CLAT PG Exam > CLAT PG Notes > Criminal Law > Cheat Sheet: Landmark Cases of IPC
Cheat Sheet: Landmark Cases of IPC
1. Murder and Culpable Homicide
1.1 K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Facts | Naval officer shot his wife's lover; claimed grave and sudden provocation |
| Key Issue | Distinction between culpable homicide amounting to murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 300 Exception 1 |
| Held | Conviction for murder upheld; provocation must be sudden and there should be no time for passion to cool down; premeditation negates provocation defense |
| Principle | Exception 1 to Section 300 requires loss of self-control due to sudden and grave provocation without premeditation |
1.2 Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Key Issue | Interpretation of Section 300 clause "thirdly" - injury sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death |
| Four-step Test | (1) Intention to cause bodily injury proved (2) Bodily injury intended to be inflicted identified (3) Injury sufficient in ordinary course to cause death (4) Injury was inflicted intentionally |
| Principle | Intention to cause particular bodily injury sufficient to cause death makes it murder; not necessary to prove intention to cause death |
1.3 Reg v. Govinda (1876)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Key Distinction | Culpable homicide is genus, murder is species; all murder is culpable homicide but not vice versa |
| Test Formulated | Degree of probability of death: if death highly probable = murder; if death not highly probable = culpable homicide not amounting to murder |
1.4 Palani Goundan v. Emperor (1919)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Principle | Exception 4 to Section 300 applies only to sudden fights in heat of passion without premeditation; fight must be sudden and unpremeditated |
| Held | Accused cannot claim Exception 4 benefit if he takes undue advantage or acts in cruel or unusual manner |
1.5 State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya (1977)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Key Distinction | Intention vs. Knowledge under Section 300: intention means purpose or design; knowledge means awareness of consequences |
| Principle | Murder can be committed with (1) intention to cause death (2) intention to cause injury likely to cause death (3) knowledge that act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death |
2. Rape and Sexual Offences
2.1 State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Key Principle | Each act of rape constitutes a separate offense; multiple convictions and sentences can be imposed for successive acts of rape on same victim |
| Held | Two separate sentences for two acts of rape by same accused on same victim on same occasion is valid |
2.2 State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar (1991)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Key Issue | Whether consent given by sex worker for sexual intercourse can be said to be under misconception of fact |
| Held | Consent obtained by false promise to pay money does not constitute rape; sex worker consents to act itself, not merely induced by payment |
2.3 State of H.P. v. Mango Ram (2000)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Principle | In cases of rape, evidence of prosecutrix must be evaluated with sensitivity; minor contradictions should not discredit victim's testimony |
| Held | Corroboration not essential if testimony of victim is reliable and inspires confidence |
2.4 Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra (Mathura Rape Case) (1979)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Facts | Tribal girl raped by police officers in custody; acquitted by Supreme Court |
| Impact | Led to nationwide protests and Criminal Law Amendment Act 1983 introducing Section 114A Evidence Act (presumption as to absence of consent in custody) |
| Legislative Change | Introduction of custodial rape provisions with minimum punishment |
2.5 Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Issue | Sexual harassment at workplace; absence of domestic law |
| Held | Guidelines issued for prevention of sexual harassment at workplace until legislation enacted; gender equality includes right to work in environment safe from sexual harassment |
| Impact | Led to Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act 2013 |
3. Right of Private Defence
3.1 Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Principle | Private defence available when sudden danger arises and there is no time to seek protection from authorities |
| Test of Proportionality | Force used must be proportionate to danger apprehended; if force exceeds necessity, right of private defence does not apply |
3.2 Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration (1968)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Key Issue | Extent of right of private defence of property under Section 100 |
| Held | Right to cause death in private defence of property available only when robbery, house breaking by night, or mischief by fire or explosive apprehended |
| Principle | Sections 99 to 106 must be read together to determine scope and limits of private defence |
