Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (1.51 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Krishna Govind Patil vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 January, 1963
In Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra the following observations have been made by the Supreme Court:
Section 374 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Mohan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 15 March, 1962
Before their Lordships in support of the contention that a Court even in the first illustration, can acquit 3 of the 4 accused named in the charge on the ground that their identity has not been established, and convict one of them on the ground that more than one took part in the commission of the offence, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab . There the appellants, along with three others were charged with having committed, offences Under Section 302 read with Section 149 as well as Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge acquitted two of them, with the result
That tree of them were convicted. One of the accused was convicted Under Section 302 and Section 147 and two of the accused were convicted Under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 147 I.P.C. The High Court con firmed their convictions. On appeal by special leave to the Supreme Court two of the accused convicted Under Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 147, IPC contended, inter alia, that as two of the five accused were acquitted, their conviction Under Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 147, was bad in law. The Supreme Court held on the evidence that the said two accused had done the act pursuant to a pre-arranged plan and, therefore, they could be convicted Under Section 302 reaa with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of that judgment the Supreme Court had been pleased to observe:
Bisheshar Dhani Ram vs The State on 2 May, 1962
26. The learned Counsel for the State placed reliance on a recent case of this Court Bisbeshai Dhani Ram v. State 1963 (1) Cri LJ 645 (All) but in that case the conclusion arrived at by the Bench who heard that case was that there were at least three persons who must have taken part in the crime though the Court was unable to establish the identity of two persons among them. The third was convicted Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the instant case the conclusion is not that one of them participated in the crime and the other was unknown though the appellant is known, but the conclusion arrived at is that though the act was said to have been committed by two known persons in furtherance of their common intention and by those two persons alone and no other, one of them was not there at all. It cannot, there, fore, be said that the act was done by the known person alone or by him in concert with an unknown person in furtherance of their common intention.