Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.06 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
The Arms Act, 1959
Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Willie (William) Slaney vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 1955
In the case of Willie (William) Slaney (supra) the Apex
Court has held as under :-
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Dukhmochan Pandey & Ors., Shamsul Mian & ... vs State Of Bihar on 25 September, 1997
(emphasis supplied)
In the case of Dukhmochan Pandey Vs. State of Bihar
reported in (1997) 8 SCC 405 the Apex Court has held as
under :-
Kripal And Ors. vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 25 February, 1954
"6. ........The existence of a common intention
between the participants in a crime is an essential
Cra. No. 628/2008 & Cra. No. 489/2012
12
element for attracting Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and such intention could be formed
previously or on the spot during the progress of
the crime. Usually it implies a pre-arranged plan
which in turn pre-supposes a prior meeting of
mind. But in a given case such common intention
which developed at the spur of the moment is
different from a similar intention actuated a
number of persons at the same time, and
therefore, the said distinction must be borne in
mind which would be relevant in deciding whether
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code can be applied
to all those who might have made some over
attack on the spur of the moment. (See Kripal Vs.
State of U.P. reported in AIR 1954 SC 706,
Pandurang Vs .