Search Results for "grievous hurt"

364 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 364 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Acquits Accused of Murder, Convicts Under Section 304 Part I IPC for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder. Single Blow on Cheek with Sickle Held Not Sufficient to Prove Intent to Kill, Reducing Offence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC.

The appellant, Murlidhar @ Murlya Gangaram Pawara, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his f...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Acid Attack Under Section 326 IPC, Declines to Enhance Sentence. Court held that extensive acid burns and prolonged hospitalization constitute grievous hurt under clauses Sixthly and Eighthly of Section 320 IPC, and acid is a corrosive substance under Section 326 IPC.

The case involves an appeal by the accused-appellant, Omanakutten, against his conviction under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for pouring...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Gujarat High Court Acquits Accused in Atrocity Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Absence of Public Witness. Conviction under Sections 332, 504, 506(2) IPC Set Aside as Prosecution Failed to Prove Voluntarily Causing Hurt to Deter Public Servant from Duty.

The appellant, Jadeja Mahipatsinh Dhulaji, was convicted by the learned Special Judge, Joint District Court, Patan on 01.04.2005 in Special Atrocity C...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Modifies Conviction in Robbery Case: Offence of Robbery Under Section 390 IPC Not Made Out as No Grievous Hurt Caused or Attempted. The court held that for theft to become robbery, the offender must cause or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, and mere tying up does not suffice.

The appellant, Dudhnath @ Ajay Baburam Harijan, was convicted by the 1st Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Bombay, for offences under Sections 394, 450...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Petitioners in Food Adulteration Case — No Offence Made Out Under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Sale of 'Mint' and 'Saunf' Products Not Prohibited Under Section 26(2)(i) of FSS Act, 2006 as They Are Not 'Food' as Defined.

The petitioners, Anand Ramdhani Chaurasia and Vijay Banarasi Chaurasia, were engaged in the business of selling 'Mint' and 'Saunf' products. On 12th J...