Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)State Of U.P vs Dan Singh And Ors on 3 February, 1997
In State of U.P. v. Dan Singh and Ors., [1997] 3 SCC 747 it was observed
that it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove which of the members
of the unlawful assembly did which or what act.
Padmausundara Rao (Dead) &Ors vs State Of T.N. & Ors on 13 March, 2002
149. So far as the observations made in Roshan Lal and Mariadasan cases
(supra), it is to be noted that the decision in the said case was rendered
in a different factual scenario altogether. There is always peril in
treating the words of a judgment as though they are words in a legislative
enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in
the setting of the facts of a particular case. Circumstantial flexibility,
on additional or different fact may make a world of difference between
conclusions in two cases (See Padamasundara Rao (dead) and Ors. v. State of
Tamil Nadu and Ors., JT (2002) 3 SC 1. It is more so in a case where
conclusions relate to appreciation of evidence in a criminal trial. When
the factual scenario is analysed in the background of legal position
highlighted above, the inevitable conclusion is that accused-appellants
Charan Singh, Dev Dutt, Virender. Kunwar Pal and Harkesh have been rightly
convicted by application of Section 149 IPC. Their appeals are without
merit and are dismissed. In the ultimate result, the appeal of accused-
appellant Raj Pal is allowed while those of the other accused-appellants
stand dismissed. Appellant Raj Pal Shall be released from custody unless
required in any other case.
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Lalji & Ors vs State Of U.P on 17 January, 1989
Reference was made to
Lalji's case (supra) where it was observed that "while overt act and active
participation may indicate common intention of the person perpetrating the
crime, the mere presence in the unlawful assembly may fasten vicariously
criminal liability under Section 149".
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1