Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.33 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Dhanna Etc vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 July, 1996
This was reiterated by the Supreme Court a number of times. We may
refer to Dhanna Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2478,
where this position is reiterated after referring to the other cases. It
held:
Amar Singh vs State On Haryana on 26 April, 1973
It is, therefore, open to the Court to take recourse
to Section 34 of IPC even if the said section was
not specifically mentioned in the charge and instead
Section 149, IPC has been included. Of course a
finding that the assailant concerned had a common
intention with the other accused is necessary for
resorting to such a course. This view was followed
by this Court in later decisions also. (Amar Singh v.
State of Haryana, AIR 1973 SC 221; Bhoor Singh
v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 1256. The first
submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
has no merit.
Mohan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 15 March, 1962
Counsel for the appellants then pointed out that the appellants
had been charged under Section 302 IPC whereas no charge had been
framed under Section 34 of the IPC. The trial court convicted all the
three accused under Section 302. The High Court in appeal convicted
the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34. It was argued
with vehemence that it was not possible to ascertain who gave the fatal
blow and therefore the common intention could not be inferred. That
in the absence of the charge read with Section 34 the appellants were
deprived of their right to defend themselves. He referred to Mohan
Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1962 Supp (3) SCR 848; Ninaji Raoji
Boudha & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1976 (2) SCC 117;
Pandurang, Tukia and Bhillia Vs. The State of Hyderabad, 1955 SCR
1083; Lal Mandi Vs. State of W.B., 1995 (3) SCC 603; and
Dukhmochan Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, 1997 (8) SCC 404 to
canvass the point that in the absence of pre-concert of minds the
common intention could not be inferred though the intention may be
the same.
Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Bhoor Singh And Anr. vs State Of Punjab on 28 February, 1974
It is, therefore, open to the Court to take recourse
to Section 34 of IPC even if the said section was
not specifically mentioned in the charge and instead
Section 149, IPC has been included. Of course a
finding that the assailant concerned had a common
intention with the other accused is necessary for
resorting to such a course. This view was followed
by this Court in later decisions also. (Amar Singh v.
State of Haryana, AIR 1973 SC 221; Bhoor Singh
v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 1256. The first
submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
has no merit.