IPC LANDMARK CASES FOR PCS J EXAM 2023
Mens Reus
- Sherras v. De Rutzen
- hobbs v/s winchester
- Rex v. Jacobs
- R. v. Tolson
- R v prince
- Brend v. Wood – unless the statute, either
clearly 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 got a guilty mind.’ - 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)
17.Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra
- Basdev v. State of PEPSU
- Rex v. Meakin
- Rex v. Meade
- Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard
96-106
- Wassan Singh v. State of Punjab
- Butta Singh v. The State of Punjab
- Deo Narain v. State of U.P
- State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup – There is no private defence against private defence.
Joint Liability
- R v cruise- section 34 is based upon facts
and decision of case. - Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King-Emperor
(shankaritola case) - King v. PIummer
- Queen v. Sabid Ali – prosecution of common
object clarified - Mahbub Shah v. Emperor (Indus Valley
Case)- similar intention v common int. - 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
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
S302/304
- R V govinda: difference b/w 299 &300
- Queen Empress v. Khandu:
- Baker v. Snell:
- The Queen v. Latimer:
- Anda v. State :
- Palani Goundan v. Emperor- s 299/300
- Emperor v. Mushnooru Suryanarayana
Murthy : 301, transfer of malice - Rawalpenta Venkalu v. State of Hyderabad :
300 (1) - . Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab-300 (3)
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. R. Punnayya- S.
299(b)/S.300(3) - Dhupa Chamar v. State of Bihar
- Supadi Lukada v. Emperor- S 300 (4)
- Emperor v. Mt. Dhirajia – S 300 (4)
- Gyarsibai v. The State – – S 300 (4)
- K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra – S
300 exception 1 - R. v.Duffy– S 300 exception 1
- Ghapoo Yadav v. State of M.P- Exception IV
to section 300 - Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar : 304 A
- Shanti(Smt.) v. State of Haryana – S 304 B
Kidnapping
60.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
- Empress v. Riasat Ali
- Rex v. White
- R. v. McPherson
- R. v. Brown
- Asgarali Pradhania v. Emperor
- Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar
- State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub
- P. Rathinam v. Union of India- Attempt to
suicide(309) - Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of
Maharashtra- Attempt to suicide (309) - Gian Kaur v/s. State of Gian Kaur v. State of
Punjab- Attempt to suicide (309)
Defamation
77. Defamation : Subramaniam Swamy v UOI