these appeals having arisen out of the same judgment and they involving common questions of law and fact, will be governed by this single judgment ... Mahato as bargadar under Kartick Chowdhury who cultivated the disputed lands bearing plot No. 550. They were armed with deadly weapons like lathi, tangi, sword
whenever any member of the conspiracy acts in furtherance of
the common design. (See: American Jurisprudence Vol. II Sec. 23, p. 559).
For an offence ... immaterial whether this is found in the ultimate objects. The common law
definition of 'criminal conspiracy' was stated first by Lord Denman in
Jones
Ashok Uttekar had some dispute with the deceased over some open plot of land and due to this, he was shot dead, it is pertinent ... Therefore, there was no question of accused No. 1 sharing a common intention with accused Nos. 2 and 3 as accused No. 1 was only
tussle arose out of a civil dispute and that, there was no common object to commit any murder. All the accused-appellants though alleged ... weapons, none of them have used the same. Neither there was any common intention to kill nor to cause grievous injury. It is submitted that
Harijana Thirupala And Ors. vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of A.P., ... on 1 August
Subramani And Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 August, 2002
Equivalent citations: AIR
Dharminder And Durga Nand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 3 September, 2002
Equivalent citations
Dharminder vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 3 September, 2002
Equivalent citations: AIR 2002 SUPREME
State (Govt. Of Delhi) vs Mr. Rajbir Singh And Ors. on 17 April, 2002
Equivalent
Mintoo Shah vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 23 April, 2002
Equivalent citations: 97