3.3 James Martin v. State of Kerala (2004)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Principle | Burden to prove right of private defence is on accused, but only to extent of preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt |
| Held | If version of accused is as probable as prosecution version, benefit of doubt goes to accused |
4. Criminal Conspiracy and Abetment
4.1 Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (1988)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Context | Indira Gandhi assassination case; conviction for criminal conspiracy |
| Principle | Under Section 120B, agreement to commit offense is essence of criminal conspiracy; overt act not necessary for conviction |
| Held | Circumstantial evidence can prove conspiracy; direct evidence of meeting of minds not always available |
4.2 State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Key Issue | Nature of criminal conspiracy; whether overt act necessary |
| Held | Conspiracy itself is offense under Section 120B; commission of substantive offense not necessary for conviction of conspiracy |
| Principle | Agreement is essential ingredient; conspiracy can be inferred from conduct and circumstances |
4.3 Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Principle | Abetment under Section 107 requires instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid; mere passive presence does not constitute abetment |
| Held | Abettor can be punished even if substantive offense not committed if acts fall under Section 109 or 111 |
5. Cruelty and Dowry Death
5.1 State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh (1991)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Key Issue | Interpretation of "soon before her death" under Section 113B Evidence Act |
| Held | "Soon before" is relative term; depends on circumstances of each case; proximity is crucial factor |
| Principle | Presumption under Section 113B arises if woman subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before death |
5.2 Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Key Issue | Distinction between Section 304B (dowry death) and Section 498A (cruelty) |
| Principle | For Section 304B conviction: (1) death within 7 years of marriage (2) death due to burns/bodily injury or in abnormal circumstances (3) cruelty or harassment for dowry shown soon before death |
| Held | All three ingredients must be proved; mere cruelty without nexus to dowry demand insufficient for Section 304B |
5.3 Smt. Satvir Kaur v. State of Punjab (2001)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Principle | Section 498A IPC requires mental or physical cruelty; harassment must be with intention to coerce woman or relatives to meet unlawful demand for property |
| Held | Dying declaration can be basis for conviction under Section 498A if it inspires confidence and is corroborated |
6. Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating
6.1 Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of Bombay (1956)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Key Issue | Essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 |
| Ingredients | (1) Entrusting with property or dominion over property (2) Dishonest misappropriation or conversion (3) Dishonest use or disposal in violation of legal direction/contract |
| Held | Trust or fiduciary relationship must pre-exist; mere breach of contract is not criminal breach of trust |
6.2 State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram (2012)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Principle | For cheating under Section 420, fraudulent or dishonest inducement at time of transaction is essential; mere breach of promise does not constitute cheating |
| Held | Mens rea (dishonest intention) at time of inducement must be proved; subsequent inability to fulfill promise is not cheating |
6.3 Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc. (2005)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Principle | Commercial disputes involving breach of contract do not automatically attract Section 420; dishonest intention from inception must be proved |
| Held | Criminal prosecution not appropriate remedy for civil/contractual disputes unless fraud clearly established |
7. Kidnapping and Abduction
7.1 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Context | Elopement case involving major girl; whether constitutes kidnapping |
| Principle | Kidnapping under Section 361 requires taking or enticing minor/person of unsound mind from keeping of lawful guardian without consent |
| Held | If major person goes with another of own free will, it is not kidnapping; consent of major person negates offense |
7.2 Thakorlal D. Vadgama v. State of Gujarat (1973)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Key Distinction | Kidnapping (Section 359-363): taking from lawful guardianship; Abduction (Section 362): compelling by force or deceit to go from place |
| Held | In kidnapping, consent of minor is immaterial; in abduction, force or compulsion essential element |
7.3 Priya Patel v. State of M.P. (2006)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Principle | For Section 366 (kidnapping for compelling to marry), intention to compel marriage must exist at time of kidnapping |
| Held | If woman is major and goes voluntarily to marry of her own choice, Section 366 does not apply |
8. Attempt and Preparation
