Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.69 seconds)Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Girija Shankar vs State Of U.P on 4 February, 2004
The above position was highlighted in Girija Shankar v. State of
U.P., 2004 (3) SCC 793.
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Bappa Alias Bapu vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 5 August, 2004
(5) Bappa Vs. State of Maharasthra, (2004) 6 SCC 485.
Hari Mohan Mandal vs State Of Jharkhand on 18 March, 2004
(6) Hari Mohan Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 12 SCC 220.
State Of Gujarat vs Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagribhai And Ors. on 10 March, 1989
In State of Gujarat v. Bharwada
Jakshibhai Nagribhai, 1990 Cr.L.J. 2531, it was observed that for
S.C. No. 79/09 Page 12/30
13
appreciating the evidence of the injured witnesses, the Court should bear
in mind that :
(1)Their presence at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be
doubted.
Ashok Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 21 September, 1976
Direct proof of common intention is
seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from
the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the
proved circumstances. In order to bring home the charge of common
intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or
circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of minds of all the accused
persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of
section 34, be it prearranged or on the spur of the moment: but it must
necessarily be before the commission of the crime. The true concept of
the section is that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the
position in law is just the same as if each of them has done it individually
by himself. As observed in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1997
(1) SCC 746 the existence of a common intention amongst the
participants in a crime is the essential element for application of this
section. It is not necessary that the acts of the several persons charged
with commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identically
similar. The acts may be different in character, but must have been
actuated by one and the same common intention in order to attract the
S.C. No. 79/09 Page 26/30
27
provision.
Chinta Pulla Reddy And Ors. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 30 March, 1993
28. The section does not say "the common intentions of all" nor doe it
say "an intention common to all". Under the provisions of section 34 the
essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common
intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in
furtherance of such intention. As a result of the application of principles
enunciated in section 34, when an accused is convicted under section 302
read with section 34, in law it means that the accused is liable for the act
which caused death of the deceased in the same manner as if it was done
by him alone. The provision is intended to meet a case in which it may be
difficult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party who
act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what
part was taken by each of them. As was observed in Chinta Pulla Reddy
vs. State of A.P., 1993 Supp (3) SCC 134. Section 34 is applicable even
if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself. For
applying section 34, it is not necessary to show some over act on the part
of the accused.