
14. Kottengodan Alavi -Air 1939 Mad 269
In the course of an altercation the accused stabbed the deceased with a knife on the forearm
piercing the radial artery, resulting in the death of the victim of hemorrhage soon after
Held liable for GH not CH, the forearm not being a vital part of the body.
15. Emperor v. Idu Beg
Accused, engaged in a verbal wrangle with his wife, struck her a blow on the left side of the
face with great force, as a result of which she bled from the nose and died within an hour.
Held liable for voluntarily causing GH or of causing death by rash act. (Since he had
no culpable intention to cause death, hence not liable for CH)
16. Modi Ram v. State of MP
The accused was about 21-22 years of age, married to one Janibai. About a year and a half
after marriage, Jani Bai was seduced by one Chunnilal and thereafter they started living in the
same area. One morning, when Chunnilal was going to answer the call of nature, about five
or six persons caught hold of him and gave him a beating. Apart from causing him other
injuries, they also cut off his nose and his male organ. The accused was convicted and
sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment. The High Court however enhanced the
sentence to eight years rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the supreme Court taking into
consideration the young age of the accused, the humility and hurt he would have faced in
having his wife live with another man soon after marriage in the same vicinity, observed that
there was grave provocation and hence reduced the sentence from eight years to three years.
17. Guruvulu Air 1945 Mad 73
The accused while stealing the jewels out of the nostrils of a lady, cut them to facilitate the
theft.- Resulted in her death, due to the unexpected shock.
Held- the accused was guilty of causing GH and not murder/ CH as there was neither
intention to cause death, nor could it be said the accused would be aware that death was likely
to be caused from the harm inflicted.
18. Shyamlal v. State of UP
A, the accused caused a puncture wound on the chest of S by a sharp and pointed weapon,
resulting in his death,
Held - Since the accused had not in causing the injury such intention or knowledge that if the
act caused death it would be murder / CH, he would be liable for causing GH u/ s. 325 IPC.
19. Mohinder Singh v. Emperor (Air 1925 Lah 297)
On 22
August 1922, the accused inflicted a wound on Sarwan Singhs leg with a gandasa (
a sharp-edged weapon) and gave him blows with the back of the gandasa. Tetanus set in on
August, which caused his death.
Held a wound in the leg was not in itself sufficiently dangerous to bring the case within the
meaning of CH- death resulted due to tetanus which supervened and resulted in the death of
the deceased.
20. Gulam Hyder Punjabi 1915 Bom L R 384
A hakim (native physician) performed an operation of the eye with an ordinary pair of
scissors and sutured the wound with an ordinary thread and needle. The instruments were not
disinfectedresulting in the permanent damage to the eye of the patient.
Guilty u/ s 337
21. Pratap Kumar v. St of Punjab (1976 Cr Lj 818)
The accused continued beating the deceased with a hot iron chimta (iron rod used in kitchen)
to take out an evil spirit
Held the large number of injuries inflicted with a hot iron chimta had certainly endangered
the life of the deceased and as such the accused was liable u / s. 326.
22. St of Pun v. Surjan Singh 1976 Cr L J 845
Accused in the course of a fight left the place of incident. Later he brought an axe and
inflicted a blow on the head of the injured
Held liable under section 326 injury was grievous in nature.
23. Dev Raj v. St of Pun., AIR 1992 SC 950
The accused caused gunshot injuries to the victim, who died one and a half months after the
incident. During the period he was operated and for purpose of surgeries several incised
wounds were caused. He died due to the second hemorrhage when his arm was amputed.
Held accused liable for causing GH and not murder.

24. Emperor v. Hazi Gulam Mhd. Azam
A tenant of a house has a position recognized by law and the right to possession even against
a landlord, until lawfully dispossessed, and a landlord who prevents such a tenant from
entering the premises is guilty of WR.
25. Lallo Prasad v. Kedar Nath
A landlord put another lock on the premises which his tenant had locked earlier. Held-
Wrongful Restraint.
26. Obstructing a marriage procession in a motor car WR ?
Held as WR- 1939 MWN 620
Held - Not WR- RAMA LALA 1912 15 BLR 103
27. Lahanus Case
A person stopped when he was proceeding in his bullock cart to his farm- WR
28. Rita Wilson V. State of HP
Complainant was a judicial officer, who was staying in the school quarter allotted to his wife
(his wife was a teacher in a School. He was posted to some other place. Thereafter, he used to
visit his family and was permitted to park his car at a particular place but he was prevented
from using the main gates of the school.
Not WR. Held Criminal restraint to a person is punishable but not any obstruction for
plying or parking of a vehicle at a particular place.
