Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code was sustainable on the facts proved, particularly on the questions of intention and knowledge relating to the administration of dhatura.
Analysis: The evidence established that the accused procured and caused the distribution of the peras through Kanhaiya Lal, and the medical evidence showed that the persons who consumed them suffered symptoms consistent with dhatura poisoning. The act did not fall within the first part of Section 328, because there was no finding of an intention to cause hurt. It also did not fall within the second part of that section, because the object of inducing the girl to love him was not an intention to commit or facilitate any offence. However, the Court held that dhatura is a poisonous drug commonly known to be so, and that a person of the accused's age must be presumed to know that administering it was likely to cause hurt within the meaning of Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code.
Conclusion: The conviction was upheld, as the accused was deemed to have had knowledge that the administration of dhatura was likely to cause hurt.