LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS

ON
INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860
1. Subramaniam Swamy Vs UOI
The Supreme Court of India dismissed challenges to the constitutionality of the
criminal offense of defamation, holding that it was a reasonable restriction on the
right to freedom of expression. The case had been brought by several petitioners
charged with criminal defamation. They argued that the offense of criminal
defamation inhibited their speech. The Court found that there existed a
constitutional duty to respect the dignity of others.

2. Mens Rea cases

Brend v. Wood (1946)

It is critical for the protection of the subject’s liberty that a court
remember that “unless the statute expressly 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 a
guilty mind.”

Sherras v. De Rutzen (1895)

1. There is a presumption that mens rea, or evil intent, or knowledge of
the act’s wrongfulness, is an essential ingredient in every offence;
however, that presumption may be displaced either by the words of
the statute creating the offence or by the subject-matter with which it
deals, and both must be considered.

State of Maharashtra v. M.H.George (1964)

 This case is related to the country’s economic situation. As a result, the
Supreme Court adopted the strict liability concept rather than the maxim.

Prabhat Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar(2021)

The Supreme Court recently stated in Prabhat Kumar Singh v. State of
Bihar(2021) that Mens Rea’s absence, i.e. malicious or evil intent, is not a
relevant factor in matters of medical negligence. At the same time, the
Court has stressed the need to follow the correct procedure when trying
any criminal complaint involving medical negligence.

MISTAKE OF FACTS SEC 76 & 79

1. The State of Orissa Vs Ram Bahadur Thapa AIR

1960
2. The State Of Orissa Vs Bhagaban Barik 1987

ACCIDENT SEC-80

1. Tunda Vs State

In this case, the accused Tunda and the deceased were friends who
were very interested in wrestling and were engaged in a wrestling
bout. While wrestling, the deceased got injured on his head and it
resulted in his death. In this case, Allahabad Highcourt observed that
the injury caused by death was the result of an accident and there was
no foul play on part of the accused. In addition to that, the court held
that there was an implied consent of the deceased in taking any risk in
the wake of wrestling. Therefore the accused was entitled to get
benefits under both Section 80 and 87.

2. Jageshwar v. Emperor [1924]

This case is based on a principle that when an act is not lawful in a lawful
manner by lawful means, it will not come under Section 80 of the Indian
Penal Code. In this case, the accused was hitting the victim and
 accidentally hit the wife of the accused who was pregnant. No sooner did
the blow hit the head of the child than it resulted in his death. The Court
held that the accused will not be entitled to the benefits of Section 80 of
IPC. It’s because even though the death of the child was by accident, the
act was not lawful in a lawful manner by lawful means.

ACT OF NECESSITY sec 81

R v Dudley and Stephens – 1884

INSANITY sec 84

1. R vs Daniel

2. Queen-Empress vs K. N. Shah

3. Lakshmi vs State

4. Azharuddin Ahmed vs The King

5. M Naghten rules determines insanity as defence

Section 86: Drunkenness

1. Shrikant AnandRao Bhosle vs The State of Maharashtra

2. Badusev vs. State of Pepsu

3. Rex vs Maekin

4. Director of Public prosecutions vs Beard

Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCC 143 [2] Section

375(6), Indian Penal Code, 1860 [3] Section 375(2) and 375(3), Indian Penal
Code, 1860
Bachan singh vs state of punjab 1980

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in accordance with the majority
opinion. The Court dismissed the challenge to the constitutionality of Section
302 of the IPC in so far as it prescribes the death sentence, as well as, the
constitutionality of Section 354(3) of the CrPC, 1973 was rejected.

Acid attack – Laxmi v. Union of India

K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra 1959

The jury in the Greater Bombay sessions court pronounced Nanavati as not guilty under
section 302 under which Nanavati was charged, Mr. Ratilal Bhaichand Mehta (the
sessions judge) considered the acquittal as perverse, and took a historic decision of
overturning the jury's decision.

Reg Vs Govinda 1876

The Lordship had brought forward the differences between Section 299 and 300 of the IPC.

The court had stated that there was absence of intention. In both, Section 299 and 300, the

key element is that there should be an intention of causing the death.

Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum 1985

The court held that the law is not limited by religion or the triple talaq. As such, section 125

is applicable to everyone.

Sarla Mudgal v. Union Of India AIR 1995 SC 1531

The court held that the first marriage stands valid and that the conversion to Islam is not an

opportunity to pick another wife. Therefore, the husband is punishable under section 494 of

the IPC.

1. Jessica Murder case 2006

2. Aarushi Talwar case, 2008

D.K. Basu, Ashok K. Johri v State of West Bengal (1997)

Introduction Popularly known as D.K. Basu case is one of the landmark

judgements in history as it laid down the guidelines to be followed

while making arrests.

Joseph Shine vs. Union of India (2018)

The judgment is one of its kind and has overruled all the previous

judgments upholding the criminalisation of adultery.

PREVIOUS YEAR

QUESTIONS

1.Rupa Bajaj Vs KPS Gill is a famous case which the SC decided on

a. Wrongful Restraint

b. Wrongful Confinement

c. Outrage the Modesty of a woman

d. Maintenance to the divorced woman

2. The distinction between section 299 and 300 was made clear by

Melvill.J.in

a. Reg Vs Gorachand Gopee

b. Reg Vs Govinda

c. Govinda Vs Reg

d. Reg Vs Hayward

3. In which of the following case the offence of sedition was in issue

a. Queen Empress Vs Bal Gangadhar Tilak

b. Niharendu Dutt Mazumdar Vs Emperor

c. Kedar Nath Singh Vs State of Bihar

d. All of the above

4. The famous pronouncement of Delhi High Court regarding

constitutional validity of sec-377 IPC reversed by SC in

a. NALSA Vs UOI

b. Naz Foundation Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi

c. Shabnam Hasmi Vs UOI

d. Suresh Kaushal Vs Naz Foundation

LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF 2022

1. Mahadev V B.S.F

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that Section 100

of the Indian Penal Code 1860 provides for the
circumstances in which a person can claim the right of
private defence of body can be stretched to the extent of
voluntarily causing death.
2. S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India
Section 124A of IPC is not in tune with the current social
milieu, and was intended for a time when this country
was under the colonial regime.”Keeping Sedition Law on
hold.
3. Monirul Molla v. The State of West Bengal
This case was related to Section 53 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. In this case, the Calcutta High Court issued a
directive to trial courts in West Bengal stipulating that a
sentence of life imprisonment till death, without any
scope of remission, can only be passed in rape cases.
LEGAL PERSE

FOR MORE UPDATES, FOLLOW ME ON

INSTAGRAM AND TELEGRAM LINK IN BIO.