GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW. Page 2. Page 3. Page 4. Page 5. Page 6. Page 7. Page 8. Page 9. Page Page Page Page Sl No, Title, Act No, Year, Attachment File, Updated Date. 1, Marathi Legal Glossary, Download ( MB) pdf. 2, The Code of Civil Procedure. A Application of foregoing sections to the Indian Marine Service. residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.

Ipc Sections In Marathi Pdf

Language:English, Portuguese, Arabic
Published (Last):12.05.2016
ePub File Size:17.67 MB
PDF File Size:20.19 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Registration needed]
Uploaded by: VICKEY

I.P.C in Marathi,भारतीय दंड संहिता १८६०, The Indian Penal Code in Marathi I.P.C in Marathi,The Indian Penal Code, In this app every one . IPC, Indian Penal Code a.k.a IPC Bare Act Updated to Include Criminal Code of Conduct (Amendment) Act, New Updated Good Color Scheme. A list of all the Sections in Indian Penal Code, , a.k.a IPC India, in a mobile friendly format, by Advocate Raman Devgan.

Is there any hard and fast rule that the courts can apply to decide the intention? And is the nature of injury important to convict a person under this section?

Sometimes it is seen that it is very difficult to differentiate between the cases under section and cases under ,, because all these offences have some common ingredients among themselves. The offence of attempt to murder is a very serious offence because it is not very different from the offence of murder itself.

The only difference between the two offences is the death of the victim which is not present under section The main ingredients under section are The act attempted should be of such a nature that if not prevented or intercepted, it would lead to the death of the victim.

For the conviction under this section more importance has been given to mens rea or the intention than the actus reus or the actual act itself. The attempt should arise out of a specific intention or desire to murder the victim. The important cases which show that the nature of the injury helps in determining the intention of the accused are Kaluram vs State of Assam [4] , in this case it was found that the accused had dangerous weapon but he inflicted only minor injuries on the victim, which clearly showed that he had no intention to murder and hence he was not convicted under section IPC.

IPC inMarathiभारतीय दंड संहिता

Similarly cases like Kiran Kumar vs State of Gujarat [5] where the accused stabbed the stomach near the naval region with a big knife blade, the court rightly rules that it is a case of attempt to murder and not grieveous hurt. However very interestingly the nature of the injury is not always used to ascertain the intention, that is, a very serious injury need not be caused to prove attempt to murder, even if a simple injury is done with the intention, it will be enough to convict the person under section The most debatable aspect is that even if an injury which in the ordinary course would have caused death, but is not done with an intention to kill, the accused will not be convicted under section The debatable aspect is the amount of punishment that is given under this section, is vastly different from the punishment given under section and any false conviction will be very harmful to the concept equity and justice.

In case of Kuldip Singh vs State, [6] the accused tried to hit the victim with a naked sword but somehow the victim got saved and the blow only caused simple injury, but the court convicted the accused under section IPC because of the dangerous weapon used, which gave away the intention of the accused, which was to murder the victim. So the interpretation is that an act which is sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause the death of the person but the intention on the part of the accused is lacking, the act would not constitute an offence under this section.

An interesting case is that of Prakash Shandra Yadav vs State of Bihar [8] in this case the accused ordered a person to hurl bombs to kill an informant and the person hurled two bombs towards the informant but fortunately, the bombs did not explode and the high court refused to entertain the conviction of the accused under section IPC citing the lack of serious injuries on the body of the victim, the Supreme Court asked for a reconsideration of the case due to the fact that the logic used by the high court was faulty.

Similarly, the reverse is also true and injuries of simple nature caused by non dangerous objects, like a pen knife but with an intention to kill is enough to prosecute under this section.

In case of Shiv Singh vs State [9] the medical evidence was taken into account for determining the intention of the accused, here the weapon used was a dangerous one but the wound caused was of a simple nature, hence the court ruled that the accused would be liable under section and not section In case of Jai Narain vs State of Bihar [10] the number of the accused was taken into account, the court ruled that the fact that four or five people attacked a person with dangerous weapons showed their intention to cause the death of that person, hence they will be liable under The intention and knowledge of the act being done is one of the major factors that is used to decide conviction under section but it is not the only factor.

The circumstances under which the act was done also weighs heavily when the conviction is given under this section. This issue was raised in an Andhra Pradesh High Court where the contention was that there were two punishments being meted out for the same offence, the first punishment being imprisoned for life and the second punishment being ten years rigorous imprisonment and there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to retransfer the matter to the Sessions Judge when it is allotted to him.

In that case the Assistant Sessions judge has to decide the matter and he does not have the power to sentence the accused for more than 10 years according to the procedure laid down by the code. But in another case if the accused is being judged by the sessions judge, the accused can be sentenced for life for the same offence.

Thus it was argued that this is violative of article 14 of the constitution. Punishment of offences committed beyond, but which by law may be tried within, India Any person liable, by any 1 Indian law to be tried for an offence committed beyond 2 India shall be dealt with according to the provisions of this Code for any act committed beyond 2 India in the same manner as if such act had been committed within 3[India].

Extension of Code to extra-territorial offences 1[4.

Pariksha Pe Charcha 2.0

Extension of Code to extra-territorial offences. The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed by 2[ 1 Any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India; 2 Any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be.

He can be tried and convicted of murder in any place in 3[India] in which he may be found. Certain laws not to be affected by this Act Certain laws not to be affected by this Act.

Illustrations a The sections, in this Code, which contain definitions of offences, do not express that a child under seven years of age can not commit such offences; but the definitions are to be understood subject to the general exception which provides that nothing shall be an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.

Sense of expression once explained Every expression, which is explained in any part of this Code, is used in every part of this Code in conformity with the explanation.

Indian Penal Code

Number Unless the contrary appears from the context, words importing the singular number include the plural number, and words importing the plural number include the singular number. Servant of Government Government of India Rep. By the A.

Government India The original section 18 was rep. Section Illustrations a A Collector exercising jurisdiction in a suit under Act 10 of , is a judge.

Explanation 1 Persons falling under any of the above descriptions are public servants, whether appointed by the Government or not. Clause First omitted by the A. Certain words omitted by Act 40 of , sec. Explanation 4 ins. Wrongful gain India Act No. Namespaces Article Talk.

Indian Penal Code

Naz Foundation is overruled. However, the Lahore High Court, differed from the Bombay High Court in this regard and ruled even when no injury is caused then also there may be conviction under this section and that the injury caused is merely an aggravating factor.

site Prime Music Stream millions of songs, ad-free.

The main ingredients under section are The act attempted should be of such a nature that if not prevented or intercepted, it would lead to the death of the victim. Indian Panel Code ed.

He can be tried and convicted of murder in any place in 3[India] in which he may be found. The Outline is presented in the following table:

ALENA from Wichita
See my other posts. One of my hobbies is kenpō. I do like usually.