Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.28 seconds)Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 162 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
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.
Antar Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 September, 1978
The Honble Apex Court has held in the case of Antar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2007 (1) Crimes 226 that whether in a given situation, accused persons had shared common intention to commit murder must be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the aforesaid case, all the accused persons were held liable for the offences as they went inside the house of the victim. In the instant case both the appellants came together from the temple to the house of deceased Hemraj and banged upon the door of his house. When Hemraj opened the door, the appellants committed the crimes.
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.