Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 164 (0.98 seconds)
Documents citing Jai Bhagwan And Others vs State Of Haryana on 9 February, 1999

Mallanna S/O Narsappa Erators vs The State Through Chittapur P.S. on 8 September, 2020

50. Further, I place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Bhagwan and others v. State of Haryana [(1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 102], wherein their lordships were pleased to observe as follows "10. To apply Section 34, IPC apart from the fact that there should be two or more accused, two factors must be established : (i) common intention and (ii) participation of the accused in the commission of an offence. If common intention is proved but no overt act is attributed to the individual accused, Section 34 will be attracted as essentially it involves vicarious liability but if participation of the accused in the crime is proved and common intention is absent, Section 34 cannot be invoked. In every case it is not possible to have direct evidence of common intention. It has to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case."
Karnataka High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - H Sanjeevkumar - Full Document

Criminal Revision No.95/15 vs The State on 3 November, 2015

5. I have gone through the trial court record. Though in the complaint, the complainant has alleged that his wife made arrangement of Rs.20 lakhs. However, during the investigation she was not examined by the police. Neither her statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. was recorded nor she was cited as a prosecution witness. PW­2 was partly examined in the Court on 06.11.2003. His examination in chief was deferred at the request of Ld. APP on that day on the ground that PW­2 was resiling from his earlier statement and he wanted to cross­examine him after going through the file on next date. PW­2 could not be Criminal Revision No. 95/15 Page 2 of 3 Jai Bhagwan Vs. The State.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mangli And 2 Ors. vs State Of U.P on 30 March, 2026

In view of the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court, the case in hand demonstrates that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the accused-appellants shared a common intention to kill the deceased, Ram Dulare. Since the injuries found on the body of the deceased, with the exception of the head injury, were simple in nature, the findings given by the Trial Court regarding the conviction of the present appellants under Section 304 IPC read with Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained and should, therefore, be set aside. However, the findings in respect of Sections 323 and 504 IPC is liable to be upheld.
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - P K Srivastava - Full Document

Dalbir vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 24 September, 2014

Present case is not a case of renewal of arms licence, which could be renewed after acquittal of the petitioner. The arms license has been cancelled on account of misusing the revolver as per Section 17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act. Hence, the petitioner cannot get benefit of the judgment delivered by this Court in Jai Bhagwan Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.1130 of 2010, decided on 16.09.2010 (Annexure P-9).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Bahri - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next