Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.29 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Lakshmi Singh And Ors. vs State Of Bihar on 10 September, 1976
In fact paragraph no. 13 of the said
judgment rendered in the case of Lakshmi Singh (supra) has
also been referred and it has been submitted that though it is not
necessary for the defence to prove its case with the same rigor
as the prosecution is required to prove its case, however it is
sufficient if the defence succeeds in showing a reasonable doubt
with regard to the case of the prosecution and the same would
be sufficient to enable the Court to reject the prosecution
version. It is thus submitted that in the present case neither the
Investigating Officer has been examined nor any blood-stained
mud/clothes have been seized much less have been marked as
material exhibits, hence in absence of any seizure list, the
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants
beyond all reasonable doubt.
Jugal Yadav @ Yugal Yadav And Anr vs State Of Bihar on 3 July, 2023
9. The learned counsel for the appellant of the second case
has next relied on a judgment rendered in the case of Jugal
Yadav vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2023 (3) PLJR 692,
paragraph no. 13 whereof is reproduced herein below:-
State Of Karnataka vs Bhaskar Kushali Kotharkar And Ors on 19 August, 2004
In the case of State of Karnataka vs.
Bhaskar Kushali Kotharkar and Ors., (Cr. Appeal No.
498 of 1998) the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
highlighting the importance of examination of
Investigating Officer, observed:
Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 22 February, 1983
In this
regard, reference be had to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai vs.
State of Gujarat, reported in (1983) 2 SCC 174.
Krishnappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka By Babaleshwara P.S on 31 July, 2012
45. Thus, this Court in Krishnappa case [(2012) 11 SCC
237] held that Section 149 IPC creates a constructive or
vicarious liability of the members of the unlawful
assembly for the unlawful acts committed pursuant to the
common object by any other member of that assembly. By
application of this principle, every member of an
unlawful assembly is roped in to be held guilty of the
offence committed by any member of that assembly in
prosecution of the common object of that assembly. The
factum of causing injury or not causing injury would not
be relevant when an accused is roped in with the aid of
Section 149IPC. The question which is relevant and
which is required to be answered by the court is whether
the accused was a member of an unlawful assembly and
not whether he actually took part in the crime or not.
Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel . on 16 May, 2018
46. As a matter of fact, this Court in Vinubhai
Ranchhodbhai Patel vs. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel
[(2018) 7 SCC 743] has reiterated the position that
Section 149IPC does not create a separate offence but
only declares vicarious liability of all members of the
unlawful assembly for acts done in common object. This
Court has held :