Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
D.M.Nagaraja vs Govt.Of Karnataka & Ors on 19 September, 2011
21. On the anvil of said legal positions, if the role of appellant
No.1-Rajesh is seen then it appears that no prior concert of
mind exists in respect of appellant No.1-Rajesh to say that he
had shared common intention to murder Sanjeev Bhadoriya.
Common intention must exists for applying doctrine of vicarious
liability as well as participation of crime alongwith the presence
of common intention {See: Nagaraja Vs. State of Karnataka
(supra)}. Appellant No.1-Rajesh exhorted against the police
party and did not open the door on the asking of the police party
and thus rendered himself to be guilty of offence under Section
353 of IPC but his role was confined to exhortation and using
abusive language and not opening the door to the police party
but in the given fact-situation of the case he might not have
been in a position to open the gate because Lakhan Singh and
Karu @ Kalicharan were wielding fire arms with them and
therefore, his limitations are understandable.
Jai Bhagwan And Others vs State Of Haryana on 9 February, 1999
The Hon'ble
12 CRA. No.826/2005
apex Court in the case of Jai Bhagwan and Others Vs. State
of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 1083 has mandated that if
participation of the accused in the crime is proved and common
intention is absent, Section 34 cannot be invoked.
Ramashish Yadav And Ors vs State Of Bihar on 9 September, 1999
20. In the present case, where the very participation of the
accused (coupled with common intention) has not been proved
(regarding appellant No.1-Rajesh), then both the ingredients of
Section 34 of IPC are miserably missing in the present case.
Implication of Section 34 requires a pre-arranged plan and per-
supposes prior concert therefore, there must be prior meeting of
mind. It can also be developed at the spur of moment but there
must be pre-arrangement or premeditated concert (See:
Ramashish Yadav Vs. State of Bihar, 1999 (8)SCC 555).
Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Abdul Sayeed vs State Of M.P on 14 September, 2010
6. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the trial
Court erred in coming to the conclusion about the role of
appellant No.1-Rajesh as well as appellant No.2-Karu @
Kalicharan. According to him, the night was dark and in the
torch light, it was not possible for the raiding police party to
ascertain the identity. The house in question was inhabited
many persons and therefore, once the gathering is large then
who shot the fire over deceased cannot be ascertained. Here in
the present case, it was not proved by the prosecution beyond
doubt that fire which took the life of the deceased Sanjeev
Bhadoriya was shot by present appellant No.2-Karu @
Kalicharan therefore, the trial Court erred in passing the
impugned judgment against appellant No.2-Karu @ Kalicharan.
He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court in the
case of Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of M.P., 2010 (4) Crimes 86
(SC). It is further submitted that the statements of the
witnesses have been taken after a considerable period of time
and therefore, these statements have lost evidentiary value.
There are material contradictions amongst the Dehati Nalshi,
FIR and subsequent statements of the witnesses.