Notes and Articles for Law students

User Tools

Site Tools


criminal_laws:ipc_important_cases_by_topic_12017122018

I.P.C Important Cases By Topic

MensRea

1) Sherras v. De Rutzen

1.1) hobbs v/s winchester

2) Rex v. Jacobs

3) R. v. Tolson

4) R v prince

5) Brend v. Wood - unless the statute, either clearly or by necessary implication, rules out mens rea, as a constituent part of a crime, a defendant should not be found guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has got a guilty mind.’

6) State v. Sheo Prasad

7) State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George

General Defences

8 State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa- S 76/79

9) State of Orissa v. Bhagaban Barik– S 76/79

10) Tunda v. Rex (wrestling match) s 80

11) R v. Dudley and Stephens- Necessity S. 81

S-84 Insanity

12) R v Daniel Mcnaughten 13) Queen-Empress v. Kader Nasyer Shah 14) Lakshmi v. State 15) Ashiruddin Ahmad v. The King

S-86 ( Drunkness)

16) Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra 17) Basdev v. State of PEPSU 18) Rex v. Meakin 19) Rex v. Meade 20) Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard

96-106

21) State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup - There is no private defence against private defence. 22) Wassan Singh v. State of Punjab 23) Butta Singh v. The State of Punjab 24) Deo Narain v. State of U.P 25) James Martin v. State of Kerala

Joint Liability (34/149)

26) R v cruise- section 34 is based upon facts and decision of case.

27) Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King-Emperor (shankaritola case)

28) King v. PIummer

29) Queen v. Sabid Ali – prosecution of common object clarified

30) Mahbub Shah v. Emperor (Indus Valley Case)- similar intention v common int.

31) Mizaji v. State of U.P- act connected with c.o

32) Rishideo V state of UP- common intention may develop on the spot

33) JM Desai v State- presence isn’t always required for CI

Abatement

34) Queen V Mohit pandey: abatement by conspiracy to commit suicide

Conspiracy- s 120 A

35) Mulcahy V R 36) State v. Nalini & Ors. – Chain conspiracy

Sedition- S 124 IPC

37) Queen v Jogender Chandra Bose 38) Queen V Balgangadhar Tilak 39) Kedar Nath V state of Bihar : Constitutional Validity 40) Tara Singh v state of Punjab- Constitutional Validity

S302/304

41) R V govinda: difference b/w 299 &300 42) Queen Empress v. Khandu: 43) Baker v. Snell: 44) The Queen v. Latimer: 45) Anda v. State : 46) Palani Goundan v. Emperor- s 299/300 47) Emperor v. Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy : 301, transfer of malice 48) Rawalpenta Venkalu v. State of Hyderabad : 300 (1) 49) . Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab-300 (3) 50) State of Andhra Pradesh v. R. Punnayya- S. 299(b)/S.300(3) 51) Dhupa Chamar v. State of Bihar 52) Supadi Lukada v. Emperor- S 300 (4) 53) Emperor v. Mt. Dhirajia - S 300 (4) 54) Gyarsibai v. The State - - S 300 (4) 55) K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra – S 300 exception 1 56) R. v.Duffy– S 300 exception 1 57) Ghapoo Yadav v. State of M.P- Exception IV to section 300 58) Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar : 304 A 59) Shanti(Smt.) v. State of Haryana – S 304 B

Kidnapping

60) S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras: Kidnapping 61) Thakorlal D. Vadgama v. State of Gujarat: Kidnapping

62) Sakshi v. Union of India : S 376 63) Priya Patel v. State of Madhya Pradesh : S 376

theft

64) Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan- S 379 65) KN Mehra V state of Raj- S 379 66) R v Thomson – S 379

Attempt

67) Empress v. Riasat Ali 68) Rex v. White 69) R. v. McPherson 70) R. v. Brown 71) Asgarali Pradhania v. Emperor 72) Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar 73) State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub 74) P. Rathinam v. Union of India- Attempt to suicide(309) 75) Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra- Attempt to suicide (309) 76) Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab- Attempt to suicide (309)

Defamation

77) Defamation : Subramaniam Swamy v UOI


Navigation: Home»Criminal Laws

Created on 2020/10/19 23:13 by • Last modified on 2020/11/07 18:32 (external edit)