Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)
Harshad Singh @ Baba Pahalvan Singh ... vs State Of Gujarat on 17 September, 1976 cites

Maina Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 March, 1976

Counsel Shri Goyal pressed upon us what he regarded as a surefire contention that if there was no specific evidence of the appellant having inflicted the fatal stab on the chest he was entitled to share the 629 acquittal with the rest even if there was abundant proof of several persons including him having set upon the deceased and killed him using lethal weapons. In the present case more than one knife was used, more than., one man was in the attacking party and more than one incised wound was inflict- ed. While we can make short work of the submission by holding, as we d9, that there is clear testimony that the chest stab which was fatal in the ordinary course was the handiwork of the appellant, we make the legal position clear that when a murderous assault by many hands with many knives has ended fatally, it is legally impermissible to dissect the serious ones from the others and seek to salvage those whose stabs have not proved fatal. When people' play with knives and lives, the circumstance that one man's stab falls on a less or more vulnerable part of the person of the victim is of no consequence to fix the guilt for murder. Conjoint complicity is the inevitable inference when a gory group animated by lethal intent accomplish their purpose cumulatively. Section 34 IPC fixing constructive liability conclusively silences such a refined plea of extrication. (See Amir Hussain v. State of U.P. C), Maina Singh v. State of Rajasthan(2). Lord Sumner's classic legal shothand for constructive criminal liability, expressed in the Miltonic verse 'They also serve who only stand and wait' a Jortiori embraces cases of common intent instantly formed, triggering a plurality of persons into an adventure in criminality, some hitting, some missing, some spletting hostile heads, some spilling drops of blood. Guilt goes with community of intent coupled with participatory presence or operation. No finer juristic niceties can be pressed into service to nullify or jettison the plain punitive purpose of the Penal Code.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 36 - P N Shinghal - Full Document
1