Murder, culpable homicide and sentencing
Sections 299 to 304 IPC (100 to 105 BNS), private defence and the death penalty.
15 of the 17 judgments in our library on this topic: the ones other judgments here cite most, oldest first.
0 of 15 read
Start: Virsa Singh v. State of PunjabYour progress is kept in this browser. Sign in to keep it on every device and count it in your reading streak.
11 March 1958 · 3 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Virsa Singh v. State of PunjabThe Court explained what the prosecution must prove under Section 300, clause thirdly, IPC, and upheld the appellant's murder conviction for a single spear thrust into the abdomen that was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
On this path for: Section 300, clause thirdly, Indian Penal Code; Section 302, Indian Penal Code; Murder
24 November 1961 · 3 judges
K.M. Nanavati v. State of MaharashtraThe Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder and life sentence: the jury verdict was vitiated by grave misdirections, and the killing, done after time to cool, did not fall within the grave and sudden provocation exception.
On this path for: Section 300, Exception 1, Indian Penal Code; Section 302, Indian Penal Code; Murder
15 March 1962 · 5 judges
Mohan Singh v. State of PunjabWhere the charge and evidence named only five members of an unlawful assembly and two were acquitted, Section 149 IPC could not apply to the rest, but the appellants' murder conviction was altered to Section 302 read with Section 34.
On this path for: Section 302, Indian Penal Code
15 September 1976 · 2 judges
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu PunnayyaExplaining the distinction between culpable homicide under Section 299 and murder under Section 300 IPC, the Court restored the murder conviction of an accused who, with another, beat the victim's arms and legs with heavy sticks, causing death.
On this path for: Section 299, Indian Penal Code; Section 300, Indian Penal Code; Section 304, Indian Penal Code
9 May 1980 · 5 judges · cited by 4 judgments in this library
Bachan Singh v. State of PunjabBy 4:1, the Court upheld the death penalty for murder under Section 302 IPC and the sentencing procedure in Section 354(3) CrPC, holding that death may be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases.
On this path for: Section 302, Indian Penal Code; Death penalty
7 April 1983 · 5 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Mithu v. State of PunjabThe Constitution Bench struck down Section 303 IPC, which made death the mandatory sentence for murder by a person under a life sentence, as violating Articles 14 and 21; all murders now fall under Section 302.
On this path for: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860; Mandatory death sentence
20 July 1983 · 3 judges
Machhi Singh v. State of PunjabExplaining how the Bachan Singh 'rarest of rare cases' rule is to be applied, the Court set out categories of murder that may call for death and confirmed three death sentences for a series of killings.
On this path for: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860; Death sentence
17 July 1984 · 3 judges
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of MaharashtraThe Court set aside the appellant's conviction and death sentence for poisoning his wife, holding that circumstantial evidence must satisfy the five conditions drawn from Hanumant's case and that a false defence cannot fill gaps in the prosecution chain.
On this path for: Section 302, Indian Penal Code
3 August 1988 · 3 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)The Court upheld the convictions and death sentences of Satwant Singh and Kehar Singh for the conspiracy to assassinate Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, acquitted Balbir Singh, and held that the trial in Tihar Jail was a valid open trial.
On this path for: Death sentence
13 September 1999 · 3 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Paparambaka Rosamma v. State of Andhra PradeshThe Court set aside convictions under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC that rested only on a dying declaration, because the doctor certified only that the injured was conscious, not that she was in a fit state of mind.
On this path for: Section 302, Indian Penal Code
15 January 2010 · 2 judges
Darshan Singh v. State of PunjabThe appellant, who fired at his uncle after the uncle struck his father on the head with a gandasa and advanced on him, acted in private defence; the High Court wrongly reversed his acquittal.
On this path for: Section 96, Indian Penal Code; Section 97, Indian Penal Code; Section 99, Indian Penal Code
7 March 2011 · 2 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of IndiaThe Court held active euthanasia unlawful but allowed passive euthanasia, laid down a High Court approval procedure for withdrawing life support from incompetent patients until Parliament legislates, and dismissed the petition to stop the petitioner's feeding.
On this path for: Section 302, Indian Penal Code
21 January 2014 · 3 judges
Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of IndiaUndue, unexplained and inordinate executive delay in deciding mercy petitions, and insanity, are supervening circumstances on which death sentences may be commuted under Article 32, in all cases including TADA; fifteen death sentences were commuted and guidelines issued.
On this path for: Death penalty
2 September 2014 · 5 judges
Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of IndiaArticle 21 requires that review petitions in death sentence cases be given a limited oral hearing in open court, not decided by circulation; appeals in such cases are to be heard by benches of three Judges.
On this path for: Death penalty
20 January 2015 · 3 judges
Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar PradeshConviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence set aside. The prosecution's failure to produce available CCTV footage, the best evidence, raised serious doubt and justified an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act.
On this path for: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Test yourself: 170 practice questions on landmark judgments, with explanations.