GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW. Page 2. Page 3. Page 4. Page 5. Page 6. Page 7. Page 8. Page 9. Page Page Page Page I.P.C in Marathi,भारतीय दंड संहिता १८६०, The Indian Penal Code in Marathi I.P.C in Marathi,The Indian Penal Code, In this app every one . Publisher: Mukund Prakashan; Book Code: MP; Availability: 29 Ajit Prakashan's Indian Penal Code, (IPC- Marathi) Notes for BSL & LLB by Adv . S. J.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Indonesian|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration needed]|
Download IPC inMarathiभारतीय दंड संहिता - I.P.C in Marathi, भारतीय दंड संहिता १८६०, The Indian Penal Code in Marathi I.P.C in Marathi. A list of all the Sections in Indian Penal Code, , a.k.a IPC India, in a mobile friendly format, by Advocate Raman Devgan. cicenorthlare.ga - download Mukund Prakashan's Indian Penal Code [IPC], (Marathi) by Adv. P. R. Chande book online at best prices in india on cicenorthlare.ga
Installation Get this app while signed in to your Microsoft account and install on up to ten Windows 10 devices.
Language supported English United States. Additional terms Terms of transaction. Seizure warnings Photosensitive seizure warning. Report this product Report this app to Microsoft Thanks for reporting your concern.
Our team will review it and, if necessary, take action. Sign in to report this app to Microsoft. Report this app to Microsoft. Report this app to Microsoft Potential violation Offensive content Child exploitation Malware or virus Privacy concerns Misleading app Poor performance. How you found the violation and any other useful info.
Submit Cancel. Rated 4.
To rate and review, sign in. Sign in. Showing out of 10 reviews.
Sort by: Most helpful Most helpful Most recent Highest rated Lowest rated. Filter by: The most debatable aspect is that even if an injury which in the ordinary course would have caused death, but is not done with an intention to kill, the accused will not be convicted under section The debatable aspect is the amount of punishment that is given under this section, is vastly different from the punishment given under section and any false conviction will be very harmful to the concept equity and justice.
In case of Kuldip Singh vs State,  the accused tried to hit the victim with a naked sword but somehow the victim got saved and the blow only caused simple injury, but the court convicted the accused under section IPC because of the dangerous weapon used, which gave away the intention of the accused, which was to murder the victim.
So the interpretation is that an act which is sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause the death of the person but the intention on the part of the accused is lacking, the act would not constitute an offence under this section. An interesting case is that of Prakash Shandra Yadav vs State of Bihar  in this case the accused ordered a person to hurl bombs to kill an informant and the person hurled two bombs towards the informant but fortunately, the bombs did not explode and the high court refused to entertain the conviction of the accused under section IPC citing the lack of serious injuries on the body of the victim, the Supreme Court asked for a reconsideration of the case due to the fact that the logic used by the high court was faulty.
Similarly, the reverse is also true and injuries of simple nature caused by non dangerous objects, like a pen knife but with an intention to kill is enough to prosecute under this section. In case of Shiv Singh vs State  the medical evidence was taken into account for determining the intention of the accused, here the weapon used was a dangerous one but the wound caused was of a simple nature, hence the court ruled that the accused would be liable under section and not section In case of Jai Narain vs State of Bihar  the number of the accused was taken into account, the court ruled that the fact that four or five people attacked a person with dangerous weapons showed their intention to cause the death of that person, hence they will be liable under The intention and knowledge of the act being done is one of the major factors that is used to decide conviction under section but it is not the only factor.
The circumstances under which the act was done also weighs heavily when the conviction is given under this section. This issue was raised in an Andhra Pradesh High Court where the contention was that there were two punishments being meted out for the same offence, the first punishment being imprisoned for life and the second punishment being ten years rigorous imprisonment and there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to retransfer the matter to the Sessions Judge when it is allotted to him.
In that case the Assistant Sessions judge has to decide the matter and he does not have the power to sentence the accused for more than 10 years according to the procedure laid down by the code. But in another case if the accused is being judged by the sessions judge, the accused can be sentenced for life for the same offence. Thus it was argued that this is violative of article 14 of the constitution.
However, this argument was refuted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court which gave a very good reasoning to solve this seemingly good question of law. Thus it cannot be said that these are discriminatory in nature or violative of article 14 of the constitution. This issue was raised in the case of J Punarao vs State Of AP  and the court rightly ruled that there was no question of discrimination and consequently there is no violation of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution.
And the Orissa High Court in case called Sukra vs State of Orissa  has ruled that injuries which are caused with the intention of causing death but are not grave enough to cause death do not come under this section, thus again reverting back to the position taken up by the Bombay High Court.
This is very interesting to see that on the case of nature of injury all the courts are giving different opinions. The deciding opinion in such case is always the decision of the apex court which ruled that it is not at all mandatory for the accused to be convicted under this section, that he does not have to cause life threatening injury on the victim, his intention, knowledge and the preparation that he took will be the factors that will be looked into for his conviction.
As far as the part of proving his intention the nature of the wound, type of weapon used, part of the body attacked can be taken into account. In the case of Jodha vs State of Rajasthan  , the court ruled that merely because a person was stabbed in the thigh and not in a vital body part, it cannot be said that the case does not fall under the ambit of section Since the law gives a lot of importance on proving the intent of the accused, there have been some tests to determine the murderous intent of the accused.
The evidence of the doctor is also given importance.
There is a common ingredient which is required for the conviction under this section and that element is intention along with the knowledge and the implication of the act done. All the courts across the board agree on the fact that the intention to commit murder and the preparation for the act must be present.
However, the element where the courts differ with each other is the matter of proving the intention. The difference being that courts say that to prove the intention of the accused, the nature of the injury, the nature of the weapon used, preparation taken are taken into account however surprisingly the courts arrive at different conclusions regarding these facts. That is in some cases the courts have ruled that even if the weapon used was dangerous but caused a simple wound, there would be no conviction under section and in another case the court rules that even if no injury is caused the accused can be convicted if intention to kill is proved.
This is contradictory in nature.
In one case the court also ruled that forced starvation can also be convicted under section The questioning of the constitutional validity of this section was a legitimate question which was solved by a very simple answer by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The nature of the injuries, weapons used are merely clues that the judiciary uses to reach to a conclusion about the intention of the accused. So it can be safely said that even of no injury is caused a person can be convicted under this section.