Title and extent of operation of the Code

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Surender Singh vs State (NCT Of Delhi)

   Supreme Court of India 02 Apr 2012 Binding (SC) Reportable 2024 INSC 462

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   When an accused pleads self-defence under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof lies on the accused to establish the plea by credible evidence. The burden, though not as onerous as beyond reasonable doubt, requires some degree of reasonable satisfaction. In the absence of credible evidence supporting the plea of self-defence, the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Similarly, the plea of grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC requires that the provocation be such as would temporarily deprive a reasonable person of self-control. The test is whether a reasonable man belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed, would be so provoked as to lose self-control. The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from provocation and not after passion had cooled down. In the present case, the overwhelming eyewitness testimony of four police personnel, corroborated by forensic evidence, establishes that the appellant deliberately and intentionally killed the deceased out of jealousy and motive, not in self-defence or under grave provocation. Therefore, the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC is upheld.

   On this section: Grave and sudden provocation - the court examined whether the appellant's act fell within this exception, which would reduce murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. State vs Dilbag Singh @ Baga Singh

   Criminal Courts, Patti 17 Jun 2022 Persuasive (District Court)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   When recovery has already been effected from an accused person arrested under the Excise Act, and there are no other pending criminal cases, the accused cannot be kept in custody indefinitely pending investigation completion. Bail should be granted with appropriate conditions to ensure the accused's presence in court and prevent interference with the investigation.

   On this section: Referenced in the FIR as part of the charges; the court noted the specific sections charged in determining the gravity of the offence

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.