Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.23 seconds)
Amar Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. on 26 February, 2024 cites

Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel . on 16 May, 2018

17. They have further been submitted that non framing of charge under section 149 I.P.C. by the trial court will not be fatal for the prosecution case since section 149 I.P.C. does creates a separate offence but only declares vicarious liability of all the members of unlawful assembly who acted done with common object. Reliance has been placed in the judgement of Apex court in Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel,AIR, 2018 SC. 2472.They have submitted that allegation of illicit relationship of the P.W.1 with wife of deceased, Smt. Urmila, is figment of imagination and no evidence was led to prove the same. P.W.1 has explained why he was present in the house of his uncle and aunt on the fateful night by deposing that his wife had gone to her parental house and therefore he was present in the house of the deceased. They have submitted that deceased was drunkard and has misbehaved with daughter-in-law of the appellant, Raghuraj, hence he was done to death. It has finally been submitted that prosecution has proved the case against the appellants beyond doubt and hence the judgement and order of conviction and sentence deserves to be upheld by this court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 45 - J Chelameswar - Full Document

Subal Ghorai And Ors vs State Of West Bengal on 2 April, 2013

23. This court finds from the above discussion that there is allegation that deceased misbehaved with wife/daughter-in-law of Raghuraj Singh, appellant no.2. No evidence was led to prove that other five appellants constituted unlawful assembly with Raghuraj Singh and they also shared common object with Raghuraj Singh.It was required to be proved by the prosecution that the alleged offence was committed by all the members of unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object. Mere presence in an assembly without proof of common object cannot be stretched to such an extent so as to implicate the innocent person as held by the Apex Court in the case of Subal Ghorai and others (Supra).Trial court has not recorded any such finding that all the accused having shared common object with co-accused Raghuraj Singh and had formed unlawful assembly for executing the same.The Apex Court has also held in the case of Haramant Laxmappa Kukkadi (Supra) that common object has to be ascertained from the membership, weapon used and the nature of injuries as well as other circumstances. In the present case only weapon allegedly used was Ballam but injuries on the person of the deceased did not corroborated the use of the aforesaid weapon. The injury on neck of the deceased which proved fatal for his life was incised in nature, when the Ballam can only cause piercing injury. Hence implication of all the appellants for committing offence of murder with aid of section 149 I.P.C. cannot be sustained. The role of catching hold of the deceased was assigned to appellants, Amar Singh and Devendra Singh; role of exhortation was assigned to appellant Rakesh Kumar and Kehari and Raghuraj Singh was assigned the role of causing fatal injury on the neck of the deceased by Ballam by P.W.2.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 86 - Full Document

Chikkarange Gowda And Ors. vs State Of Mysore on 9 May, 1956

In Chikkarange Gowda & Ors. Vs. State of Mysore [AIR 1956 SC 731] this Court was dealing with a case where the common object of the unlawful assembly simply was to chastise the deceased. The deceased was, however, killed by a fatal injury caused by certain member of the unlawful assembly. The court below convicted the other member of the unlawful assembly under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Reversing the conviction, this Court held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 87 - S K Das - Full Document
1   2 Next