IPC [CaseLaws]

Section 34 IPC – to fasten liability with the aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C. what must necessarily be proved is a common intention to commit the crime actually committed and each accused person can be convicted of that crime, only if it is in furtherance of common intention of all. Common intention pre-supposes a prior concert, though pre-concert in the sense of a distinct previous plan is not necessary as common intention to bring about a particular result may develop on the spot. The question whether there was any common intention or not depends upon the inference to be drawn from the proven facts and circumstances of each case. The totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion whether the accused had a common intention to commit an offence with which they could be convictedSunil vs State of NCT Of Delhi 2023 INSC 840

Section 304B IPC – Conviction of accused upheld – Where the deceased dies as a result of poisoning, it is difficult to successfully isolate the poison and recognise it. Lack of positive evidence in this respect would not result in throwing out the entire prosecution case, if the other circumstances clearly point out the guilt of the accused.- We find it difficult to take the view that in the absence of any positive viscera report, the prosecution could be said to have failed to establish its case – Buddhadeb Saha vs State of West Bengal CrA 1692 of 2022

Section 124A IPC – Fundamental rights do not exist in silos, the Supreme Court observed while it referred the challenge against constitutional validity of Section 124A IPC (sedition) to a larger bench.The court noted that the Kedar Nath Singh Vs State of Bihar did not : (1) make a distinction between the State which falls within the ambit of Article 19(2) and the Government, which does not (2) consider the validity of the provision against a constitutional challenge on the basis of Article 14. The court also rejected the Union Government’s plea to defer considering whether a reference should be made to a larger bench. It had submittted that the Parliament is in the process of reenacting the provisions of the Penal Code and the Bill has been placed before a Standing Committee. “The validity of the prosecutions which have been launched or would be launched so long as Section 124A continues to remain on the statute would have to be assessed under it. The issue of the validity of the provision for the period that it continues to operate would, therefore, need to be determined.”, the court noted – S G Vombatkere vs Union of India WP(C) 682 of 2021

Section 84 IPC – Murder accused acquitted -Standard of proof to prove the lunacy or insanity is only ‘reasonable doubt – The court is concerned with legal insanity and not with medical insanity. (Para 19-22) – Rupesh Manger (Thapa) vs State of Sikkim –2023 INSC 826

Section 307 IPC – It is the degree of the injury and the nature of surrounding circumstances which are decisive in any given case. The circumstances in this case proved by the prosecution are that rather unusually the accused was literally stalking the victim at 1.00 in the morning and when the opportunity arose, he shot at him. This, ipso facto, establishes that the intention was to cause serious if not fatal injury. Consequently, the conviction under Section 307 IPC cannot be faulted – 10 years rigorous imprisonment is rather too severe and harsh. It is in any number of decided cases, 4 this Court has held that even for a grave offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC, ordinarily a standard sentence of upto 5 years to 7 years has been imposed. In these circumstances, the given sentence of 10 years RI is hereby modified to one of 3 years RI. This Court also is cognizant that no antecedents showing violence of the appellant, or his proneness to such behaviour have been shown – Satnam Singh vs State of Uttaranchal – CrA 2723/2023

Section 300 IPC – It would be unsafe to treat ‘intent’ and ‘knowledge’ in equal terms. They are not different things. Knowledge would be one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration while determining or inferring the requisite intent. Where the evidence would not disclose that there was any intention to cause death of the deceased but it was clear that the accused had knowledge that his acts were likely to cause death, the accused can be held guilty under second part of Section 304 IPC. It is in this background that the expression used in Indian Penal Code namely “intention” and “knowledge” has to be seen as there being a thin line of distinction between these two expressions. The act to constitute murder, if in given facts and circumstances, would disclose that the ingredients of Section 300 are not satisfied and such act is one of extreme recklessness, it would not attract the said Section. In order to bring a case within Part 3 of Section 300 IPC, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury 15 which in the ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause death. In other words, that the injury found to be present was the injury that was intended to be inflicted – N Ramkumar vs State 2023 INSC 812

Section 300 IPC – “Culpable homicide” is a genus and “murder” is its species and all “murders” are “culpable homicides, but all “culpable homicides” are not “murders”. The intention of the accused must be judged not in the light of actual circumstances, but in the light of what is supposed to be the circumstances. – N Ramkumar vs State 2023 INSC 812

Section 300 Exception 4 IPC – Refused to convert murder conviction – Ram Manohar Singh vs State of UP | 2023 INSC 781

Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder) Merely because the injuries sustained by the complainant were very simple in nature, that would not absolve the appellant/accused from being convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. What is important is an intention coupled with the overt act committed by the appellant/accused. S K Khaja vs State of Maharashtra | CrA 1183/2011