IPC IMPORTANT JUDGEMENT

*mensrea*
1) Sherras v. De Rutzen
1.1 hobbs v/s winchester
2) Rex v. Jacobs
3) R. v. Tolson
4) R v prince
5) 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.’
6) State v. Sheo Prasad
7) State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George
*GeneralDefences*
8) State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa- S
76/79
9) State of Orissa v. Bhagaban Barik-- S 76/79
10) Tunda v. Rex (wrestling match) s 80
11) R v. Dudley and Stephens- Necessity S. 81
*S -84 Insanity*
12) R v Daniel Mcnaughten
13) Queen-Empress v. Kader Nasyer Shah
14) Lakshmi v. State
15) Ashiruddin Ahmad v. The King
*S-86 ( Drunkness)*
16) Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of
Maharashtra
17) Basdev v. State of PEPSU
18) Rex v. Meakin
19) Rex v. Meade
20) Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard
*96-106*
21) State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup - There is no
private defence against private defence.
22) Wassan Singh v. State of Punjab
23) Butta Singh v. The State of Punjab
24) Deo Narain v. State of U.P
25) James Martin v. State of Kerala
*JointLiability* (34/149)
26) R v cruise- section 34 is based upon facts
and decision of case.
27) Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King-Emperor
(shankaritola case)
28) King v. PIummer
29) Queen v. Sabid Ali – prosecution of common
object clarified
30) Mahbub Shah v. Emperor (Indus Valley
Case)- similar intention v common int.
31) Mizaji v. State of U.P- act connected with
c.o
32) Rishideo V state of UP- common intention
may develop on the spot
33) JM Desai v State- presence isn’t always
required for CI
*Abetement-*
34) Queen V Mohit pandey: abatement by
conspiracy to commit suicide
*Conspiracy-* s 120 A
35) Mulcahy V R
36) State v. Nalini & Ors. – Chain conspiracy
*Sedition-* S 124 IPC
37) Queen v Jogender Chandra Bose
38) Queen V Balgangadhar Tilak
39) Kedar Nath V state of Bihar : Constitutional
Validity
40) Tara Singh v state of Punjab- Constitutional
Validity
*S302 /304*
41) R V govinda: difference b/w 299 &300
42) Queen Empress v. Khandu:
43) Baker v. Snell:
44) The Queen v. Latimer:
45) Anda v. State :
46) Palani Goundan v. Emperor- s 299/300
47) Emperor v. Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy
: 301, transfer of malice
48) Rawalpenta Venkalu v. State of Hyderabad :
300 (1)
49) . Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab-300 (3)
50) State of Andhra Pradesh v. R. Punnayya- S.
299(b)/S.300(3)
51) Dhupa Chamar v. State of Bihar
52) Supadi Lukada v. Emperor- S 300 (4)
53) Emperor v. Mt. Dhirajia - S 300 (4)
54) Gyarsibai v. The State - - S 300 (4)
55) K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra – S
300 exception 1
56) R. v.Duffy– S 300 exception 1
57) Ghapoo Yadav v. State of M.P- Exception IV
to section 300
58) Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar : 304 A
59) Shanti(Smt.) v. State of Haryana – S 304 B
*Kidnapping*
60) S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras:
Kidnapping
61) Thakorlal D. Vadgama v. State of Gujarat:
Kidnapping
*376 Ipc*
62) Sakshi v. Union of India : S 376
63) Priya Patel v. State of Madhya Pradesh : S
376
*theft*
64) Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan- S
379
65) KN Mehra V state of Raj- S 379
66) R v Thomson – S 379
*Attempt*
67) Empress v. Riasat Ali
68) Rex v. White
69) R. v. McPherson
70) R. v. Brown
71) Asgarali Pradhania v. Emperor
72) Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar
73) State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub
74) P. Rathinam v. Union of India- Attempt to
suicide(309)
75) Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of
Maharashtra- Attempt to suicide (309)
76) Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab- Attempt to
suicide (309)
*Defamation*
77) Defamation : Subramaniam Swamy v UOI