29. RajaRam v. State of Haryana
A woman and a 13 year old boy were summoned to the police station for interrogation. The
proviso to section 160, CrPC, provides that no woman or a male under 15 years of age should
be summoned to the police station for interrogation. Instead, they must be interrogated at the
place where they reside. The accused, a police officer was found guilty of infringing section
160 CrPC. It was held that in view of this, detaining of a woman and a 13 year old boy in the
police station would amount to wrongful restraint. The accused was found guilty u/s 341 IPC,
but not u/s 342.
The complainant was in occupation of a room in the campus of Victoria School. A letter was
addressed to her stating that since the managing committee had decided not to allow outsiders
to reside in the campus, she was to vacate the room. The complainant asked for some
extension of time to vacate the room, as the notice given was very short. Since, she failed to
vacate by end October, her room was locked and she was prevented from entering her room
and thus wrongfully restrained. The SC held that no offence under section 341 was
established as the complainant had no right to proceed in the direction in question( the
hostel room). According to section 339, only if a person has a right to proceed in a particular
direction, can an obstruction of the same amount to wrongful restraint. Since, the
complainant had no right to enter the room on the cancellation of her allotment, no offence
u/s 341 was made out.
Wrongful Confinement
WC must have its bound
large or narrow, visible and tangible, real or conceptual, movable or fixed, but it is a must.
The party imprisoned must be prevented from passing that boundary. He must be prevented
from leaving that place.
32. Mukund Babu Vethe (Bom)
A police officer arrested a British subject in India without a warrant on the charge of criminal
breach of trust. Held WC.
33. Baistab Charan Shaha Cal
A jail doctor confined an offender who was already undergoing imprisonment, in a cell
within the jail for the purpose of administering enema against his will. Held Wrongful
34. Shyam Lal Sharma v. State of MP
It was learnt that certain officials were demanding bribes at a traffic barrier from the drivers
of the vehicles. A trap was laid. A circle inspector raided the office and recovered the notes
which were given. The accused objected to the search, as it was done without a warrant and
also demanded that a search memo be given. The circle inspector agreed to give the search
memo and he was allowed to go. But, after he went out of the office and was on the road, he
was forcibly seized, lifted, taken into the office and thrown on a chair. He was confined there
and threatened with a lathi, till he complied with the demand that he gives in writing that he
had conducted a search of the barrier. It was contended that since the search was conducted in
violation of the procedure prescribed u/s 165, CrPC, the accused had the right to obstruct the
search. The court convicted the accused. It was held that s 342 IPC was not confined to
offences against public servants, but is a general section and makes a person who wrongfully
restrains another, guilty of the offence under that section. A wrongful confinement is a
wrongful restraint in such a manner, as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond a
certain circumscribed limits. The accused were convicted under sections 342 and 353.
35. Shamsudeen v. State of Kerala
The petitioners were convicted by the lower court for wrongful confinement of two police
officers, who went to their place to investigate the matter regarding the wrongful confinement
of X. The Court held that the degree of defiance shown by the petitioners to the officers of
law enforcement could not be condoned, except at peril to values fundamental to the
existence of a system of government based on rule of law. Rule of law postulates duties and
not rights alone. The Petitioners acted in a high handed manner by keeping the police officers
in WC.
36. Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan
The victim was the son of a big businessman. One day, two masked men entered his room
and one of them had a revolver. The two persons threatened to shoot him if he made any
noise. They took him outside, where two camels were waiting, covered his face and took him
on the camel for some distance, and then he was taken to the house of accused, where he was
confined for 17 days. He was forced to write 3 letters to demand a ransom of Rs. 50,000
from his father. After the ransom was paid, they released the victim. Thereafter, the accused
were identified and convicted u/ss 347, 365, 382 and 452.
37. Jay Engineering Works v. St of WB
A large no of labourers Gheraoed the management staff without giving them freedom to
move about. Government also issued circulars restraining the police from interfering without
obtaining the permission of the labour minister. The Cal HC quashed these circulars as ultra
vires of the constitution, infringing art. 14 and held Gherao as Illegal, amounting to the
criminal offences of WR and WC.
Solitary Confinement
38. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration
Sunil was sentenced to death. He was in jail. The jail authorities put him into solitary
confinement against which the prisoner protested and filed a writ petition. SC observed to
keep prisoners sentenced to death, in solitary confinement is impermissible, it being a
distinct, separate and substantive punishment u /s 73, it is not a part of the death sentence
under sec. 53. To read solitary confinement - would render it unconstitutional and violative of
the prisoners fundamental rights under Articles 21, 20 (2), 19 and 14.
Kidnapping and Abduction
39. Sudesh Thakur v. KCJ
Enticing away by natural guardian or father does not constitute abduction.
40. Madan Lal v. Jaswant Singh
Before a person is said to have kidnapped a minor, there must be some proof of his having
done something which led to the removal of minor from the keeping of his/her guardian.
