Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Amar Singh vs State On Haryana on 26 April, 1973
It is, therefore, open to the court to take recourse to
Section 34 of IPC even if the said section was not
specifically mentioned in the charge and instead Section 149
IPC has been included. Of course a finding that the
assailant concerned had a common intention with the other
accused is necessary for resorting to such a course. This
view was following by this court in later decisions also,
(Amar Singh v. State of Haryana. AIR 1973 SC 2221.
Bhoor Singh And Anr. vs State Of Punjab on 28 February, 1974
Bhoor
Singh and Anr. v. State or Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 1256). The
first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
has no merit.
Caetano Piedade Fernandes And Anr. vs Union Territory Of Goa, Daman And Diu ... on 1 September, 1976
Though the Code does not make any distinction between
an appeal from acquittal and an appeal from conviction so
far as powers of the appellate court are concerned, certain
unwritten rules of adjudication have consistently been
following by Judges while dealing with appeals against
acquittal. No doubt, the High Court has full power to review
the evidence and to arrive at its own independent conclusion
whether the appeal is against conviction or acquittal. But
while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the appellate
court has to bear in mind: first, that there is a general
presumption in favour of the ignorance of the person accused
in criminal cases that presumption is only strengthened by
the acquittal. The second is, every accused is entitled to
the benefit of reasonable doubt regarding his guilt and when
the trial court acquitted him. He would retain that benefit
in the appellate court also. Thus, appellate court in
appeals against acquittals has to proceed more cautiously
and only if there is absolute assurance of the guilt of the
accused, upon the evidence on record, that the order of
acquittal is liable to the interfered with or disturbed.
(Durgacharan Naik and ors. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1966 SC
1775, Caetand Piedade Fernandes & Anr. v. Union Terriroty of
Goa, Daman & Diu, Panaji.
Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Barendra Kumar Ghose vs Emperor on 8 October, 1923
The High Court found that there was no unlawful
assembly as the strength of the assembly was insufficient to
constitute it into "unlawful assembly". But if the court
enters upon a finding that any of the remaining persons who
participated in the crime had shareo common intention with
the main perpetrators of the crime, the court is not
helpless in seeking the aid of Section 34 (IPC) to enter a
conviction against such persons arraigned as accused. This
is despite the difference between the scops of Section 34
and Section 149, yet they have some resemblance between each
other and are to some extent overlapping (Barendra Kumar
Ghosh vs. Emperor, 1925 PC 1).