IPC Landmark Cases

IPC LANDMARK CASES FOR PCS J EXAM 2023

Mens Reus

  1. Sherras v. De Rutzen
  2. hobbs v/s winchester
  3. Rex v. Jacobs
  4. R. v. Tolson
  5. R v prince
  6. 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.’
  7. State v. Sheo Prasad
  8. State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George

General Defences

  1. State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa- S
    76/79
  2. State of Orissa v. Bhagaban Barik– S 76/79
  3. Tunda v. Rex (wrestling match) s 80
  4. R v. Dudley and Stephens- Necessity S. 81

S-84 Insanity

  1. R v Daniel Mcnaughten
  2. Queen-Empress v. Kader Nasyer Shah
  3. Lakshmi v. State
  4. Ashiruddin Ahmad v. The King

S-86 ( Drunkness)

17.Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra

  1. Basdev v. State of PEPSU
  2. Rex v. Meakin
  3. Rex v. Meade
  4. Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard

96-106

  1. Wassan Singh v. State of Punjab
  2. Butta Singh v. The State of Punjab
  3. Deo Narain v. State of U.P
  4. State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup – There is no private defence against private defence.

Joint Liability

  1. R v cruise- section 34 is based upon facts
    and decision of case.
  2. Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King-Emperor
    (shankaritola case)
  3. King v. PIummer
  4. Queen v. Sabid Ali – prosecution of common
    object clarified
  5. Mahbub Shah v. Emperor (Indus Valley
    Case)- similar intention v common int.
  6. Mizaji v. State of U.P- act connected with c.o
  7. Rishideo V state of UP- common intention
    may develop on the spot
  8. JM Desai v State- presence isn’t always
    required for CI

Abatement

  1. Queen V Mohit pandey: abatement by
    conspiracy to commit suicide

Conspiracy- s 120 A

  1. Mulcahy V R
  2. State v. Nalini & Ors. – Chain conspiracy

Sedition- S 124 IPC

  1. Queen v Jogender Chandra Bose
  2. Queen V Balgangadhar Tilak
  3. Kedar Nath V state of Bihar : Constitutional
    Validity
  4. Tara Singh v state of Punjab- Constitutional
    Validity

S302/304

  1. R V govinda: difference b/w 299 &300
  2. Queen Empress v. Khandu:
  3. Baker v. Snell:
  4. The Queen v. Latimer:
  5. Anda v. State :
  6. Palani Goundan v. Emperor- s 299/300
  7. Emperor v. Mushnooru Suryanarayana
    Murthy : 301, transfer of malice
  8. Rawalpenta Venkalu v. State of Hyderabad :
    300 (1)
  9. . Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab-300 (3)
  10. State of Andhra Pradesh v. R. Punnayya- S.
    299(b)/S.300(3)
  11. Dhupa Chamar v. State of Bihar
  12. Supadi Lukada v. Emperor- S 300 (4)
  13. Emperor v. Mt. Dhirajia – S 300 (4)
  14. Gyarsibai v. The State – – S 300 (4)
  15. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra – S
    300 exception 1
  16. R. v.Duffy– S 300 exception 1
  17. Ghapoo Yadav v. State of M.P- Exception IV
    to section 300
  18. Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar : 304 A
  19. Shanti(Smt.) v. State of Haryana – S 304 B

Kidnapping

60.S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras:
Kidnapping

  1. Thakorlal D. Vadgama v. State of Gujarat:
    Kidnapping
  2. Sakshi v. Union of India : S 376
  3. Priya Patel v. State of Madhya Pradesh : S
    376

Theft

  1. Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan- S
    379
  2. KN Mehra V state of Raj- S 379
  3. R v Thomson – S 379

Attempt

  1. Empress v. Riasat Ali
  2. Rex v. White
  3. R. v. McPherson
  4. R. v. Brown
  5. Asgarali Pradhania v. Emperor
  6. Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar
  7. State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub
  8. P. Rathinam v. Union of India- Attempt to
    suicide(309)
  9. Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of
    Maharashtra- Attempt to suicide (309)
  10. Gian Kaur v/s. State of Gian Kaur v. State of
    Punjab- Attempt to suicide (309)

Defamation

77. Defamation : Subramaniam Swamy v UOI

Popular Posts

Popular Posts

1 Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

upsc interview