In which case listed below, the distinction between movable and immovable property was observed?

Shanta Bai v. State of Bombay (1958 SC 532)

The correct answer is Option (3) → Shanta Bai v. State of Bombay (1958 SC 532)

In Shanta Bai v. State of Bombay, the distinction between movable and immovable property was observed. If the intention is to reap fruits from the trees, then it is regarded as an immovable property. But if the intention is to cut down the tree and use it as timber, it would be regarded as movable property.

In Re Sreerangayee case, the woman in sheer destitution and impoverishment attempted to kill herself after failing in all the ways to arrange for food for her starving children, but since she knowingly (mens rea) did a prohibitive act of attempting suicide(actusreus), she was held guilty by the court.  

In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held that the element of mens rea must be read into a statutory penal provision unless a statute either expressly or by necessary implication rules it out.

State of Maharashtra v. Mayor Hans George : It was held in this case that, "Mens rea by necessary implication can be excluded from a statute only where it is absolutely clear that the implementation of the object of a statute would otherwise be defeated and its exclusion enables those put under strict liability by their act or omission to assist the promotion of the law."