suggest existence of a criminal conspiracy or common intention for murder of deceased Jessica Lal. The firing according to the prosecution evidence itself was quite ... there is any evidence to suggest that they shared any common intention for her murder. Learned counsel arguing in Crl.R.46/2001 on behalf
accomplices caused fatal injuries to her son while attacking them
murderously with the common intention. The alleged incident took place
around 12.00 in the night ... take place as projected. There is no
common intention shared by the Appellants to either murder or commit
culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Though
2010 & 487/2012 Page 11 of 66
your common intention and object committed murder of
Md. Rashid Khan and thereby committed an offence
punishable ... failed to
prove that the accused persons had the common intention of murdering
and causing death of Mohd. Rashid Khan. It is further specifically
submitted
Mohd Amil & Another vs State on 9 August, 2010
Author: V.K. Jain
Bench
Rahisuddin & Others vs State on 20 September, 2013
Author: G.S. Sistani
Bench: G
Nature of injuries inflicted by the Appellants; and
iii. Common intention to murder/cause injuries so inflicted.
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf ... evidence of the eye witnesses that the appellants have, with common
intention, committed murder of the deceased and therefore, the mandate of
the provisions
night, near Narela
Railway Phatak you both in furtherance of your common
intention murdered Tahil @ Chottey by firing on him and
thereby committed an offence ... including the appellant, entertained the intention to murder the deceased
Tahil @ Chhote, much less the common intention to do so; there is no
evidence
submitted that the
appellant did not share common intention to commit murder under
Section 302 IPC or attempt to murder and accordingly his convictions ... furtherance of
that common intention, Phanidhar and Harendra
developed and shared the common intention of
causing his murder.
7. For the reasons stated above
deceased.
8. It was next argued that the charge of common intention to murder the deceased,
by invoking Section 34 , was not proved in this ... held that:
"If the three shared the common intention to commit murder of Gunjarya as is
now contended obviously Appellants 2 and 3 would
concerned, as the appellant had never had any
common intention to commit the murder of Ganesh. Learned counsel for the
appellant further argued that ... impossible to draw any inference that A-4 committed
murder in furtherance of common intention shared by the
appellant. In fact, neither there
