Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 40 (0.28 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 300 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]
Nethala Pothuraju And Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 September, 1991
27. However, in the present case, it is not as if the remaining
accused were completely acquitted of all the offences. That six of
them together formed an unlawful assembly is evident. Unlike,
the decision in Nethala Pothuraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh
(supra), where there was a clean acquittal of all the remaining
accused persons, here there is no such clean acquittal of the
remaining accused of all the offences. In that sense, the formation
of the unlawful assembly is still proved. It may be that as far as
the offence of murder was concerned, only the present Appellants
may be guilty thereof. However, the remaining accused along
CRLA No.19 of 2004 Page 13 of 23
with the present Appellants still continued to form part of an
unlawful assembly i.e., with arms.
Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Kallu @ Masih & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 January, 2006
In Kallu@ Masih v. State of M.P. (supra), twenty-seven
persons had been sent up for trial. The trial Court acquitted all the
twenty-seven. In the appeal filed by the State, leave was granted
by the High Court only with regard to five, since they had been
specifically named as the persons committing the offence and
causing the injuries to the deceased and others. One of the five got
the benefit of doubt "though his presence as a member of the
group was accepted." As a result, only four were convicted. The
Supreme Court then explained as under: