Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (4.19 seconds)Nilmony Poddar And Ors. vs Queen-Empress on 21 March, 1889
Paragraph 1 of Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code is to the following effect: 'Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such his offences unless it be so expressly provided.' In this case the offence of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 324 coupled with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, of which these appellants have been found guilty, is primarily made up of two parts, viz.: (1) of their being members of an unlawful assembly, by which force and violence was used in prosecution of its common object, and the members of which were armed with deadly weapons; and (2) of the offence of voluntarily causing hurt being committed by two other members of the; unlawful assembly in prosecution of its common object. The first of these two parts is itself an offence, viz., rioting, armed with deadly weapons, under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. It is nowhere expressly provided in law that, under the circumstances set forth above, the offender may be punished separately for the two offences constituted by the whole and the part respectively. Therefore, we find that all the conditions laid down in para. 1 of Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code are present here.
Section 35 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 326 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Paltu Singh And Ors. vs Emperor on 2 July, 1918
7. There remains the question as to what sentences ought to be passed. If we consider that a total sentence of four years is not excessive, we are at liberty to follow the course adopted in the above case and treat the sentence in regard to each prisoner as a consolidated sentence of four years passed under Section 326 read with 149. The occurrence was a serious one. It led to one death, and the man who died as the result of his injuries received as many as four incised wounds. A pharsa was also used on Dwarka. The frequency of riots by persons armed with cutting weapons does not encourage the Court to pass light sentences on persons who form part of a mob some of the members of which were armed with catting weapons, which were used with fatal result, On the other hand 8 relations of three generations have been given the same sentence irrespective of age. One is an old man of 78, another is a boy of 18. Against these two and Paryag there was no allegation that they used cutting weapons. The attention of the Committing Magistrate should be called to the fact that he recorded the age of Palku as 40 and of his son Paryag as 35.