Introduction: Get easy understand of IPC in tamil through this app. Quick reference for every one with easy search and navigation. Features: Advanced search by. Criminal Major Acts (CRPC, IPC and IEA) in Tamil - முப்பெரும். This book on "Indian Penal Code" is translated in Tamil with apt Tamil Legal language with simple words for better understanding. edition of this book is updated with all the relevant provisions in the Criminal. Ipc in Tamil - Free download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online for English in Tamil and Without Grammar - NLRC's New Spoken English Book.
|Language:||English, Dutch, Portuguese|
|Genre:||Fiction & Literature|
|ePub File Size:||21.85 MB|
|PDF File Size:||18.78 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
Ipc in Tamil - Download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online. Sign Up Search books, presentations, business, academics. Explore Documents. Ipc tamil book free. IT HERE DOWNLOAD FROM ORIGINAL URL --> GET. Piano sheet music for twilight songs for sale piano notes in tamil songs Free piano. IPC (Indian Penal Code) App in Tamil. Effective understand through IPC Tamil app. Latest App Reviews in Books & Reference. See All.
By the A.
Government India The original section 18 was rep. Section Illustrations a A Collector exercising jurisdiction in a suit under Act 10 of , is a judge.
All Sections List
Explanation 1 Persons falling under any of the above descriptions are public servants, whether appointed by the Government or not. Clause First omitted by the A. Certain words omitted by Act 40 of , sec.
Explanation 4 ins. Wrongful gain Gaining wrongfully. Losing wrongfully.
A person is said to lose wrongfully whensuch person is wrongfully kept out of any property, as well as whensuch person is wrongfully deprived of property. Fraudulently A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.
Kavi Yarasu JM. Immanuel Alphonse. Devendrasinh Jadeja. Popular in Public Sphere.
The description of IPC Tamil
Ryan Macadangdang. Scribd Government Docs. Elaine Jularbal. Emaleth Lasher. Angel Lai.
Penn Buff Network. Irma Kalac-Adrovic. Morata v.
Sarah Jane-Shae O. Rhodora Esteves Malicdem. Lebene Santiago.
Utah Commission on Volunteers, Annual Report. State of Utah. An interesting case is that of Prakash Shandra Yadav vs State of Bihar  in this case the accused ordered a person to hurl bombs to kill an informant and the person hurled two bombs towards the informant but fortunately, the bombs did not explode and the high court refused to entertain the conviction of the accused under section IPC citing the lack of serious injuries on the body of the victim, the Supreme Court asked for a reconsideration of the case due to the fact that the logic used by the high court was faulty.
Similarly, the reverse is also true and injuries of simple nature caused by non dangerous objects, like a pen knife but with an intention to kill is enough to prosecute under this section.
In case of Shiv Singh vs State  the medical evidence was taken into account for determining the intention of the accused, here the weapon used was a dangerous one but the wound caused was of a simple nature, hence the court ruled that the accused would be liable under section and not section In case of Jai Narain vs State of Bihar  the number of the accused was taken into account, the court ruled that the fact that four or five people attacked a person with dangerous weapons showed their intention to cause the death of that person, hence they will be liable under The intention and knowledge of the act being done is one of the major factors that is used to decide conviction under section but it is not the only factor.
The circumstances under which the act was done also weighs heavily when the conviction is given under this section. This issue was raised in an Andhra Pradesh High Court where the contention was that there were two punishments being meted out for the same offence, the first punishment being imprisoned for life and the second punishment being ten years rigorous imprisonment and there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to retransfer the matter to the Sessions Judge when it is allotted to him.
In that case the Assistant Sessions judge has to decide the matter and he does not have the power to sentence the accused for more than 10 years according to the procedure laid down by the code. But in another case if the accused is being judged by the sessions judge, the accused can be sentenced for life for the same offence.
Thus it was argued that this is violative of article 14 of the constitution. However, this argument was refuted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court which gave a very good reasoning to solve this seemingly good question of law.
Thus it cannot be said that these are discriminatory in nature or violative of article 14 of the constitution.
This issue was raised in the case of J Punarao vs State Of AP  and the court rightly ruled that there was no question of discrimination and consequently there is no violation of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution. Apart from the above facts about intention, knowledge and the circumstances that are important ingredients to convict a person under the section, there is also a debate over the nature of the act that is whether the act must be of such a nature that it should cause death of the victim.
Attempt to intimidate press? Tamil Channel booked for remarks made by guest on show
Here it is unequivocally stated by Bombay High Court in a case that the act must be clearly of such a nature that if it was uninterrupted and not interrupted then the victim would have died, if the act complained is not of this nature, then section will not apply.
However, the Lahore High Court, differed from the Bombay High Court in this regard and ruled even when no injury is caused then also there may be conviction under this section and that the injury caused is merely an aggravating factor. And the Orissa High Court in case called Sukra vs State of Orissa  has ruled that injuries which are caused with the intention of causing death but are not grave enough to cause death do not come under this section, thus again reverting back to the position taken up by the Bombay High Court.Post comment Hari Suthan2 years ago 00 okkkk Hari Suthan2 years ago 00 okkkk.
Perfect Dictionary Rated 4. Here it is unequivocally stated by Bombay High Court in a case that the act must be clearly of such a nature that if it was uninterrupted and not interrupted then the victim would have died, if the act complained is not of this nature, then section will not apply.
Section Trespassing on burial places, etc.
Easy and effective way to learn English for Tamil speakers. Rhodora Esteves Malicdem. Drew Scofield. Punishment of offences committed within India: