Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (3.28 seconds)Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mohd. Abdul Hafeez vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 November, 1982
In his deposition he specified the details of
the part which the accused played with reasonable particularity. In
12
such a situation, it is considered a safe rule of prudence to
generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witness
in Court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to
them, in the form of earlier identification proceeding, as observed
by this Court in Budhsen’s case (supra). This Court has not laid
down the requirement in general that all identification parades
must be under the supervision of a Magistrate as in Budhsen’s
case (supra). The learned counsel for the appellants also relied
upon the Judgments of this Court in Subash and Shiv Kumar Vs.
State of U.P. (1987) 3 SCC 331, and Mohd. Abdul Hafeez Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1983 SC 367. The facts and
circumstances of the cases are however different and it is not
necessary to consider those cases in detail while dealing with the
present case. Suffice it to say that those cases do not create any
doubt as regards the conviction in this case.
Suresh Sakharam Nangre vs State Of Maharashtra on 21 September, 2012
20. Mr. P.C. Agrawala, learned senior counsel for the appellant
Mahesh (accused no. 3), vehemently submitted that this accused
ought not to have been convicted under Section 302 with the aid of
Sections 34 and 120 (B) of IPC. In particular it was submitted that
the role attributed to the accused was that he merely stood outside
the house. He did not even act as a guard because when the
witness Anil Kumar (PW-21) came to the house, he was not even
stopped by the accused from entering the house. The learned
counsel for Mahesh (accused no.3) relied on several decisions of
13
this Court in Suresh Sakharam Nangare Vs. State of
Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 249, Jai Bhagwan Vs. State of
Haryana AIR 1999 SC 1083 and Ramashish Yadav Vs. State of
Bihar (1999) 8 SCC 555.
Baliya @ Bal Kishan vs State Of M.P on 5 October, 2012
It is settled law that common intention and conspiracy are
matters of inference and if while drawing an inference any benefit
of doubt creeps in, it must go to the accused vide Baliya Vs. State
of M.P. (2012) 9 SCC 696.