Anil Kumar kamboj Delhi M-9650
03 September 2008 at 15:17
statemen of witness recorded u/sec.164 of cr.p.c are corroborative evidence whether confession is also is a corroborative evidence or subsdentive . pls let me details sir,
smith sharma
03 September 2008 at 11:17
HI,
ALL THE RESPECTED MEMBERS PLS GIVE ME LEGAL DEFINITION OF 'BHUMAFIYA'
THANX
SMITH SHARMA [LAWYER]
N.K.Assumi
03 September 2008 at 09:16
if an accused is illegally detained in prison without the order of Magistrate order of Remand, does it amount to automatic bail for the accused to be released on bail?
N.K.Assumi
03 September 2008 at 08:55
Is it competent for the Magistrate to passed an order of one shot remand of 60 or 90 days?
N.K.Assumi
03 September 2008 at 08:53
Can accused made an oral prayer for bail? or prayer for bail should be reduced to writing only?
ankit gupta
02 September 2008 at 23:03
can any one give me detailed notes on oral and documenatry evidence.please mention the quotations of the supreme court on the same
sanjay kumar patibandla
02 September 2008 at 22:41
I filed on case under section 138 of N I Act. The brief facts of the case r that, complainant got issued a legal notice and it was served to the accused. The cheque is for 25,000/- After receiving the notice accused sent a DD of rupees 7000/- to the complainant.
Debt is under promissory note. It is clearly mentioned in legal notice and complaint. But the complainant lost the promissory note. The above matter is coming for trail now. What to do now.
Please suggest me what I have to do with the help of case laws.
Anil Kumar kamboj Delhi M-9650
02 September 2008 at 18:15
Pls sir confirm to proper helding in the case of Palwinder caur
N.K.Assumi
02 September 2008 at 09:31
Section 497 of the indian penal code read with section 198(2) CrPc is unconstitutional, do you agree?
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
IPC : Direct Causation and Abetment
As we know that causation is one of constituents of any offence. Means offence must be caused due to act or omission of offender. Offence may be done directly (by causing some act and omission) or indirectly by abetment (by causing some act and omission).
Just read illustration (b)of section 299 of ipc, which is as follows:
(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z's death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
Just read another illustration (f)appended with exception 2 of section 300 of ipc, which is as follows:
(f) Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander, intending to take advantage of B's rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B's hand for that purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only culpable homicide, but A is guilty of murder.
Just read one more illustration appended with exception 5 of section 300 of ipc, which is as follows:
A, by instigation, voluntarily causes, Z, a person under eighteen years of age to commit suicide. Here, on account of Z"s youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own death; A has therefore abetted murder.
Now my question here if these illustrations are correctly appended with respective provisions then how abetment is different with direct causation. Don't you think the circumstances given under these illustrations of section 299 and 300 of IPC should come under the topic of abetment?
Please help me to get rid of this confusion.