Takhaji Hiraji vs Thakore Kubersing Chamansing & Ors on 2 May, 2001
In the case of Takhaji Hiraji (Supra) the incident took place because of a sudden quarrel between two communities.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)Ramashish Yadav And Ors vs State Of Bihar on 9 September, 1999
In support of his argument, he has placed reliance on the cases of Ramashish Yadav and others Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3830 and Suresh Sitaram Surve Vs. State of Maharashtra 2003 (1) WLC (SC) Criminal 280.
Suresh Sitaram Surve vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 November, 2002
When we examine the instant case in the light of aforesaid principles of law it deserves to be mentioned that common intention can be proved from the conduct of an offender unfolding itself during the course of action. The case of Suresh Sitaram Surve (Supra) has no application in the instant case.
Harji Ram And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 October, 1985
We have considered the above submission. Section 34 IPC requires common intention of the accused persons which has to be proved by the prosecution. Pre-arranged plan may be inferred from circumstances and conduct. Prior concert or prior plan of the accused has to be judged from the facts and circumstances of the case as direct evidence in respect thereof is difficult to come by. Only the acts of the parties will make out the intention and so, this factual aspect is to be inferred from the facts and circumstances. This Court in Harji Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1996 Cr.L.J. 3616 held that when the accused persons purchased some agricultural field but were stopped by the complainant party from carrying on agricultural operation on the ground that they were transferee from the Khatedar tenants of the field, on resistance being shown by the accused the complainants being few in number, tried to escape and some of them succeeded in doing so but accused continued the beating even after two members of complainant party had fallen down helplessly, it was held that they had a definite common intention to kill the victims.
Murari Thakur And Another vs State Of Bihar on 14 December, 2006
In the case of Murari Thakur and another Vs. State of Bihar 2007 (1) Crimes 395, the Honble Apex Court held that when both appellants had caught hold of deceased and the third accused cut the neck of the deceased, conviction of the appellants with the help of section 34 I.P.C. suffered no illegality. The present case is fully covered by the aforesaid judgments. Hence, we do not approve the contention raised on behalf of the appellant Mahesh.
Kesar Lal And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 July, 1996
(1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafter provided, at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made. (Emphasis supplied)
Such a factual situation has been considered by this Court in Keshar Lal and others Vs. State of Rajasthan 1997 (2) WLC (Rajasthan) 265 and after considering the decisions of the Honble Apex Court in Tapendra Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1994 (2) SCC 220; Soma Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat 1994 (2) SCC 698; Dhananjay Chatterjee alias Dhanna Vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1979 Supreme Court 135 and Ram Singh Babaji Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2488 it held that, telephonic message, giving information of a cognizable offence, is often a matter of controversy as to whether it constitutes an FIR or not. In this matter, the view of the Supreme Court is consistent that if the telephonic message is cryptic in nature and the object and purpose of giving such telephonic message is not to lodge the FIR but to request the Officer Incharge of the Police Station to reach the place of occurrence or where the dead body is lying, it cannot be treated as FIR.
Thaman Kumar vs State Of Union Territory Of Chandigarh on 6 May, 2003
The Honble Apex Court has held in Thaman Kumar Vs. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3975 that when telephonic message about the incident was given by Constable on night patrol duty in which it was mentioned that three persons assaulted the deceased, the said information cannot be regarded FIR of the incident but merely an entry made regarding departure of police person to place of occurrence.
1