8.1 Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar (1961)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Key Distinction | Preparation vs. Attempt: Preparation consists of devising means; attempt is direct movement towards commission after preparation complete |
| Test | Has accused gone so far that if not interrupted, he would have committed offense? If yes, it is attempt |
| Held | Attempt punishable under Section 511; preparation not punishable unless made punishable separately |
8.2 Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab (1970)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Principle | Attempt requires (1) intention to commit offense (2) some act done towards its commission (3) such act must be proximate to intended result |
| Held | Test is whether act is sufficiently proximate to crime or still remote in relation to crime |
9. Common Intention and Common Object
9.1 Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor (1925)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Key Issue | Nature of common intention under Section 34 |
| Principle | Common intention implies pre-arranged plan; active participation in commission of crime not necessary; standing outside as guard also makes person liable |
| Held | Constructive liability arises under Section 34 if common intention proved |
9.2 Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad (1955)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Key Distinction | Section 34 (common intention) vs. Section 149 (common object): Section 34 requires prior meeting of minds; Section 149 applies to unlawful assembly |
| Principle | Common intention (Section 34) develops at time of commission; common object (Section 149) can be formed at any stage |
9.3 Mahbub Shah v. King Emperor (1945)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Essential Requirements | For Section 34: (1) criminal act done by several persons (2) criminal act done in furtherance of common intention of all (3) participation in criminal act |
| Held | Common intention must be proved; cannot be inferred merely because several persons were present |
9.4 Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay (1955)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Principle | For Section 149, membership in unlawful assembly and sharing common object essential; common object need not be identical to common intention |
| Held | Person can be convicted under Section 149 even if not proved he personally committed any offense, if he shares common object |
10. Defences: Insanity and Intoxication
10.1 Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat (1964)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Key Issue | Test for insanity under Section 84 |
| Principle | Legal insanity requires (1) incapacity to know nature of act or (2) incapacity to know act is wrong or contrary to law |
| Burden of Proof | On accused to prove insanity on preponderance of probabilities; presumption is that person is sane |
| Held | Medical insanity and legal insanity are different; every mental abnormality is not insanity under Section 84 |
10.2 Basdev v. State of Pepsu (1956)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Principle | Voluntary intoxication (Section 86) may be considered in determining whether specific intention required for offense was formed |
| Held | Intoxication can be defense only if accused so intoxicated that he was incapable of forming specific intent; mere drunkenness is not defense |
10.3 Amrit Bhushan Gupta v. Union of India (2007)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Principle | Section 84 requires proof that at time of commission, accused by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing nature of act or that act was wrong |
| Held | Burden on accused is only to prove defense on preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt |
11. Hurt and Grievous Hurt
11.1 R v. Laxman Naik (1878)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Principle | Distinction between hurt (Section 319) and grievous hurt (Section 320); eight specific categories in Section 320 constitute grievous hurt |
| Held | Injury must fall within one of eight categories specified in Section 320 to constitute grievous hurt |
11.2 Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (1973)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Principle | For Section 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), intention or knowledge must be proved |
| Held | If grievous hurt caused in heat of passion, Exception 4 to Section 300 may apply if other conditions satisfied |
12. Unlawful Assembly
12.1 Chirra Shivraj v. State of A.P. (2008)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Key Requirements | For unlawful assembly (Section 141): (1) assembly of 5 or more persons (2) common object of any of five objects specified |
| Principle | Member of unlawful assembly liable under Section 149 if offense committed in prosecution of common object |
12.2 Masalti v. State of U.P. (1964)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Principle | Section 149 imputes constructive liability; offense committed must be connected with common object; members must be aware of likelihood of offense |
