Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Roop Chand @ Lala VS State (NCT) Of Delhi...
Checking relevance for Sunil Kumar VS N. C. T. Of Delhi...
Sunil Kumar VS N. C. T. Of Delhi - 1997 0 Supreme(SC) 1657 : The document establishes that offences under Sections 324 IPC and 308 IPC cannot lie simultaneously in the same factual scenario. It clarifies that Section 308 IPC deals with an attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which requires proof of intention or knowledge that the act, if it caused death, would constitute culpable homicide. In contrast, Section 324 IPC pertains to voluntarily causing hurt, which is a lesser offence. The document emphasizes that these are qualitatively different offences: an attempt to cause death (Section 308) is distinct from causing simple hurt (Section 324). The court held that the High Court erred in reducing a charge under Section 308/34 IPC to Section 323/34 IPC (simple hurt) based on the nature of injuries, as the two offences are not mutually inclusive. Therefore, if the act was done with the intention to cause death (even if it only resulted in hurt), the appropriate charge is under Section 308 IPC, and not Section 324 IPC. Hence, both offences cannot coexist in the same case when the act is aimed at causing death, even if the result is only hurt.Checking relevance for Omanakkuttan VS State of Kerala...
Checking relevance for Sheetala Prasad VS Sri Kant...
Sheetala Prasad VS Sri Kant - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1849 : The legal documents confirm that offences under Sections 324 and 308 IPC cannot lie simultaneously in the same case. The court explicitly held that the High Court erred in concluding that the appellants were guilty under Section 308 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, while simultaneously holding that no offence under Section 324 IPC was committed. The judgment clarifies that the finding of guilt under Section 308 IPC (attempt to commit grievous hurt) precludes a concurrent finding under Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), as the former is a more serious offence and the latter is a lesser included offence. The court emphasized that the High Court''''s direction to convict under Section 308 IPC on remand, while rejecting Section 324 IPC, was legally impermissible in the context of revisional jurisdiction, as it amounted to converting an acquittal into a conviction by indirect means. This establishes that both offences cannot coexist in the same charge or conviction, and the prosecution must choose the appropriate charge based on the nature and severity of the act.Checking relevance for Binoy VS State of Kerala...
Binoy VS State of Kerala - 2015 4 Supreme 127 : The court held that the conviction under Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt) and Section 308 IPC (attempt to murder) could not both stand simultaneously. The High Court altered the conviction from Section 308 IPC to Section 324 IPC, indicating that the offence of attempt to murder (Section 308) was not sustainable in light of the evidence, and that the act amounted only to voluntarily causing hurt (Section 324). This implies that both offences cannot lie simultaneously, as Section 324 is a lesser included offence of Section 308, and the court found that the facts supported only the latter, not the former. The court''''s decision to reduce the conviction from Section 308 to Section 324 confirms that the two offences are mutually exclusive in this case, and only one can be sustained based on the evidence.Checking relevance for Tukaram Gundu Naik VS State Of Maharashtra...
Checking relevance for State VS Rahul...
Checking relevance for BALI VS STATE THROUGH GOVERNMENT OF NCT...
BALI VS STATE THROUGH GOVERNMENT OF NCT - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 741 : The legal documents establish that offences under Sections 324 and 308 IPC cannot lie simultaneously. Section 308 IPC requires proof of intention or knowledge that, if death resulted from the act, it would constitute culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In contrast, Section 324 IPC only requires proof of voluntary hurt caused by a dangerous weapon, without the need to establish such intention or knowledge. The court held that even though the accused inflicted knife wounds (a dangerous weapon), the evidence did not establish the requisite intention or knowledge under Section 308 IPC. Therefore, the conviction was altered from Section 308/34 IPC to Section 324 IPC. This demonstrates that while both sections may arise from the same act (e.g., stabbing), they are not concurrent offences; the presence of one does not automatically imply the other. The court emphasized that every stabbing does not ipso facto constitute an attempt to commit culpable homicide under Section 308, and the intention or knowledge must be specifically proven. Thus, the two offences are mutually exclusive in application and cannot be charged together when the intention to cause death is not established.Checking relevance for Santhosh @ Chandu S/o. Muthu VS State, Represented By the Public Prosecutor...
Checking relevance for Pritvi Singh VS State of Rajasthan...
Pritvi Singh VS State of Rajasthan - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 1784 : The court held that the injuries inflicted on the victim (PW-2) were not serious enough to fall under Section 308 IPC, as they were not proven to be dangerous to life or sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The court concluded that the injuries, though caused by a sharp weapon, were simple in nature and thus fell within the ambit of Section 324 IPC. Since the injuries were not of a nature that could be considered under Section 308 IPC, the two offences (Section 324 and 308 IPC) could not lie simultaneously. The conviction was accordingly altered from Section 308 IPC to Section 324 IPC, indicating that only one offence—Section 324 IPC—was applicable in this case.
