Section 52 ipc. Important Judgements on section 76 and section 79 of Indian Penal Code 2019-03-01

Section 52 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. A is not guilty of the offence. A has committed the offence defined in this section. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this Exception provided he has not acted cruelly; Samuthram alias Samudra Rajan v. Illustration A, knowing that he is likely to cause the death of a pregnant woman, does an act which, if it caused the death of the woman, would amount to culpable homicide.

IPC Section 52

But, if such property subse­quently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property. There may be provided longitudinal baffles situated between adjacent transverse baffles that define longitudinal compartments with restricted fluid flow there between for dampening lateral fluid surges. It must be shown that the belief had a rational basis and was not just a blind simple belief. A has committed the offence defined in this section. But A has the same right of private defence against Z, which he would have if Z were not acting under that misconcep­tion. There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities. No violent mob had gathered there.

Section 497 and 498 of the IPC on adultery laws are dusty Victorian remnants

A, knowing that the note belongs to Z, pledges it with a banker as a security for a loan, intending at a future time to restore it to Z. It has been held that when a question arises as to whether a person acted in good faith, and then it devolves upon him to show not merely that he had a good insertion but that he exercised such care and skill as the duty reasonably demanded for its due discharge. A has committed the offence defined in this section. So I have used different colours to save your time and energy. A is liable in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had instigated the child to put the poison into the food of Y. A cheque upon a banker is a document.

IPC Section 52

C was convicted of the offence of Murder and sentenced to transportation for life. Here, if A alters his course without any intention to run down the boat C and in good faith for the purpose of avoiding the danger to the passengers in the boat B, he is not guilty of an offence, though he may run down the boat C by doing an act which he knew was likely to cause that effect, if it be found as a matter of fact that the danger which he intended to avoid was such as to excuse him in incurring the risk of running down the boat C. The moment culprit commences to do an act with the necessary intention, he commences his attempt to commit the offence. That is the purport of the Illustration to Section 76. The Courts have tried to explain it on the basis of their own judgment based on logic and reason.

IPC Section 52

B is guilty of murder, but, as A did not co-operate with B, A is guilty only of an attempt to commit murder. There was no reason of any kind why he should have attacked him and, as shown, they were mutually devoted. Illustration Causing miscarriage unless caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman is an offence independently of any harm which it may cause or be intended to cause to the woman. A has committed no offence. Association or relation to lead a conspiracy is not enough to establish the intention to kill the deceased; Sanjiv Kumar v.

Indian Penal Code IPC 1860

Z dies from the effects of the several doses of poison so administered to him. The bench pronounced its verdict on 6 September 2018. Illustrations a A voluntarily burns a valuable security belonging to Z in­tending to cause wrongful loss to Z. Illustration A instigates B to murder Z. It was held that the mere presence of a person armed with a deadly weapon at the spot of a crime does not necessarily make him a participator in a joint crime in every case, because for the purpose of section 34 only such presence makes a man a participant in a joint crime as is established to be with the intention of lending weight to the commission of a joint crime; Jamun v.

Indian Penal Code

B is guilty of murder, but, as A did not co-operate with B. A has commit­ted the offence defined in this section. A, intending to cause Z's death, illegally omits to supply Z with food; in consequence of which Z is much reduced in strength, but the starvation is not sufficient to cause his death. This section as well as section 113B of the Evidence Act enact a rule of presumption, i. Explanation An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid, which constitutes the abetment. Tolson for seven years, and then married another person saying about her first marriage. It would be most dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime.

26 U.S. Code § 52

Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of property. A cheque upon a banker is a document. Assisting in concealment of stolen property. Their relations were cordial, and Ghudsai was attentive and considerate to his father who had an abscess in his leg for some time prior to the 3rd April 1951. In a prosecution under section 504 against the accused for having insulted the complainant, the submission was made on behalf of the accused that the triviality of the act with a view to befooling a member of the fraternity should operate as a bar to the wrong alleged. All persons jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night punishable where death or grievous hurt caused by one of them. Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

IPC Section 52

Construction of reference to transportation 153A. Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law: provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will. Intention is the essential legal ingredient. Public servant in judicial proceeding corruptly making report, etc. He does this with the intention in good faith of saving human life or property. It was held that his act could not be held to have been done in good faith. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence.