Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (2.82 seconds)
Documents citing Ashok Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 17 December, 2002

Jitender vs State on 5 May, 2009

16. Now, coming to the case of Ashok Kumar (Supra), it is apposite to take into consideration that one of the co-accused obstructed the brother of the prosecutrix from going towards the side of baithak where his sister who was being raped by another accused showing a pistol was held to have no common intention to commit rape and therefore the appeal filed by the said accused was allowed. The relevant observation made in the said case is reproduced hereunder:
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - M C Garg - Full Document

Ram Ishwar Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 10 February, 2014

22. This Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana (2003) 2 SCC 143 had occasion to dwell on Explanation 1 to Section 376(2)(g) IPC while examining whether the appellant Ashok Kumar could be convicted under the same because at the crucial time, he happened to be in the house of the co-accused Anil Kumar in whose case the judgment of conviction under Section 376(2)(g) had attained finality. The Court observed that the prosecution must adduce evidence to show that more than one accused has acted in concert and in such an event, if rape had been committed by even one of the accused all will be guilty irrespective of the fact that she has not been raped by all of them. Therefore, it may not be necessary for the prosecution to adduce evidence of a completed act of rape by each one of the accused. The provision embodies a principle of joint liability and essence of that liability is in existence of common intention. That common intention presupposes prior concert as there must be meeting of minds, which may be determined from the 25 conduct of the offenders which is revealed during the course of action."
Patna High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - A K Trivedi - Full Document

Raj Kishor Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 10 February, 2014

22. This Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana (2003) 2 SCC 143 had occasion to dwell on Explanation 1 to Section 376(2)(g) IPC while examining whether the appellant Ashok Kumar could be convicted under the same because at the crucial time, he happened to be in the house of the co-accused Anil Kumar in whose case the judgment of conviction under Section 376(2)(g) had attained finality. The Court observed that the prosecution must adduce evidence to show that more than one accused has acted in concert and in such an event, if rape had been committed by even one of the accused all will be guilty irrespective of the fact that she has not been raped by all of them. Therefore, it may not be necessary for the prosecution to adduce evidence of a completed act of rape by each one of the accused. The provision embodies a principle of joint liability and essence of that liability is in existence of common intention. That common intention presupposes prior concert as there must be meeting of minds, which may be determined from the 25 conduct of the offenders which is revealed during the course of action."
Patna High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 2 - A K Trivedi - Full Document

Chetan Prajapat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 February, 2024

He further cited decision in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana , (2003) 2 SCC 143 to contend that Apex Court held that appellant alongwith one K convicted under section 376(2)(g) of IPC for committing rape on deceased, then on facts it was not possible to draw a reasonable conclusion that appellant had raped S. Further, in the absence of any evidence of concert between K and the appellant, held that conviction recorded by the courts below was liable to be set aside. 6A. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 29-02-2024 16:38:18 16 Cr.A. No. 863 of 2013 contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are just and proper in the facts of the case. The trial Court has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record. Looking to the nature of allegations, manner of commission of rape and gravity of offence, the sentence imposed by the trial Court is just and proper and appellants do not deserve any leniency.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S A Dharmadhikari - Full Document
1   2 3 Next