Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.09 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Amar Singh vs State On Haryana on 26 April, 1973
23. In view of the discussion made above, we find that the trial court simply acted on surmises and conjectures in acquitting the real assailants Sri Ram, Mohan Lal and Rajvir. The finding of acquitting them is erroneous and is wholly perverse. As we held above, the other three Radhey Shyam, Anand and Nidan ( Out of them Anand died during the pendency of the appeal) deserve to be afforded the benefit of doubt. That would mean, the number of participants of the crime is reduced to three only, namely, Sri Ram, Mohan Lal and Rajvir. The offence was committed by them with preplanning. There cannot be the slightest doubt that they were acting in concert with previous meeting of minds. Deepawali night was chosen as the time of the incident when crackers and fireworks are widely used producing similar sqund as of actual shooting. The three accused-respondents, namely, Sri Ram, Mohan Lal and Rajvir, thus, committed the offence punishable under Sections 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. The Supreme Court has held in the case of Amar Singh v. State of Haryana that the conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. is legal on a charge under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. if the facts proved and evidence adduced would have been the same. In such cases, failure to charge the accused with the aid of Section 149 I.P.C. does not result in any prejudice.
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Sughar Singh And Ors. on 8 December, 1977
It cannot precisely be known as to what particular type of firearm was used by a particular assailant and what sort of ammunition or cartridge was used therein i.e whether it was crude home filled or standard one. Therefore, no adverse inference could be drawn from the statements of the eyewitnesses concerning the distance of shooting. Needless to say, sudden firing takes the victim and the witnesses aghast and the distance of shooting given by the injured or the eyewitnesses has not to be calculated mathematically as if with measuring tape. The Supreme Court has also held in the case of State of U.P. v. Sughar Singh AIR 1978 Supreme Court, 191 that inconsistency relating to distance from which gun shot is fired between evidence of medical expert and eyewitness is of no consequence when the prosecution evidence pertaining to assault by gun or pistol substantially tallies with the medical evidence. The said analogy would also apply to the present case with full force.
1