Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.22 seconds)
Fakruddin And Anr vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 June, 2022 cites

Roy Fernandes vs State Of Goa & Ors on 1 February, 2012

18. In our opinion, the trial Court has rightly held that no deadly weapons were being carried by the appellants. Except wheel spanner from Fakruddin (A-1) and bamboo sticks from Nassu @ Jalaluddin (A-5) & Peeru @ Peeruddin (A-6), nothing has been seized from the appellants. It has further been recorded by the trial Court that the wheel spanner which was seized from Fakruddin was owned by deceased Paru @ Parvez. To determine the existence of common object, the court is required to see the circumstances in which the incident had taken place and the conduct of the members of the unlawful assembly including the weapons they carried or used on the spot (see Roy Fernandes v. State of Goa and others1). In view of the finding of the trial Court, no fault can be found on the clear acquittal of the appellants herein under Sections 147, 148 & 120B of the IPC, as 1 (2012) 3 SCC 221 Cr.A.Nos.671/2009, 649/2009, 713/2009 & Cr.Rev.577/2009 Page 11 of 22 constitution of unlawful assembly under Section 147 of the IPC was not found and no deadly weapon has been found and moreover, no common object of such assembly was found by the trial Court. The trial Court also found that there was no criminal conspiracy hatched up in terms of Section 120B of the IPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 72 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Arumugam vs State Rep.By Insp.Of Police on 24 July, 2012

21. Further in Arumugam v. State11, in support of the proposition of law that under what circumstances Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC can be invoked if death is caused, it has been explained as under: (SCC p. 596, para 9) "9. .... '18. The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be 9 (2017) 3 SCC 247 10 (1989) 2 SCC 217 11 (2008) 15 SCC 590 Cr.A.Nos.671/2009, 649/2009, 713/2009 & Cr.Rev.577/2009 Page 18 of 22 noted that the "fight" occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the Penal Code, 1860. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties had worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two and more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression "undue advantage" as used in the provision means "unfair advantage".'"
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 53 - Full Document
1