| Held | Common object must be one of five objects under Section 141; prosecution must prove membership and sharing of common object |
13. Sedition
13.1 Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Key Issue | Constitutional validity of Section 124A (sedition) |
| Held | Section 124A constitutionally valid; sedition requires (1) words/acts bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt or exciting disaffection towards government (2) with intention or tendency to create public disorder/violence |
| Principle | Strong criticism of government policies or measures does not constitute sedition unless it incites violence or public disorder |
| Distinction | Disapproval of government actions without inciting disorder is not sedition; protected under Article 19(1)(a) |
13.2 Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Facts | Accused shouted slogans "Khalistan Zindabad" after Indira Gandhi's assassination |
| Held | Mere shouting of slogans few times does not attract Section 124A unless accompanied by acts showing intention to incite violence or public disorder |
14. Defamation
14.1 Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Key Issue | Constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 (criminal defamation) |
| Held | Criminal defamation provisions constitutionally valid; reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2); balance between free speech and reputation |
| Principle | Right to reputation is intrinsic to Article 21; criminal remedy for defamation not disproportionate |
14.2 M.P. Lohia v. State of West Bengal (2005)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Principle | For defamation under Section 499, imputation must harm reputation; must be made with intention to harm or knowledge/reason to believe it will harm reputation |
| Held | Ten exceptions under Section 499 provide defense including truth for public good, good faith opinion, fair comment on public conduct |
15. Theft, Extortion and Robbery
15.1 Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan (1963)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Key Issue | Essential ingredients of theft under Section 378 |
| Requirements | (1) Dishonest intention (2) Movable property (3) Taking property out of possession of another (4) Without consent (5) Moving of property for taking |
| Principle | Dishonest intention must exist at time of taking; taking property in bona fide claim of right is not theft |
15.2 State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Tukaram Umale (1979)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Key Distinction | Extortion (Section 383) vs. Robbery (Section 390): Extortion involves delivery by victim induced by fear; robbery involves taking away property from victim's possession |
| Principle | In extortion, victim parts with property; in robbery, property taken by accused from victim's possession by force or threat |
15.3 Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar (2007)
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Principle | Robbery is aggravated form of theft; involves theft with use of force or threat causing fear of injury or death |
| Held | For dacoity (Section 391), robbery must be committed by 5 or more persons conjointly |
The document Cheat Sheet: Landmark Cases of IPC is a part of the CLAT PG Course Criminal Law.
All you need of CLAT PG at this link: CLAT PG
About this Document
4.63/5 Rating
Apr 20, 2026 Last updated
Related Exams
Document Description: Cheat Sheet: Landmark Cases of IPC for CLAT PG 2026 is part of Criminal Law preparation. The notes and questions for Cheat Sheet: Landmark Cases of IPC have been prepared according to the CLAT PG exam syllabus. Information about Cheat Sheet: Landmark Cases of IPC covers topics like and Cheat Sheet: Landmark Cases of IPC Example, for CLAT PG 2026 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, notes, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Cheat Sheet: Landmark Cases of IPC.
Introduction of Cheat Sheet: Landmark Cases of IPC in English is available as part of our Criminal Law for CLAT PG & Cheat Sheet: Landmark Cases of IPC in Hindi for Criminal Law course. Download more important topics related with notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT PG Exam by signing up for free. CLAT PG: Cheat Sheet: Landmark Cases of IPC
Description
Cheat Sheet: Landmark Cases of IPC of Criminal Law to help you remember important concepts with short tricks. Start learning for CLAT PG exam & improve retention with EduRev.
Information about Cheat Sheet: Landmark Cases of IPC
In this doc you can find the meaning of Cheat Sheet: Landmark Cases of IPC defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides explaining types of Cheat Sheet: Landmark Cases of IPC theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Cheat Sheet: Landmark Cases of IPC tests, examples and also practice CLAT PG tests
Top Courses for CLAT PG
Related Searches
Sample Paper, Extra Questions, MCQs, Cheat Sheet: Landmark Cases of IPC, Objective type Questions, study material, Semester Notes, past year papers, shortcuts and tricks, mock tests for examination, Cheat Sheet: Landmark Cases of IPC, Previous Year Questions with Solutions, ppt, Summary, video lectures, Cheat Sheet: Landmark Cases of IPC, Viva Questions, practice quizzes, Important questions, pdf , Exam, Free;