Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing Maina Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 March, 1976

Priya Nath Basuri And Ors. vs State Of West Bengal on 8 August, 2005

20. Last but not the least, Mr. Roy referring to the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 6 to 8 submitted that assault by accused Mrigen and Pulin to the victim with the blunt side of axe and tangi respectively indicates that they had no intention to commit murder of the victim Padmalochan and as such they could not be roped with the offence of murder with the aid of Section 149 IPC. Relying upon the cases of Maina Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1976 SCC (Cri) 332 and Amar Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 1987 SCC (Cri) 232 Mr. Roy further contended that though all the seven convicts were charged under Section 302/149 IPC, conviction of three accused only for the offence of murder denotes acquittal of other accused persons for the said charge and so, Section 149 cannot be invoked. What has to be proved against a person who is alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly is that he was one of the persons constituting the assembly and he entertained along with the other members of the assembly the common object as defined in Section 141. Section 142 provides that whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly unlawful, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly. In other words, an assembly of five or more persons actuated by and entertaining one or more of the common objects specified by the five clauses of Section 141, is an unlawful assembly.
Calcutta High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kashirao S/O Kisan Lahale (In Jail) And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through S.O. on 23 July, 2002

21. There cannot be any doubt regarding the said ratio laid down by the Apex Court. However, the said Judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case which are entirely different. In the present case, it has not been established by the prosecution by either direct or circumstantial evidence that apart from accused No. 1 the other accused were either seen by any of the witnesses examined by the prosecution assaulting the deceased and, therefore, in the absence of this crucial evidence, it will be difficult to hold the other accused guilty of the offence under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code of sharing the common object and intention. The said submission of the learned A.P.P., therefore, cannot be accepted that all the accused are liable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of Subhash Warankar.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - V M Kanade - Full Document

Golla Pullanna & Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 13 August, 1996

In the case of Maina Singh vs. State of Rajasthan 1976 '(3) SCR 651 this Court has. held that it is not permissible to invoke Section 149 or Section 34 I.P.C. in a case where the accused is charged with commission of an offence only with named persons as co-accused and others have been acquitted. It was submitted that when other accused are acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt then the remaining accused can be convicted only for his own act and not for the acts committed by others.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 9 - G T Nanavati - Full Document

Mangu Khan & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 February, 2005

"We make the legal position clear that when a murderous assault by many hands with many knives has ended fatally, it is legally impermissible to dissect the serious ones from the others and seek to salvage those whose stabs have not proved fatal. When people play with knives and lives, the circumstance that one man's stab falls on a less or more vulnerable part of the person of the victim is of no consequence to fix the guilt for murder. Conjoint complicity is the inevitable inference when a gory group animated by lethal intent accomplish their purpose cumulatively. Section 34 IPC fixing constructive liability conclusively silences such a refined plea of extrication. (See Amir Hussain v. State of U.P. ; Maina Singh v. State of Rajasthan .) Lord Sumner's classic legal shorthand for constructive criminal liability, expressed in the Miltonic verse 'They also serve who only stand and wait' a fortiori embraces cases of common intent instantly formed, triggering a plurality of persons into an adventure in criminality, some hitting, some missing, some splitting hostile heads, some spilling drops of blood. Guilt goes with community of intent coupled with participatory presence or operation. No finer juristic niceties can be pressed into service to nullify or jettison the plain punitive purpose of the Penal Code."
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 22 - Full Document
1