Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.41 seconds)Section 141 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 135 in Bombay Police Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in Bombay Police Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
The Arms Act, 1959
Shaji & Ors vs State Of Kerala on 3 May, 2011
29. Reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the
appellant in case of Shaji and Ors. vs. State of Kerala
(supra), is misplaced in the facts of the present case
inasmuch as, in the facts of that case, it appears that the
prosecution did not prove common object or overt-acts on the
part of the accused persons. There was no finding recorded
about common object or overt-acts and, therefore, in the facts
of that case, the Supreme Court granted benefit of doubt to
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2015 23:58:47 :::
37.12crapl+
38
the accused therein.
Lalji & Ors vs State Of U.P on 17 January, 1989
Yet, in another judgment in the case of Lalji and
others v. State of U.P.,6 the Supreme Court held that the
members of unlawful assembly cannot be acquitted for lack of
corroboration as to their participation in the offence. While
explaining scope of section 149 of IPC, it is held that said
section makes every member of an unlawful assembly at the
time of committing offence guilty of that offence. Section
created a constructive or vicarious liability of the members of
the unlawful assembly for the unlawful acts committed
pursuant to the common object by any other member of that
assembly.