Judgments - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
Badam and others Versus State of M.P.
Plea of Right of Private Defence – Even if the plea of Right of Private Defence is not specifically taken by accused, benefit can be given if the Right of Private Defence can be gathered from surrounding circumstances. 307 or 308 of IPC - Complainant tried to irrigate the landallotted to the accused – Complainant party was unarmed – Several injuries caused to injured persons -Accused exceeded Right of Private Defence – However,convicted under Section 308 of IPC instead of underSection Full Judgment
Neeraj Vs. State Of U.P.
Sudhakar Rastogi Vs. State Of U.P.
Sanju Kanaujiya Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home And Ors
Jitendra Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Ors.
Putan Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home And Ors.
Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. & Ors.
PADMINI MAHENDRABHAI GADDA VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT
MD. FARUK SARKAR VS THE STATE OF ASSAM
DEBASISH NATH VS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
M/S GBC ENTERPRISE LIMITED & 3 ORS VS RAJIMUL ISLAM SARKAR
AHMED TEA CO. PVT. LIMITED VS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
Huzra Bee Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Law laid down - In view of the Constitutional Bench judgment in the case of Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia Vs. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar and others (AIR 1958 SC 538), seven Judge Bench decision in State of Karnataka Vs. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 68) and law laid down in Kehar Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Delhi Admn. (AIR 1988 SC 1883), function of the Commission appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 is merely to Full Judgment