child resulting in his death. All the appellants shared
common intention to murder the boy. Hence, the appeals are liable to be
dismissed.
Summary ... accuseds shared common intention to murder and pursuant to such
common intention, murder had been committed.
As discussed earlier, I am of the view prosecution
station. These
circumstances show that all the appellants shared common intention to commit
the murder of the deceased and in pursuance thereof had gone ... common intention.
Common intention, however, cannot be confused with similar intention.
Although accused persons may have similar intention to commit a crime, say
murder, until
participate in democratic politics.
44. Whether an accused shared common intention to murder has to
be inferred from various attending circumstances. Evidence on record
shows ... present at the
place of occurrence and shared common intention to commit murder.
However, his acquittal does not affect the prosecution case proved
against
participate in democratic politics.
44. Whether an accused shared common intention to murder has to
be inferred from various attending circumstances. Evidence on record
shows ... present at the
place of occurrence and shared common intention to commit murder.
However, his acquittal does not affect the prosecution case proved
against
ruled
out.
Did Pratima alone commit the murder?
41. Charge against Pratima is sharing of common intention with co-
accused Mihir Mondal to commit ... Pratima alleging
that they shared common intention and in furtherance of such common
intention committed the murder of Prasanta. Motive to commit the crime
assaulted the victim. He cannot be
said to have shared common intention to commit murder.
18. On the other hand, Mr. Saibal Bapuli, learned Additional ... inference that
Jabbar Sk. may have shared the common intention to cause grievous
injury but not murder. No exhortation had been made in his presence
from appellant No.1 were armed. They did not share
common intention to murder the victim. Hence, the appellants may be
acquitted of the charges ... Code.
Mr. Dutta Gupta argues the appellant did not have common
intention to commit murder. None of the appellants apart from appellant
free fight and the
allegation that the appellants shared common intention to commit murder of the
victim cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable ... come to a firm conclusion that they had shared the
common intention to murder the victim unlike that of the other appellants viz.,
Sanjit
appellant alongwith 8/9 others in pursuance to their common
intention had committed the murder. No charge was framed
against Samed ... clearly proves the appellant had
shared common intention with Samed Sk. (since deceased) and
unknown others to commit murder, acquittal of some of the named
unveils a probability that Farid Sk. was not sharing the
intention of committing murder of Hasem Sk. with the rest of the
accused persons ... unerringly suggests that he did not share common
intention to commit murder of the victim. Therefore, while maintaining
the order of conviction against Bali Molla
