Judgments - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
Krishan Mohan Agrawal Vs. State of M.P.
Law Laid Down - Framing of charge precisely mentioning the offence which in specific terms prescribes punishment for the same and not any other generic or approximate offence which may in generic terms prescribe punishment for the offence alleged. Charge framed u/S 409 IPC does not relate to breach of trust by a warehouse keeper, which offence is exclusively punishable u/s 407 IPC. Thus, charge for breach of trust by warehouse keeper framed u/S 409 IPC is not sustainable. The trial Court directed to Full Judgment
Ms INDIRA VATI Vs. STATE OF DELHI
Tula Ram & Ors. Versus The State Of M.P.
GIRISH SHARMA & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS
MAHESH JAGAN SURTI Vs (THE STATE) U. T. OF DAMAN AND DIU
INDRAJEET @ INDRYA PACHORAM BALOTIYA Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit Versus State of Maharashtra
Athul Rao Versus State of Karnataka & Anr.
Hukum Singh -Vs- State of M.P.
KRUNAL @ GOLU S/O ANIL JAISWAL AND OTHERS (IN JAIL) Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH P.S.O. P.S. NANDANVAN, NAGPUR
KAMAKHYA ROY @ LELE VS THE STATE OF ASSAM
SACHIN BABULAL SURYAVANSHI Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
ANAND ANIL RAIMOKAR Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
Kishanlal & Anr. Vs State of M.P.
KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI
DINESH KUMAR MATHUR Vs. STATE
SANTOSH S/O ADINATH GHALAGE AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
Madhavan & Ors Versus The State of Tamil Nadu
Notably, the High Court has not considered the issue of quantum of sentence at all, but mechanically proceeded to affirm the sentence awarded by the Trial Court. From the factual position, which has emerged from the record, it is noticed that there was a pre-existing property dispute between the two families. The incident in question happened all of a sudden without any premeditation after PW1 questioned the appellants about their behavior. It was a free fight between the two family Full Judgment