Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.80 seconds)
Documents citing Parichhat And Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 October, 1971

Thippeshappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2020

28. It is also well settled that an adverse inference can be taken against accused only and if the incriminating materials stood fully established and the accused is not able to furnish any explanation for the same. It is not sufficient compliance to string together long series of facts and ask the accused what he has to say about them. He must be questioned simply and separately about each material circumstance which is intended to be used against him. The provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is intended mainly for the benefit of the accused and also to help the Court in finding the truth. The principle on which it is based is that before the damaging points in the prosecution evidence are used against the accused for determining his guilt, it is essential that his pointed attention should be drawn to them one by one avoiding the form of cross- examination in order to afford him an opportunity of giving an explanation consistent with his innocence. The correct method of performing the duty in Section 28 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not to ask generally if the accused has anything to say about the charges or the evidence against him, but to place before him separately one by one in short sentences all the vital and salient parts of the evidence appearing against him in the simplest possible language so that he can realize what things he has got to explain, and to ask him after putting to the accused each material fact against him whether he wanted to say anything about the matter. The real importance of Section 313 is that there is a duty cast upon the Court to question the accused properly and fairly so that it is brought home to the accused in clear words the exact case that the accused will have to meet and thereby an opportunity is given to him to explain any such point. Our view is fortified by the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parichhat and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1972 SC 535 wherein, at paragraph 18, it is held as under:
Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Salik Singh & Another vs State Of U.P. on 14 July, 2023

27. Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgement rendered in the case of Parichhat and Others v. The State of M.P., AIR 1972 Supreme Court 535 has held that in absence of any evidence of prior meeting of minds and any pre-arranged plan or of participation of accused persons in the fight in question they cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 34. The prosecution must prove that the criminal act has been done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan. Mere proof that some accused persons were with the main accused who inflicted fatal injury on the deceased will not attract the applicability of Section 34.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manoj Kumar @ Fantus And Anr. vs State Of Bihar on 2 July, 1991

8. Accused 1 and 5 shared the common intention with the four other culprits whose identity has not been established. Though it is not known which particular person or persons gave the fatal blow it is clear that the murder was committed by six culprits including accused I and 5 in furtherance of the common intention of all and each of them is liable for the murder as though it had been committed by him alone Further, In the case of Parichhat and Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh , the Supreme Court has said as follows:
Patna High Court Cites 71 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Vinayak Rambhau Waghmare, Ramesh ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 30 August, 1985

In Parichhat and others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, it was held that in the absence of any evidence of a prior meeting of minds and any pre-arranged plan or of participation of accused persons in the fight in question they cannot be convicted with the aid of section 34. It was further held that the prosecution must prove that the criminal act has been done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan. Mere proof that some accused persons were with the main accused who inflicted fatal injury on the deceased at the time of cutting of crops on the field will not attract the applicability of section 34. Here also we do not think that Mr. Shah, the learned Advocate for accused Nos. 2 and 3 can derive any assistance from this case. The reason being that in the preceding paragraphs of our judgment after analysing the evidence and taking into account the facts and circumstances before us, we have clearly come to the conclusion that there was prior meeting of minds between accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and that there was pre-arranged plan too. We have also accepted the case of the prosecution and the facts and circumstances relied upon by the prosecution in support of our conclusion that the criminal act, namely, stabbing the deceased by accused No. 1 has been done in pursuance of the pre-arranged plan. We have also given reasons in support of our conclusions in the preceding paragraphs of our judgment that accused Nos. 2 and 3 had shared the common intention of accused No. 1.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Naga Alias Nagaraja vs State By Station House Officer on 23 October, 2002

It is also held by the Apex Court in Parichhat and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, that the real importance of Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. lies in that it imposes a duty on the Court to question the accused properly and fairly so as to bring home to him the exact case he will have to meet and thereby an opportunity is given to him to explain any such point.
Karnataka High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - H N Narayan - Full Document

Sudalai vs State Represented By on 28 August, 2008

74. Mr.V.Kathirvelu, learned Counsel for A.1, A.3 to A.5, A.9 and A.11 has submitted that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt on the part of the accused under Section 34 I.P.C and in support of his submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Parichhat v. State of M.P reported in AIR 1972 SUPREME COURT 535, wherein it has been held that 'in absence of any evidence of a prior meeting of minds and any prearranged plan or of participation of accused persons in the fight in question, they cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 34. Prosecution must prove that the criminal act has been done in concert pursuant to the pre- arranged plan. Mere proof that some accused persons were with the main accused who inflicted fatal injury on the deceased at the time of cutting of crops on the field will not attract the applicability of Section 34.'. The learned Counsel further submitted that in view of the fact that the conspiracy charge against the accused was not held to be proved and so also, the commission of offences under Sections 147 and 148 I.P.C, the trial Court has committed a grave error in convicting A.2, A.6 to A.8 under Section 302 I.P.C read with Section 34 I.P.C and so also, A.3 to A.5 and A.11 for the same offence.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - M Sathyanarayanan - Full Document
1   2 Next