Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.02 seconds)Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mukund @ Kundu Mishra & Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 1997
29. At the very outset, it can be said that evidence as discussed above clearly prove that all the appellants participated in this crime, that is, of dacoity and in course of dacoity murder of three priests were committed. Though admittedly there is no direct evidence, but from ample circumstantial evidence including recovery of weapon and stolen articles, it can be said that murder of three priests were committed in the same transaction and also dacoity was committed and some articles were looted away. In such situation, if murder and dacoity were committed simultaneously and the participation of more than five persons, then in that view of the matter, Section 396, IPC is attracted and, thus, conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302, IPC in any view of the matter appears to be surpluses because if murder is committed in course of dacoity, then Section 396, IPC is applicable and punishment under Section 396, IPC and that of Section 302, IPC is the same. The Supreme Court in a case reported in 1997 Vol. 2 Eastern criminal Cases 166 (Mukchund @ Kunda Mishra and Anr. v. State of M.P.) clearly held that if the prosecution can successfully prove that the offence of robbery and murder were committed in one and the same transaction and soon thereafter the stolen properties were recovered, then, the Court may legitimately draw a presumption not only of the fact that the person in whose possession the stolen articles were found committed the robbery but also that he committed the murder. In the instant case, the dacoity and murder were committed in the same transaction and immediately after the occurrence, weapons used in this occurrence and stolen properties were recovered from the possession of the appellants, as discussed above. In that view of the matter, all the appellants are guilty under Section 396, IPC and recording of conviction and sentence separately under Section 302/34, IPC is definitely unwarranted and surpluses and as such it is hereby set aside. But the conviction of all the appellants under Section 396, IPC is hereby confirmed and maintained, as recorded by the trial Court.
Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao And Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 August, 1996
36. No doubt the trial Court for awarding death sentence relied upon a decision of the Apex'Court in Gentel Vijayavardhan Rao and
Anr. v. State of A.P. 1996 Vol. 6 SCC 241. but that was a road robbery and it was committed with extreme brutality as the culprits set fire on a bus in order to commit robbery of the articles of the passengers and as many as 23 persons died for burn injuries in this road hold-up case and several sustained burn injuries and there was direct evidence about the participation of the appellants there. So that was definitely a case which comes under the purview of rarest of rare cases. But in the instant case, there is no direct evidence as against the appellants that they committed the murder of three priests; rather there is circumstantial evidence only and the evidence is otherwise that the main accused was Ajit Kiro and he was the ring leader and he got annoyance as against the deceased.