Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 232 (1.59 seconds)
Documents citing Lalji & Ors vs State Of U.P on 17 January, 1989

Unknown vs The State Of Tripura on 1 November, 2019

305. The defence argument that none of the eyewitnesses i.e. PWs 1, 2 & 3 actually saw who inflicted the injuries upon Parimal Saha and Jiten Saha does not carry any credence for the reason that PW1, Mati Lal Saha has deposed that he had seen Bijoy Das, Sasthi Chakraborty, Satya Das, Dulal Sengupta, Dudul Sengupta, Abhoy Bhushan, Kajal Sutradhar and Biswajit Saha chasing Parimal Saha with sharp cutting weapons like Dao, Ballam etc. Here it would be apposite to refer the case of Lalji & Ors Vs. State of UP, (1989) 1 SCC 437 wherein the Apex Court held that there are two essential ingredients of Section 149 Viz. (1) commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful assembly and (2) such offence must have been committed in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or must be such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed. Once the court finds that these two ingredients are fulfilled, every person who at the time of committing of that offence was a member of the assembly is to be held guilty of that offence. After such a finding it would not be open to the court to see as to who actually did the offensive act or require the prosecution to prove which of the members did which of the offensive acts. The prosecution would have no obligation to prove it. The relevant paragraphs may be reproduced here-in- below, for convenience:
Tripura High Court Cites 126 - Cited by 0 - A Lodh - Full Document

Vishal Singh @ Pawan vs State(Govt Nct) on 1 February, 2022

30. It has, therefore, been held by the Supreme Court that once an individual is deemed to be a part of the unlawful assembly, it would not be open to the Courts to acquit some members on the ground that they themselves did not perform any violent act, or that there was no corroboration of their participation. Doing so would amount to forgetting the very nature and essence of the offence created by Section 149 IPC. Furthermore, the common object of the unlawful assembly could be gathered from the nature of assembly, arms used by the members of the assembly, and the behaviour of the assembly at or before the scene of Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 4016/2021 Page 11 Signed Digitally of 13 By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:01.02.2022 20:24 occurrence. It is an inference that is to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of the case, as has been stated in Lalji v. State of U.P. (supra)
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document

Bhanu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 April, 2010

was stopped. Nevertheless as per the evidence of all the eyewitnesses, a large number of villagers had gathered there and they had with them lathis and sticks. According to the explanation to Section 141 IPC an assembly which is not unlawful when it assembles may subsequently become an unlawful assembly. As observed by this Court in Lalji v. State of U.P.1 "that common object of the unlawful assembly can be gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms used by them and the behaviour of the assembly at or before the scene of occurrence. It is an inference to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of each case". What has happened in the present case is precisely what has been envisaged in the explanation to Section 141 IPC. With Khima Nand being injured, all hell broke loose. A cry was raised that the Doms should be burnt and killed, and this is precisely what happened. The marriage party was assaulted by the villagers. Six of the members of the marriage party were burnt, five of them having been locked inside the house of the only Dom resident of the village whose house was also burnt. Eight others were pursued and then mercilessly beaten and were killed elsewhere in the village. We fail to appreciate how anyone, under the circumstances, can possibly come to the conclusion that an unlawful assembly having the common object of killing the Doms did not exist when fourteen people have been killed without the use of any weapon more lethal than a stick or stone. Considering the number of injuries on the persons who had died, it is evident that a large number of persons must have taken part in the assault. Even if the assembly of villagers was initially lawful, the same, undoubtedly, became unlawful when the riot started after Khima Nand was injured. All the eyewitnesses have said that fifty or more villagers had taken part in the attack. Who were members of the assembly will be considered later but what is relevant to note is that a large number of villagers were present, duly armed with lathis and sticks, when the occurrence started and except six people who were burnt, eight others were beaten to death by blows from lathis, sticks and stones. It is difficult to appreciate the conclusion of the High Court that, under the circumstances, the attackers probably had a similar object but not a common object.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - T P Sharma - Full Document

Lovely Anand vs State Of Bihar on 10 December, 2008

In paragraph 12 of that judgment the following observation in Lalji v. State of UP 67 (supra) was quoted- "Common object of the unlawful assembly can be gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms used by them and the behaviour of the assembly at or before the scene of occurrence. It is an inference to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of each case." Applying the aforesaid proposition of law to the fats of the present case it is found that the prosecution witnesses are mostly unaware about the exact nature of the assembly which was present on the right flank of the road and which for unknown reasons started shouting "Maro Maro", pelting stones and attacked the vehicle of the deceased and the occupants. The injury report of the photographer, P.L.Tangri (exhibit 7) and the evidence of PW 23 Dr Nagendra Prasad Singh shows he received injuries by broken bricks which is also supported by the findings of the first IO at the place of occurrence. As against it, according to the prosecution case, one person, Bhutkun Shukla, fired thrice to cause his death. Although it is alleged by the police witnesses of category I that the District Magistrate, Gopalganj was earlier assaulted but the doctor has found no other injury except three firearm injuries on the person of the deceased. The appellants are not alleged to have used any brick bats or any other arms. There is no allegation that they were carrying any arms. So far as the behaviour of the assembly at or before the scene of the occurrence is concerned, the evidence is again 68 insufficient or negligible. On behalf of the State it was argued that the car of the District Magistrate was blocked and attacked by those very persons who were members of the funeral procession and were moving by vehicles on the National Highway at the time of the alleged occurrence. This argument is not found acceptable because the motorcade or procession moving on vehicles stopped only after hearing the shout of "Maro Maro". The evidence of PW 12, Sub Divisional Officer, Muzaffarpur East clearly indicates that at the place of occurrence he found persons fleeing on foot towards Khabra village. He has also deposed that he did not see anybody on foot in the procession when it reached village Khabra. In paragraph 44 he replied that at village Khabra a crowd of about 2000 local persons had assembled. In view of such evidence and the evidence of the driver and bodyguard that they could not pass from the left side of the road because of presence of persons on the flank while the funeral procession was moving clearly shows that the attack on the car of the District Magistrate, Gopalganj and the occupants was sudden act of a mob gathered to watch the funeral procession near village Khabra. What led to the anger of the mob has not been brought on record by the driver or the bodyguard. They appear to be anxious to show that they had committed no mistakes leading to the occurrence in which the District Magistrate was killed. Hence, there 69 is hardly any relevant fact and circumstances brought on record of the case by the prosecution to reflect on the behaviour of the assembly present on the flank of the road near village Khabra at or before the time of the occurrence.
Patna High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S K Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next