Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 52 (2.29 seconds)
Documents citing Amerika Rai & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 23 February, 2011

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Killu @ Kailash on 19 November, 2019

In other words, mere membership of the unlawful assembly is sufficient and every member of an unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for the acts done by others either in the prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly or such which the members of the unlawful assembly knew were likely to be committed.” Further, in Amerika Rai v. State of Bihar5 it was observed as under: (SCC p. 682, para 13) 4 (2008) 16 SCC 73 5 (2011) 4 SCC 677 Crl. Appeal Nos. 1709-1710 of 2019 (@ SLP [Crl.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 25 - U U Lalit - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Ramlal Devappa Rathod . on 29 September, 2015

In other words, mere membership of the unlawful assembly is sufficient and every member of an unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for the acts done by others either in the prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly or such which the members of the unlawful assembly knew were likely to be committed.” Further, in Amerika Rai v. State of Bihar14 it was observed as under:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 27 - Cited by 47 - U U Lalit - Full Document

Ramasankar Kushwaha And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. on 29 October, 2021

These conditions must be satisfied for making an accused vicariously liable for commission of offence under Section 149 IPC. Though for applicability of Section 149, there need not be a prior meeting of mind. Even mere presence in the unlawful assembly, with an active mind to achieve the common object, makes such a person vicariously liable for the act of the unlawful assembly. Reference Amerika Rai & others Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2011 (4) SCC 677, Dandu Jaggaraju Vs. State of A.P. reported in 2011 (9) SCC 3387, Ramchandran & others Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2011 (9) SCC 257.
Allahabad High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Gurmail Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 17 October, 2022

11. In the context of the aforesaid contentions it has become necessary to consider certain other allied questions. The first question in that regard is when once the prosecution established the membership of an accused / convict in the unlawful assembly whether the individual overt act also to be established by the prosecution to bring culpability on him on the principle of constructive / 9 vicarious liability. According to us, no such burden can be fastened on the prosecution in view of the phraseology under Section 149, I.P.C. Though there are catena of decisions on that question we think it suffice to refer to the decisions in Amerika Rai & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar (AIR 2011 SC 1379), Surendra & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 2012 SC 1743) and in Yunis alias Kariya Vs. State of M.P. (AIR 2003 SC 539). In Amerika Rai’s case (supra) this Court held that even the presence in an unlawful assembly, with an active mind, to achieve the common object, would make a person vicariously liable for the acts of the unlawful assembly. In Surendra’s case (supra) this Court held that inference of common object has to be drawn from the various factors such as the weapons with which the members were armed, their movements, the acts of violence committed by them and the result.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - C T Ravikumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next