Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.29 seconds)
Ratansing Mangalsing Gohil vs State Of Gujarat & ... on 9 January, 2014 cites

Dukhmochan Pandey & Ors., Shamsul Mian & ... vs State Of Bihar on 25 September, 1997

Not   only   that,   but   even   in   the  complaint there is a reference of altercation and   exchange of words on the said aspects and there   is   also   reference   to   the   quarrel   on   the   said   aspect. This shows that at least there could not   be   common   intention   to   kill   but   to   express   the   ill­feeling.   It, at the most, could be said as   to give assault by some of the accused.  At this   stage, reference may be made to the decision of   Apex Court in the case of Dukhmochan Pandey and   Ors. v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1998 SC,   40 and more particularly the observations made by   the Apex Court on page 46, the relevant of which   reads as under:­ "6. ... The existence of a common intention   between the   participants in a crime is an   essential element for attracting Section   34  of the Indian Penal Code and such intention   could   be   formed     previously   or   on   the   spot   during   the   progress   of   the   crime.  Usually it implies a pre­arranged plan which   in   turn   pre­supposes   a   prior   meeting   of   mind.   But   in   a   given   case   such   common   intention which developed at the spur of the   Page 31 of 46 R/CR.A/258/2010 JUDGMENT moment     is   different     from   a     similar  intention actuated  a   number  of  persons   at  the  same  time,   and   therefore,   the  said distinction must be borne in mind which   would be  relevant in  deciding whether   Section 34  of  the Indian Penal Code can be  applied   to   all   those   who   might   have   made   some over attack on the spur of the moment."
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 31 - G N Ray - Full Document

Ram Dular Rai & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 27 November, 2003

24. We may first consider the aspect of common object or the common intention. The useful reference can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Dular Rai and others Vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1043. The Apex Court in the said decision had an occasion to examine the common object and common intention in light of the provisions of Section 141 and Section 149 of IPC. At paragraphs 7 to 10, it was observed thus:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 15 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Chikkarange Gowda And Ors. vs State Of Mysore on 9 May, 1956

The  distinction between the two parts of Section 149  Page 27 of 46 R/CR.A/258/2010 JUDGMENT cannot be ignored or obliterated.  In every case  it   would   be   an   issue   to   be   determined,   whether  the offence committed falls within the first part  or it was an offence such as the members of the  assembly   knew   to   be   likely   to   be   committed   in  prosecution of the common object and falls within  the   second   part.   However,   there   may   be   cases  which would be within first offences committed in  prosecution   of   the   common   object,   but   would   be  generally,   if   not   always,   with   the   second,  namely,   offences   which   the   parties   knew   to   be  likely committed in the prosecution of the common  object.     (See   Chikkarange   Gowda   and   others   v.  State of Mysore,  AIR 1956 SC 731.)"
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 87 - S K Das - Full Document

Rangitbhai Kanabhai Nayak vs State Of Gujarat & on 12 April, 2013

26. It may be that in a given case, if the common object or a common intention so as to bring within the purview of section 141 read with section 149 of IPC, is not proved beyond Page 29 of 46 R/CR.A/258/2010 JUDGMENT reasonable doubt for all the accused and the number of accused is reduced to less than 5, the question may be required to be examined for applicability of section 34 qua the accused who have played role in commission of crime. Under the circumstances, we may also examine as to whether section 34 can be applied to the facts of the present case, if the charge under section 141 read with section 149 of the IPC is found as not proved and the accused who have played role are less than 5 in number. At this stage, we may refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Kantibhai Shanabhai Nayak vs. State of Gujarat reported at 2000(9) 5 GLR 4106, wherein, the Court had an occasion to examine the scope and ambit of section 34 of IPC after taking into consideration the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dukhmochan Pandey v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1998 SC 40 : 1997 (8) SCC 405 and this observed at paras 14 to 16, as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - A J Desai - Full Document
1