The consent of the minor is immaterial and "taking" would be complete if a minor is taken
out of the permission of the father without his consent.
41. Mahboob v. Emperor
An orphan girl was brought up by A as his own daughter. The accused was residing in the
neighborhood of A. The girl had attained the age of 17 yrs. The accused induced her to run
away from home with him assuring that he would get her married to any person or that he
would himself marry her. She eloped with the accused. The accused handed her over to
another person who too, proceeded to have connection with her.
The offer of inducement to the girl through the promise of marrying himself or to any other
groom amounted to adopting of deceitful means by making misrepresentation of facts and
making the girl leave her guardians home. Since the accused did either of the 2, he is guilty
of the offence.
42. Gurcharan Singh v. St of Haryana
The appellate threatened the minor girl with a pistol and made her to accompany him to his
room in the field where he committed rape on her. It was held that the accused committed a
crime punishable under section 362 and 376.
43. S Varadarajan v State of Madras
A girl who was on the verge of attaining majority, voluntarily left her fathers house,
arranged to meet the accused in a place, went to the sub-registrars office, where the accused
and the girl registered an agreement to marry. There was no evidence whatsoever that the
accused had taken her out of the lawful guardianship of her parents, as there was no active
part played by the accused to persuade her to leave the house. It was held that no offence
under the section was made out.
44. State of Haryana v Raja Ram
The prosecutrix was a young girl of 14 years. She became friendly with a person called Jai
narain, aged 32, who was a frequent visitor. When Jai Narain was forbidden by the
prosecutrixs father from coming home, he sent messages through one Raja Ram. She was
constantly persuaded to leave the house and come with Jai Narain, who would keep her in a
lot of material comfort. One night, the prosecutrix arranged to meet Jai Narain in his house
and went to meet him where she was seduced by Jai Narain. Jai Narain was convicted u/s 376
for rape of minor and Raja Ram u/s 366. The question before the SC was whether Raja Ram
could be said to have been taken the prosecutrix, since she willingly accompanied him. The
Sc held that it was not necessary that the taking or enticing must be shown to have been by
means of force or fraud. Persuasion by the accused person, which creates willingness on the
part of the minor to be taken out of the keeping of the lawful guardian, woild be sufficient to
attract the section.
45. Ram Dass v. St of MP
Mullu Singh and his daughter Kumari and his wife Haribai lived in a quarter at Khamaria.
Kumari was a student of the Higher Secondary School. Ram Dass, the appellant was also a
student, lived in a nearby quarter across the street and knew Kumari. Kumari knew RamDass
since 6 years and developed friendship with him. According to her statement, her parents
harassed her and perplexed her and would not let her eat and drink and that she also thought
of committing suicide and hence pressurized Ramdas to marry her immediately. On Nov 25,
1966 as she was kept locked at her fathers house, she being alone at home escaped from the
house by breaking the lock and went to the house of accused. The accused and she then went
to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jabalpur and got an agreement stated to be a marriage
agreement registered.
Lower Court convicted the accused under section 366
MP HC altered the conviction from section 366 to section 363 and reduced the RI from 4
years to 2 years, and subject to this modification the HC dismissed the appeal
SC relying on Varadarajans decision, urged that the facts in this case do not establish that
there was any taking away or enticement within the meaning of section 363. Hence no
offence has been made out against the appellant u /s 363 and set aside the conviction of
Sessions Judge and HC.
46. Thakorlal D. Vadgama v. St of Guj.

Section 364
47. Ramchandra v. St of UP
A boy was kidnapped and ransom letters were issued that the boy would be murdered if the
ransom was not paid up. It was held to be an offence under this section.
Section 366
48. Rabi Narayandas v. St
Accused took the victim (a blind girl) who was going to school, to the premises of secretariat.
He raped her. It could not be proved as to whether there was consent or not. Conviction under
section 366.
49. Pyarelal v. St Of UP
The accused wanted to get rid of his wife. He left his village with the victim wife,
accompanied by the co-accused and a stranger under the pretext that they were going to
Jhansi to set up a home in that city. On the way, the husband slipped away saying that he will
join them after completing his unfinished work. Thereafter, the co-accused also slipped away.
She then remained with the stranger who took her to another village, committed rape on her
for 2 days, poured kerosene on her body and set fire to her clothes.
EVIDENCE revealed (by the witnesses and the dying declaration) the husband and the co-
accused made the wife leave her house through deceitful means, so that she could be taken
away by the stranger. Conviction under sec 366.
Section 368
50. Smt. Saroj Kumari v. State Of UP
Accused had been charged of the offence of stealing a new born child from its mothers
delivery bed in the maternity hospital, as the child was found in the bedroom of the accused,
although, she had not given birth to any new born child. SC upheld her conviction under s.