Important judgments in the Judicial Service Civil Judge examinations conducted by each state public service commission are required to be asked as multiple choice questions, either by direct or twisting, or by mentoring the questions related to the question in the main examination. Is that key promises have a major role in the pre and mains examinations;

INDIAN PENAL CODE
[Mens reu]
Sherras v. De rutzen
Hobbs v. Winchester
Rex V. Jacobs
R. V. Tolson
R V. Prince
Brend v. Wood
State V. Shiv prasad
State of Maharashtra V. Mayer Hans George

[General Defences]
State of Orissa V. Rambahadur Thapa (Sec.-76/79)
State of Orissa V. Bhagban Barik (Sec.-76/79)
Tunda V. Rex – wresting match (sec. – 80)
R V. Dudley and stephen – Nessity (sec. – 81)
R V. Daniel Mcnaughton – insanity (sec.-84)
Queen Emperor V.kader Nasyer Shah – Insanity (sec.-84)
Laxmi V. State – insanity (sec.-84)
Ashiruddin Ahmad V. The king – insanity (sec.-84)
Shrikant Anandrao bhosale V. State of Maharashtra – Drunkness (sec.- 86)
Basudev V. State of Pepsi-Drunkness (sec.- 86)
Director of Public Prosecution V. Beard-Drunkness (sec.- 86)

[Private Defense (sec.96 to 106)]
State of U.P. V. Ram swarup
Wassun singh V. State of punjab
Butta singh V. State of punjab
Deo Narain V. State of UP
James martin v. State of kerala

[Joint Liability (sec.-34/149)]
R V. Corise -sec.- 34 is based upon fact and decision of case.
Barender kumar ghosh V. King emperor
King v. Plummer
Queen v. Sabid ali
Mehbubshah V. Emperor (similar intention)
Mirjaji state of UP (act connected with common object)
Rishideo V. State of U.P. (common intention may be develop on the spot.)

[Abetment]
Balmukan and Ors. V. State
Srilal chamaria V. Emperor
Azam Ali V. Rex
Queen V. Mohit pandey (abetment by conspiracy to commit suicide)

[Conspiracy (sec.-120A)]
Mulcahy V. R
Delhi Conspiracy case
Kakori conspiracy case
Meerut Conspiracy case
Kanpur Boleshavik conspiracy case
State V. Nalini & Ors. (Chain conspiracy)

[Sedition (sec.- 124)]
Queen V. Jogender chandraboss
Queen V. Balgangadhar Tilak
Kedernath V. State of Bihar
Tara singh V. State of Panjab

[Sec. 299 to 304]
R V. Govinda (Difference between 299-300)
Queen v. Khandu
Baker v. Snell
The Queen V. Latimer
Anda v. State
Palani Goundan V. Emperor (299–300)
Emperor V. Mushnooru Shuryanarayana murthy (sec.-301 transfer of malice.)
Dhup chamar V. State of Bihar
Subadi lukade V. Emperor – (sec.-300 (4))
Emperor V. Mt. Dhirajja – (sec.-300 (4))
K.M. Nanavati V. State of Maharashtra – (sec.-300 exception (1))
R V.Duffy – (sec- 300 exception (1)
Gappu yadav V. State of MP – sec. 300 exception -4
Cherubin gregory V. State of Bihar -sec. 304 (A)
Shanti V. State of Haryana – (sec.- 304 (b))

[Kidnapping]
Lalmani Devi V. The state
Nimai chattoraj V. Queen Emperor
S. Varadharajan V.state of Madras -kidnapping
Sakshi V. Union of India – sec. 376
Priya patel V. State of MP – sec. 376

[Theft]
Pyare lal Bhargava V. State of Rajasthan – sec.379
KN. Mohra V. State of Rajasthan -sec.379
R V. Thomson -sec 379

[Attempt]
Emperor V. Riasat Ali
R V. White
R. V. King
R V. Mcpherson
R V. Brown
Queen v. Nidha
Asgarali Pradhania V. Emperor
State of maharashtra V. Balram Bama Patil
Om Prakash V. State of Panjab
Abhyanand Mishra V. State of Bihar
State of Maharashtra V. Mohd Yaqoob
P.Rathinam V. Union of India – Attempt to suicide (sec.309)
Gian kaur V. State of Panjab –
Attempt to suicide (sec.309)

[Defamation]
Manka Gandhi V. Union of India
Bachan singh V. State of Panjab
Badrinath V. Government of Tamil nadu
Subramaniam Swamy V. Union of India

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.