Landmark Judgments of Penal Law (BNS, 2023)
The 35 leading Penal Law (BNS, 2023) cases — each with a full brief (facts, issues, held, ratio). Verified against the original judgment. Free to read.
Culpable homicide & murder — S299–304, exceptions (BNS S100–101)
- Reg v Govinda Where injury is only 'likely' to cause death (not 'sufficient in the ordinary course of nature'), the offence is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- State of Andhra Pradesh v Rayavarapu Punnayya Multiple intentional injuries cumulatively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death fall under Section 300 'thirdly' and constitute murder.
- Pulicherla Nagaraju v State of Andhra Pradesh A single fatal blow does not by itself reduce murder to culpable homicide; intention to cause death is gathered from a combination of surrounding circumstances.
Common intention and joint liability under Section 34 IPC
Common intention under Section 34 IPC; distinction between 'same/similar intention' and 'common intention'
Common intention vs similar intention (S34 IPC); requirement of a pre-arranged plan and prior meeting of minds
Offences against property — theft, extortion, robbery, dacoity, cheating, CBT (S378-420 IPC)
- K.N. Mehra v State of Rajasthan Temporary dishonest taking of movable property without consent is theft; intent to cause wrongful loss, even temporarily, suffices and permanent deprivation is not required.
- Iridium India Telecom Ltd v Motorola Incorporated A corporation can be criminally prosecuted for offences requiring mens rea such as cheating, the guilty mind of its alter ego being imputed to the company.
Culpable homicide & murder — S299-304, exceptions (BNS S100-101)
- Virsa Singh v State of Punjab For murder under S300 'Thirdly' the prosecution need only prove intention to inflict the particular injury found; its sufficiency to cause death is a purely objective inquiry.
- K M Nanavati v State of Maharashtra A wife's confession of adultery is not grave and sudden provocation when the fatal act follows a cooling-off period; killing remained murder, not culpable homicide.
Common object & unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC — distinction between its two parts (offence committed 'in prosecution of the common object' vs offence members 'knew to be likely')
General exceptions — private defence, insanity, accident, necessity (S76–106 IPC)
- Vishwanath v State of Uttar Pradesh Right of private defence of body extends to causing death when the assault is committed with intent to abduct by force, even if the abduction is not itself a punishable IPC offence.
- Deo Narain v State of Uttar Pradesh The right of private defence arises the moment a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises, not only after the assailant has actually inflicted injury.
- Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v State of Maharashtra Where medical evidence of paranoid schizophrenia raises reasonable doubt about mens rea at the time of the act, the accused gets the benefit of Section 84 IPC.
- Darshan Singh v State of Punjab A reasonable apprehension of danger is enough to invoke the right of private defence, which may extend to causing death of the assailant; acquittal restored.
Abetment, criminal conspiracy & attempt (S107, 120A–B, 511 IPC)
- Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar Once an accused takes a step to deceive after completing preparation, he enters the realm of attempt under Section 511 IPC; the act need not be the penultimate one.
- State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub Carrying smuggled silver to a creek and beginning to unload it near a waiting sea-craft is an attempt to export, not mere preparation.
- State of Tamil Nadu through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT v. Nalini Each conspirator is liable for acts done in pursuance of the agreed object; a co-accused's TADA confession can corroborate conspiracy, and conspiracy may be inferred from circumstances.
Offences against the State / public tranquillity; sedition; constitutional validity of penal speech offences and the role of intention/tendency to cause public disorder
Offences against public tranquillity — unlawful assembly; distinction between common object (S.149) and common intention (S.34)
Offences against property — theft, extortion, robbery, dacoity, cheating, CBT (S378–420 IPC)
- Pyare Lal Bhargava v State of Rajasthan Temporary unauthorised removal of property from another's possession, even intending to return it, is theft, since temporary dispossession itself causes wrongful loss.
- Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v State of Bihar A mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention existed at the very inception of the transaction.
- S.W. Palanitkar v State of Bihar Mere breach of a commercial contract is not cheating or criminal breach of trust unless dishonest/fraudulent intention existed at the inception; otherwise proceedings are liable to be quashed.
General exceptions — private defence, insanity, accident, necessity (S76-106 IPC)
- Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v State of Gujarat Burden to prove insanity rests on the accused on a preponderance of probabilities, but evidence falling short may still raise a reasonable doubt on mens rea and warrant acquittal.
- State of Uttar Pradesh v Ram Swarup The right of private defence is one of defence, not retribution or aggression; it cannot be invoked by a person who himself stage-manages or invites the situation.
Unlawful assembly and common object (Section 149 IPC) — evidentiary test for convicting members of a large faction
Constitutionality of death penalty; sentencing discretion in murder — S302 IPC (BNS S103)
Offences against women — rape, cruelty, dowry death (S375–376, 498A, 304B IPC)
- Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v State of Gujarat Corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case; the testimony of a sexual-assault victim, if reliable, can sustain conviction on its own.
- State of Punjab v Gurmit Singh Conviction for rape may rest solely on the prosecutrix's testimony if it inspires confidence; courts must avoid victim-blaming and try such cases in camera.
- Reema Aggarwal v Anupam For Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC, 'husband' includes a man who enters an ostensible marital relationship and treats the woman as wife, even if the marriage is legally void.
