Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.82 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 103 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 141 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Kapildeo Singh vs The King on 24 January, 1950
In
Kapildeo Singh v. The King(1) the High Court had affirmed
the appellant's conviction and sentence under s. 147 and s.
304 read with s. 149, without considering the question as to
who was actually in possession of the plot at the time of
the occurrence. The High Court observed that the question
of possession was immaterial and that the appellants party
were members of an unlawful assembly, "as both sides were
determined to vindicate their rights by show of force or use
of force." The Federal Court set aside the conviction and
sentence. It held that the High Court judge stated the law
too loosely "if by the use of the word 'vindicate' he meant
to include even cases in which a party is forced to maintain
or defend his rights". The assembly could not be designated
as an unlawful assembly if its object was to defend property
by the use of force within the limits prescribed by law.
The charges against the respondents were that they "were
members of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common
object of which, viz., in forcibly preventing Ramdhari Singh
and Ramswarup Singh from collecting mahua from Barmania
field of village Phatnapi and if necessary in causing the
murder of the said two persons, for the purpose, "that some
of them caused the murders of Ramdhari and Ramswarup and
that thereby all of them committed offences under s. 302
read with s. 149. We have found that respondent Chandradeo
was in possession of plot
(1) [1949-50] F.C.R. 834.