IPC Landmark Cases

MensRea

 Sherras v. De Rutzen- In every statute mens rea is to be implied unless

contrary is shown.
 Brend vs. Wood- Unless the statute, either clearly or by necessary
implication rules out mens rea as a constituent part of a crime.
 R. v. Tolson
 R v Prince
 State v. Sheo Prasad
 State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George

General Defences

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

 State of Orissa v. Bhagaban Barik-- S 76/79
 Tunda v. Rex (wrestling match) s 80
 R v. Dudley and Stephens- Necessity S. 81

S-84 Insanity

 R v Daniel Mcnaughten
 Queen-Empress v. Kader Nasyer Shah
 Lakshmi v. State
 Ashiruddin Ahmad v. The King

S-86 Drunkness

 Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra

 Basdev v. State of PEPSU
 Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard

Private Defence

 State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup - There is no private defence against private

defence.
 Wassan Singh v. State of Punjab
 Butta Singh v. The State of Punjab
 Deo Narain v. State of U.P
JointLiability (34/149)

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

 Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King-Emperor (shankaritola case)
 Mahbub Shah v. Emperor (Indus Valley Case)- similar intention v
common intention
 Mizaji v. State of U.P- act connected with c.o
 Rishideo V state of UP- common intention may develop on the spot
 JM Desai v State- presence isn’t always required for CI
 Kirpal Singh V. State of U.P- the common intention may develop on the
spot.

Abatement
 Queen V Mohit pandey: abatement by conspiracy to commit suicide

Conspiracy- s 120 A
 Mulcahy V R
 State v. Nalini & Ors. – Chain conspiracy

Sedition- S 124 IPC

 Queen v Jogender Chandra Bose
 Queen V Balgangadhar Tilak
 Kedar Nath V state of Bihar : Constitutional Validity
 Tara Singh v state of Punjab- Constitutional Validity

Culpable Homicide
 R V Govinda: difference b/w 299 &300
 Queen Empress v. Khandu
 Baker v. Snell
 Palani Goundan v. Emperor- s 299/300
 Emperor v. Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy : 301, transfer of
malice
 Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab-300 (3)
 K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra – S 300 exception 1
 Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar : 304 A

Kidnapping
  S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras: Kidnapping
 Thakorlal D. Vadgama v. State of Gujarat: Kidnapping
 Sakshi v. Union of India : S 376
 Priya Patel v. State of Madhya Pradesh : S 376

Theft
 Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan- S 379
 KN Mehra V state of Raj- S 379
 R v Thomson – S 379

Attempt to Suicide (Sec- 309)

 Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra, 1987- Right to life
includes right to die
 P. Rathinam v. Union of India, 1994- Right to life includes right to
die
 Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1996- Right to life does not include
right to die

Attempt to suicide(309)
 Abhayanand Mishra vs. State of Bihar 1961
 Om Prakash vs. State of Punjab 1961
 Sudhir Kumar Mukherjee vs. State of West Bengal, 1973
 State of Maharastra vs. Mohammad Yakub, 1980