Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Criminal law

SUBHASH @ SUBANNA & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

The evidence of injured eyewitnesses and the medical (post mortem) report established multiple ante-mortem injuries inflicted with weapons by the appellants on an unarmed deceased; there was no provocation or other facts to justify private defence and the nature and force of injuries demonstrated intention to inflict the bodily injuries that caused death, therefore convictions under Section 302 IPC (and related convictions under Sections 324 and 326 IPC) as affirmed by the High Court were sustainable.

Source excerpt

  • Murder
  • Right of private defence
  • Provocation
  • Injured eyewitnesses
Read case analysis
Criminal law

PERIYASAMY versus THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

The appeals were allowed and the convictions and sentences set aside because the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt: the key injured witnesses were related/interested and their testimonies contained inconsistencies, independent witnesses were not examined despite there being many at the scene, there were unexplained delays in filing the FIR and recording statements, interpolations and lapses appeared on the record, the investigating officer's conduct and testimony were not reliable and no medical/scientific evidence adequately supported the prosecution's version.

Source excerpt

  • Murder (ipc section 302)
  • Attempt to murder (ipc section 307)
  • Abetment (ipc section 109)
  • Right of private defence
  • Interested/related witnesses vs independent witnesses
  • Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
Read case analysis
Border security force act, 1968

EX. CT. MAHADEV versus THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, BOARDER SECURITY FORCE & ORS.

On the preponderance of probabilities, having regard to the patrolling context, prevalence of smuggling, eyewitness evidence placing the appellant on higher ground, and plausible explanation of bullet trajectory by uneven terrain, the appellant was entitled to claim private defence; the killing fell within Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and the conviction for murder was modified accordingly to attract Section 304 IPC; given incarceration already undergone (over eleven years) the period was considered sufficient and the appellant was set free and bai…

Source excerpt

  • Right of private defence
  • Self-defence
  • Culpable homicide
  • Murder
  • Burden of proof
  • Sentencing
Read case analysis
Criminal law

STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus MEHRAM & ORS.

The trial court's findings that the accused party were aggressors who hid with lethal weapons and that accused No.5 inflicted a single fatal blow with intention or knowledge likely to cause death are sustained; the High Court's conversion of the conviction to Section 326 IPC was erroneous and the appropriate conviction is under Section 304 Part I and Section 148 IPC with sentence of ten years simple imprisonment (for Section 304 Part I) and six months simple imprisonment (for Section 148), concurrent, along with fines and compensation.

Source excerpt

  • Murder (section 302 ipc)
  • Culpable homicide not amounting to murder (section 304 part i ipc)
  • Grievous hurt (section 326 ipc)
  • Right of private defence
  • Conversion of conviction
  • Sentencing
Read case analysis
Criminal law

NAGJI ODHAVJI KUMBHAR & ANR. versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Appellants are not entitled to right of private defence since deceased were unarmed; multiple stab wounds indicate pre-meditation and not sudden fight, justifying conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Source excerpt

  • Murder
  • Right of private defence
  • Multiple injuries
  • Sudden fight
  • Pre-meditation
Read case analysis
Criminal law

SUKUMARAN versus STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Prosecution failed to prove the manner of occurrence because both primary eyewitnesses and two other witnesses turned hostile, and on the appellant’s version (FIR and his testimony) the firing was in exercise of a reasonable right of private defence; consequently convictions under Sections 302 and 203 IPC and related Forest and Arms Act charges were unsustainable and the appellant was acquitted.

Source excerpt

  • Right of private defence
  • Hostile witnesses
  • Proof of charge and insufficiency of evidence
  • False information to public servant (s.203 ipc)
Read case analysis
Criminal law

BHAGWAN SAHAI AND ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Once the court found that the prosecution suppressed origin and failed to explain injuries on the accused including their father's death, the only probable course was to grant benefit of doubt; appellants are entitled to acquittal.

Source excerpt

  • Indian penal code
  • Right of private defence
  • Benefit of doubt
  • Free fight
  • Explanation of injuries on accused
Read case analysis
Criminal law

JAGE RAM & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Having regard to the weapon used, situs and severity of the blow, medical evidence, and corroborated testimony of injured witnesses, the conviction of the second accused under Section 307 IPC stands justified; the sentence is reduced to three years and substantial compensation is ordered, considering the fact the incident occurred over 20 years ago and the accused has been in custody for more than three years.

Source excerpt

  • Attempt to murder
  • Sentencing
  • Compensation to victim
  • Right of private defence
Read case analysis
Criminal law

SUMER SINGH versus SURAJBHAN SINGH AND OTHERS

Reduction of sentence to period already undergone for a brutal offence causing grievous hurt was unjustified in absence of strong reasons; punishment should be proportionate to protect society and vindicate the rule of law. The plea of private defence was not established in the factual circumstances—the accused had no right to evict the victims peacefully in possession, who were unarmed.

Source excerpt

  • Sentencing
  • Right of private defence
  • Enhancement/reduction of sentence
Read case analysis
Criminal law

STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus MANOJ KUMAR

The trial court convicted all accused; High Court accepted right of private defence but found Raju @ Rajkumar exceeded it, thus converted his conviction to Section 304 Part I IPC, and acquitted Hemant and Manoj where Section 34 IPC was not applicable, as constructive liability was not attracted when only one accused exceeded the right of private defence, and there was no common intention to commit murder.

Source excerpt

  • Murder
  • Right of private defence
  • Common intention
  • Constructive liability
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.