Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.26 seconds)

Earabhadrappa Alias Krishnappa vs State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 1983

In Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka, this Court while examining Section 149 IPC held as follows: (SCC p. 243, paras 20-21) "20. It is now well-settled law that the provisions of Section 149 IPC will be attracted whenever any offence committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or when the members of that assembly knew that offence is likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, so that every person, who, at the time of committing of that offence is a member, will be also vicariously held liable and guilty of that offence. Section 149 IPC creates 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. This principle ropes in every member of the assembly to be guilty of an offence where that offence is committed by any member of that assembly in prosecution of common object of that assembly, or such members or assembly knew that offence is likely to be committed in prosecution of that object.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 502 - A P Sen - Full Document

Madan Mohan Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 7 May, 1954

36. So far as the argument by the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive behind committing murder of the deceased is concerned, now it is well settled that when there is direct evidence, which is worth relying upon, motive loses its significance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan versus State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1473 while referring to various earlier judgments, has held as under: -
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 104 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document
1   2 Next