Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.41 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 141 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Dharam Pal And Ors. vs State Of Haryana on 16 August, 1978
17. When it is not known as to who had assaulted the deceased or when it is a mystery as to who was the one, at whose hands the deceased received injury, it is not possible to attract Section 34 or Section 149 IPC. See Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana , Shamhhu Kuer v. State of Punjab and Munna Chanel v. State of Assam reported in (2006) 2 SCC (Cri.) 43.
Bunnilal Chaudhary vs State Of Bihar on 5 July, 2006
19. It is, now, well settled law, as observed by the Supreme Court in Bunnilal Chaudhary and Ors. v. State of Bihar , that under Section 149 IPC, the liability of other members for the offence committed during the continuance of the occurrence rests upon the fact whether the other persons knew beforehand that the offence actually committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. Such knowledge may reasonably be collected from the nature of the assembly, arms or behaviour on or before the scene of occurrence. If such knowledge may not reasonably be attributed to the other members of the assembly then their liability for the offence committed during occurrence does not arise.