Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.38 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Surajit Sarkar vs The State Of West Bengal on 24 April, 2009
In Surajit Sarkar v. State of West Bengal7, this Court held as follows:
Ramaswami Ayyangar And Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 March, 1976
31. What constitutes proof of common intention, may differ from situation to
situation and much depends on the facts of each case and the role played by each
accused. This was highlighted in Ramaswami Avyangar v. State of Tamil Nadu8 ,
where, to establish common intention it was held that:
Nandu Rastogi @ Nandji Rastogi & Another vs State Of Bihar on 1 October, 2002
In Nandu Rastogi v. State of Bihar9, highlighting how there can be inference
regarding common intention this court observed that:
Subed Ali & Ors vs The State Of Assam on 3 April, 2012
33. Recently, in Subed Ali And Others v. The State Of Assam 10 this court ruled
that
“Common intention consists of several persons acting in
unison to achieve a common purpose, though their roles may be
different. The role may be active or passive is irrelevant, once
common intention is established. There can hardly be any direct
evidence of common intention. It is more a matter of inference to
be drawn from the facts and circumstances of a case based on
the cumulative assessment of the nature of evidence available
against the participants. The foundation for conviction on the
basis of common intention is based on the principle of vicarious
responsibility by which a person is held to be answerable for the
acts of others with whom he shared the common intention. The
presence of the mental element or the intention to commit the act
if cogently established is sufficient for conviction, without actual
participation in the assault. It is therefore not necessary that
before a person is convicted on the ground of common intention,
he must be actively involved in the physical activity of assault.”
9(2002) 8 SCC 9
102020 (10) SCC 517
Sanwat Singh & Others vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 December, 1960
35. This court would now consider whether the High Court fell into error in re-
appreciating evidence and arriving at a different conclusion than the trial court, and
convicting the present appellants. Long ago, in Sanwat Singh v. State of
Rajasthan11this court dealt with the powers of an appellate court, in cases where trial
courts in India record acquittal. The court quoted the decision of the Privy Council
with approval:
Sheo Swarup vs King-Emperor on 26 July, 1934
“7. The scope of the powers of an appellate court in an appeal against
acquittal has been elucidated by the Privy Council in Sheo
Swarup v. King-Emperor [LR 61 IA 398] . There Lord Russell observed
at p. 404 thus:
Nur Mohamad vs Emperor on 10 July, 1945
“… the High Court should and will always give proper weight
and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial
Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses,(2) the presumption
of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly
11(1961) 3 SCR 120
18
not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his
trial, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt,
and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a
finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of
seeing the witnesses….”
Adverting to the facts of the case, the Privy Council proceeded to state,
“… They have no reason to think that the High Court failed to
take all proper matters into consideration in arriving at their
conclusions of fact.”
These two passages indicate the principles to be followed by an
appellate court in disposing of an appeal against acquittal and also the
proper care it should take in re-evaluating the evidence. The Privy
Council explained its earlier observations in Nur
Mohammad v. Emperor [AIR 1945 PC 151] thus at p. 152: